Saturday, HR3962 passed the House and it highlights an internal fault line among Democrats - that is a derivative of the phrase ‘we have to pass a weak bill because that is something politically feasible.’   This weak bill now moves to the Senate where additional compromise will be made to appease Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe.

So what exactly was passed Saturday night and how does it impact you if no changes were made as it stands?

You may have just read Ladkiddo’s post which contained links to Ian Welsh over at Openleft.  It accurately describes one of the reasons Massa voted against the bill - issues with the public option.  Apparently we were both writing about Ian’s piece, however with different takes.  So here is my take,

If you haven’t already, you need to read Ian’s rundown.

Bottom line - the folding of the progressive block will result in an even weaker bill.

As I understand his post - costs are not contained.  The Insurance Companies get a revenue stream with the influx of the newly ensured via mandated coverage - oh, the vaunted “exchange plan”- thanks to the Stupak amendment - can’t have plans as part of the exchange that cover the legal procedure where women can terminate a pregnancy.   The guaranteed coverage is a very positive aspect BUT coverage is separate from costs.  (kinda like, if you are unemployed, you can get COBRA).   Finally, there is a weak public option that will cost more than private plans.

Read the entire thing, but here is the conclusion:

This bill does not contain a robust public option which will contain costs.  It will give guaranteed issue and force cost sharing through an individual mandate.  Older people will disproportionately benefit, and the people who will disproportionately pay are younger poorer people, and especially younger women, the poorer ones of whom will lose practical access to abortions.

For a long time I’ve read that the bright red line for many progressives was a robust public option.   None of the bills, including the House bill, have a robust public option.  In addition, the Stupak amendment removes practical access to abortions for many women.

It appears that the bright red line was not a robust public option.  The bright red line was, and is, guaranteed issue.  As long as a bill has guaranteed issue (in exchange for which insurance companies insist on an individual mandate, aka, cost sharing and forced customers) any other sacrifice is acceptable.

This health care “reform”, if passed in this form or worse, which it will be if it is passed at all, will blow apart eventually, because it will not contain costs or ‘bend the cost curve” and the US economy simply cannot indefinitely afford health care costs wich rise faster than inflation or wages.  But for as long as it lasts, it will help some people at the cost of other, generally younger and poorer people.

So if the analysis is sound - means we will be back at the table.  The question is what, will we do differently?

Related posts:

1. Massa and Kucinich, men of principles and integrity
2. HR 3962 Passes
3. Progressive Caucus’ whip count for public option health care reform
4. Peter Mott, MD - Why single payer and not public option
5. Bill Moyers Journal - Taibbi and Kuttner - the Health Care buck stops at Obama