The inimitable Digby, with a h/t from Ambinder, observes that Beltway reporter Ron Brownstein is a "snotty little twit" for tweeting a gratuitous insult about Howard Dean. As always, Digby is too kind.
But Brownstein isn’t the only guy who got the memo to denigrate Dean because he has the temerity to keep fighting for the public option when the White House would rather Democrats stop demanding something the White House is willing to give up. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait piles on his own criticism of Dean’s advocacy, but gets his history wrong.
In an article with the lead in, How Liberal Despair is Hurting Health Care Reform, TNR’s Jonathan Chait lectures us on the need to take what we’ve been offered now and build on it later, just like our grandfathers did on Social Security and Medicare. Uh, spare us the history lessons until after the negotiations are over, but that’s not my point.
Chait’s own gratuitous slam at Dean is targeted at the "liberal fixation" on the public plan:
Second, liberal health care activists have come to fixate on the public option as the end-all, be-all of reform. “If Barack Obama’s health care plan gets changed to exclude a public option like Medicare, then it is not health care reform,” insists Howard Dean. “Legislation rises and falls on whether the American public is allowed to choose a universally available public option or not.” It’s worth recalling that Dean’s own health care plan from 2004 did not include a public option. Most liberal health care wonks think a public option is helpful but not vital.
I was curious to know why Dean didn’t see the need for a government-sponsored insurance scheme in 2004, and sure enough, I found a possible source, a "health care wonk," for the notion Dean didn’t have a public plan back then. The wonk said:
Re-reading Dean’s plan is useful to anyone looking for a bit of perspective on the national debate. The Vermonter was, of course, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, and the most oriented toward health care. But there was no public plan in his proposal. There wasn’t even a co-op. . . .
As I read the policy — and it’s possible there’s a more detailed summary than the one I’ve dug up — it didn’t even include insurance market reforms like banning discrimination based on preexisting conditions or outlawing rescission.
How could Dean have missed so much? So I looked at the link the wonk provided for Dean’s plan, and found this:
My plan consists of four major components.
First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we’ll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs — Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 — middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.
Second, we’ll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level — $16,613 — will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.
Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn’t mean they have viable options for healthcare. We’ll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.
To cushion the costs, we’ll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.
Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses. We shouldn’t turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.
With the plan I’ve put forth to the American people, we’ll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we’ll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies — provided they insure their work force. I’ll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we’ll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.
Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. . . .
Yep. There is no mention of "public plan" or even "co-op," nor does Dean use the words "insurance market reforms." All Dean proposed back then is that all children and young adults up to age 25 be insured through a government-sponsored insurance program called SCHIP, that families up to 185 percent of the FPL get government-sponsored health insurance through SCHIP, and that small businesses get to choose from and purchase plans like those offered to federal employees, and that some might receive state subsidies for COBRA in exchange for business contributions to the pool. And since there’s nothing to suggest the eligible folks could be denied coverage if they fell in any of these categories, it’s looks like, uh, guaranteed issue.
So the Wonk was literally correct: Dean didn’t call his proposal a "public plan" for kids and poor people, plus an "exchange" for small businesses, nor literally prohibit denial based on prior conditions. So yeah, the Governor was really backward back then.
I’d say a few corrections and apologies are in order. Dr. Dean will see you now.



83 Comments







Point of curiosity: I can see how individuals with expanded access to SCHIP would enjoy “guaranteed issue,” but are you sure that that’s also true of those enrolled in the equivalent of FEHBP? I understood FEHBP to be a highly subsidized exchange system of private insurers, but I’m not certain those insurers are constrained currently from practices such as preexisting condition denials.
My problem with Dean is not that he’s shrill but that he’s dishonest regarding the degree to which the public options in HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bill fulfill his criteria for “real” reform. Those PO’s are not Medicare-like and they are not universally available. So by Dean’s own criteria, he should be urging that the bills be voted down in their present form. They’re on the wrong side of his line in the sand.
If he’s judged that it’s better to pass these nearly worthless versions of the PO, and work to overhaul them in the years (or decades) to come, rather than send Congress back to the drawing board and/or the woodshed now to craft true reform, then he should say so rather than misrepresent the robustness of what’s on offer.
This strikes me as the sort of attention to detail we’re used to from today’s “serious” journalists, combined with some occupationally desirable myopia.
We need to read the more outrage and see it. Things are as Dr. Himmelstein says, “Obscene!!!!!”
Who paid off this interviewer to present a rosy image of the health care industries?????
Shrill when he ran (and screamed), shrill at DNC (when insisting on 50-state) and shrill now (as an outside reformer looking in). Marginalized by his own party and the village insiders.
Dear Casual Observer,
In Iowa for the Democratic primary in 2004, I saw the live TV broadcast of Dean’s speech after losing.
He was surrounded by young kids, 18 or 19 years old at the most. It was for most their first campaign. They’d given heart and soul to it (if I may judge by those I personally met then) and had just learned that their guy had lost.
This was also the first political defeat that Dean had ever experienced. Remember, the voters of Vermont had elected him Governor 5 times straight. He could well have felt punched in the gut.
So what was Dean doing? It was not about him. He came across as the coach at half-time, rallying his then-losing team. People were yelling so loudly around him that Dean had to project pretty hard to be heard. He sounded determined to give the young people heart.
I was shocked that the media later played only Dean, and again and again, without the huge roar of voices over which he had to yell to be heard. Reportedly the audio feed picking up Dean did not pick up the ambient roar.
What the media did was dishonest: a lie in deed, rather than in words.
Whether Dean was “shrill” at the DNC I do not know.
I do know that the Obama campaign had a core Democratic organization already on the ground, in whichever of the 50 states it decided was critical at any time during the campaign, only because Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy had already put it there.
As I understand it (though have been active only in Mass. Dem. politics), before Dean at the DNC, the Democratic Party historically shut down its state offices after each campaign.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats before Dean did not maintain an organization capable of ramping up for elections. The national Democratic Party started from scratch each time.
Obama and campaign manager David Axelrod would never have been able to maneuver his campaign so adroitly, in whatever states they decided to put up a fight, had Dean not already laid the groundwork.
Also, how do you say “Big Tent?” ‘50-state strategy’ is a masterful way to convey that every single person in this country counts.
Yes, Rahm Emmanuel had apparently fought this very hard. Rahm was wrong.
Of course, Dean is right nowadays that all Americans need and deserve medical care. If that’s shrill, then apparently about 77% of Americans are shrill, too. It’s the Democratic Party that’s retrograde.
I did return to Dean my bright orange, visible-from-outer-space Iowa primary campaign ski cap when he was at the DNC, in protest over his support at the time for the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
That does not change his remarkable accomplishments. Nor does it change what the Democratic Party and Obama owe to him — whether or not they choose to acknowledge this.
Thanks for your clarification. I was going to say something similar, but now I don’t have. The guy gets exited. Also, the sound systems made him sound shrill. T’was a bad system. And, yes, the media totally misrepresented what happened.
The roar was reportedly edited out in order to make Dean sound batshit crazy.
I thought you left. In regards to the post below…cue If I was a Rich Man. Rich in spirit and not anti-semitic. I don’t have long legs and I’m blond, but know that I think you’re swell.
Dem….I read about your wedding outfit….sounds fantastic, dear.
Well, thanks, dear. Less than 2 weeks away, and I’m getting pretty darn excited. I’m trying to plan ahead for all contingent issues, so that while the entire family is in Santa Barbar for three days, we can just really enjoy each other. Wedding on the beach. Pastor with a poneytail. Makes this old hippie girl real proud.
And a damn shame they did. ( BTW and totally OT because I was too stoopid to comment at the time, I enjoyed your story about the tigers in the bookcases immensely. Love the kittehs.)
I’m no techie. But I wouldn’t put it past some people.
Thank you!
Dr. Dean will always have my highest regard, even when I may disagree with him from time to time. Integrity. “Patient” first — and in this case, the patient is all of US.
Good Morning, Prairie.
How are you doing today?
One step in front of the other, day by day….
Brownstein and Company must’ve signed on to the search-find school of journalism… Search “public option” no find, no look deeper. Research/re-search a lost art.
Cherish the day, folks.
You are an inspiration, Prairie. Really!!!
Big Hug to you.
I love the way you put this!
By the end of Dean’s 10 years as governor of Vermont, something like 97% of Vermonters had health insurance, and I think more than 99% of the kids.
He’s walked the talk.
Thank you. I for one love Dean because he stands for something and is willing to fight.
The professional Dems who loved destroying Dean are the same folks that have everyone looking for a decent Republican.
This was the point of my comment. Dean has always been considered “shrill”–by his party and by the political media and by the White House. By the way, anybody who identifies with FDL is also “Shrill”.
Ah. ‘Shrill’ is the new ‘public-spirited.’ Or something like that?
Shrill is what they call you when they can’t beat your argument, but you need to shut up anyway.
Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren in 2012. I like people who actually question what the Washington crowd are telling us we should just trust and it will work out just fine.
American Conservative Magazine publishes 4000 word interview with Sibel Edmonds.
Mainstream media ducks and covers.
I am sick of folks who are supporting a position writing articles as though they are unbiased journalists. I am sick of the dishonesty in the debate. While it is true that Dean’s plan did not contain a public option, it is because he covered the people who would best be covered by a public option in a different way. To ignore that fact, and not explain to readers what Dean’s plan actually did include is a deliberate attempt to slant the facts to their point of view. It is dishonest. It’s like parsing pieces out of HR3200 and insisting it means “govt forced abortions” and “death panels”. I am sick of the Republicans in Democrats’ clothing, like Rahm and Obama, trying to silence true progressives like Howard Dean. Fight on sir, we’ve got your back.
Ezra, Ezra, Ezra . . .
Reading the Cliff’s Notes is rarely sufficient for a passing grade.
(At least that’s what I was taught by my public school teachers.)
I suspect that what Dean described up there is not a “public plan” or “public option” because he did not have the exchanges on which it would be purchased. That’s all I’ve got.
Scarecrow, do you think the Wonk will recognize himself, or will someone have to send him a link?
Peterr, scarecrows to do not exist except in Oz. They are not serious.
Howard Dean is fighting for those less fortunate. Can you imagine.
Brownstein’s comments are often arrogant…he needs to get out on the street a bit more.
It was just too damn bad that Obama chose Rahm for his chief of staff and Rahm blocked Dean being part of the immediate Obama team.
Rahm is working against us
Chait certainly got the memo, since “fixation” seems to be the pseudo-psychoanalytic smear du jour that
the Villagers are using. Maybe Chait is auditioning for Douthat’s spot when the inevitable flame out occurs.
Good Morning Scarecrow and Firedogs,
the pod people have Ezra
He is the bran’ spankin’ new Kewl Kid, what a lucky guy.
Good morning. In the sequel, pod people become scarecrows.
[feel like I’m talking to a wall sometimes around here.]
Did you say something? *g*
Nothing that hasn’t been said here 50,000 times already.
I think you and I might be on the same page in the hymnal. hummmmm?
second verse, same as the first.
A-yep. Can’t interrupt the eleventy-fifth-billionth iteration of the Three Minutes’ Hate.
I believe the hosannas to Dean as a supposed progressive firebrand far outnumber the critiques of his disingenuousness. Sorry if that point bores you.
The fact is that short of single payer, I’d love the PO Dean advocates. I just don’t see the upside to pretending that current bills contain it, or anything close, or that they even constitute a path to achieving it. You can’t battle those inadequacies by ignoring them.
Oh, Ralph. Now you’re being passive-aggresive. I could be wrong, but it feels like that.
What? Selise’s comment didn’t make you feel loved and wanted?
I hear pulling weeds in the yard can be theraputic and cartharic.
Best wishes to you and yours.
Thanks, and I hope you have an easier rest of the day.
Why so? There’s like a bazillion threads about every single aspect of the health care debate.
hi ralphbon. don’t know the answer to your question (first para in comment @1). but must agree with your comment re dean’s dishonesty. wish we could equally call out both the dishonesty directed at dean and also spoken by dean.
p.s. semi related, please see my comment in morning swim
now really must run. sorry. be back later.
What makes this person Nancy think having dinner with her is a good thing?
I’d rather have dinner with Charles Manson. Would be a much more enlightening conversation.
You forget that Dean would have also allowed older Americans to buy into Medicare early. I think 55+. That would be a public option for a segment of the population.
This was Then:
The 2004 Democratic Party Platform: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World
The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. One of the places we articulate our beliefs is in the Party’s National Platform, adopted every four years by the Delegates at the National Convention.
2004 Democratic Party Platform – REFORMING HEALTH CARE
We believe not just that a strong America begins at home, but that a strong America begins in the home. And just as government’s first responsibility is the health and safety of its people, parents’ first
responsibility is the health and safety of their children. We believe that health care is a right and not a privilege. …Expanding coverage. Under the leadership of John Kerry and John Edwards, we will offer
individuals and businesses tax credits to make quality, reliable health coverage more affordable. We will provide tax credits to Americans who are approaching retirement age and those who are between jobs so they can afford quality, reliable coverage. We will expand coverage for low income adults through existing federal-state health care programs. And we will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves.
# What is the Platform?
The National Platform is an official statement of the Party’s position on a wide variety of issues. Each issue category included in the Platform is a “plank.” A new Platform is adopted every four years by the Democratic National Convention. http://www.democrats.org/a/200…..democr.php
This is Now: We Democrats have a special commitment to this promise of America. We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right.
—In platform hearings around the country, Americans reaffirmed our belief that this great nation can compete–and succeed–in the 21st century but only if we take a new approach. One that is both innovative and faithful to the basic economic principles that made this country great. We
Democrats want–and we hereby pledge–a government led by Barack Obama that looks out for families in the new economy with health care, retirement security, and help, especially in bad times.
—The American people understand that good health is the foundation of individual achievement and economic prosperity. Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children’s education, workers’ productivity and businesses’ competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable. … While there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of covering every American, with everyone in and no one left out, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process. …We reject those who have steadfastly opposed insurance coverage expansions for millions of our nation’s children while they have protected overpayments to insurers and allowed underpayments to our nation’s doctors. Our vision of a strengthened and improved health care system for all Americans stands in stark contrast to the Republican Party’s and includes:
Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options. Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan.
They promised it in ‘04 refined it in ‘08 and now they’re backing away from their own “official statement” of the party’s position? Who do they take us for? If they can’t be trusted with RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache…..6b5l7a.pdf what can they be trusted with? Why vote for them? (of course 8 years of Bush/Cheney Republican Rule can’t be the “good enough” reason, though for many, including myself, it was). I for one want that promise.
The power of health industry money. (See also: Ross, Mike. He’s against the PO even though most of his constituents are for it.)
Thanks. This I had not seen. In 2009, the same thing happened in Mass. I wonder whether a directive had come down from above. The Mass Dems platform-writing committee disregarded both previous state platforms and the firm commitment of rank and file Dems, expressed in a statewide kabuki of Obama-style listening meetings, and removed single payer. At the state convention, said rank and file pulled rank by fighting for and winning a single-payer resolution passed nonetheless.
Am I missing something? I really don’t give a royal flying f*#k about having insurance. I want healthcare. Insurance is only one of many ways to pay for it.
Someone should tell Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) that Dr. Dean’s call for a Public Option is shrill. Sen. Brown held a Health Care Town Hall last night in Kent. The story was covered on my NPR station in Columbus and included Sen. Brown standing up for the PO. Brown is a member of the HELP committee and is standing up for the HELP version of reform, as this press release from his office explains.
One of the things he pointed out was that the Baucus bill is just one of 5 proposed, and there’s nothing that says it has to be the version that gets made into law. Fire pups should be keeping an eye on Brown. He’s on the good side and should be supported in his efforts.
Here’s the WKSU interview.
thanks. Sherrod is a gem of a Dem. worked hundreds of hours for him…the real deal
He really represents the people
Yes we should keep an eye on, support, promote Sherrod Brown. He is my senator from Ohio and he has been absolutely consistent that a public option will be in the final bill. Will be. I don’t know how the Baucus bill has taken precedence in the media over the HELP committee bill. In Brown’s town hall in Columbus and on his internet town hall he emphasized that the HELP committee is the priority committee on Health care because it is the HEALTH Education Labor Pension committee. Sherrod Brown is looking out for not just the people of Ohio, but the less fortunate in this country. He is fascinating to listen to because he loves history. When he takes a question from a small town, he knows exactly where it is and always makes a point to say something about the town. Dude knows his stuff. big love to Senator Brown!
Scarecrow this post is so excellent. Should go up as the front page for FDL for the day
it’s early in the day for me but I could swear Chait himself was being shrill about 4 – 6 weeks ago with a piece on the need for a PO -
Chait is a weird weathervane — he’s not particularly consistent, which suggests that his views aren’t his own but depend on whatever his bosses (official or otherwise) expect of him.
agree. at the time of this mystery article, the little hairs went up on the back of my neck – knowing he would wind up here eventually
recalling he was the guy who called our 06 CT efforts “corrosive”
meanwhile, Gov Moonpie is asking the commie anti-christ for disaster aid from the evil feds!
Perdue asks Obama to declare emergency in Georgia
Because of the flooding, I take it?
We could use about five inches of that rain. In any event, it’s broken their decade-long drought and filled up Lake Lanier, so it’s not all bad.
That would be “our” decade long drought. 7 dead so far and it’s gonna rain again soon.
Stay dry and safe, Raven.
Now, because of the recent fires, we’re cringing about what the rains might bring.
Note that Dr. Dean suggested modernizing Medicaid, which I think could be a valuable change to the existing system. The idea of making people buy from the insurance companies and then subsidizing that purchase is loathsome. As I point out here, modernizing Medicaid and expanding it does the job at a very good price.
I have a question of clarity. Are the critics of Dean looking at what he actually passed in Vermont or at his plan for national healthcare reform. The numbers in the section of Dean’s plan that you quoted looks like a plan for national healthcare reform.
If the critics are harping about Vermont, maybe Dean has considered what exactly the Vermont plan didn’t do that national healthcare reform should.
The critics in question tend to be silly, and Chait was for a long time a Bush apologists. Given the size of the audience for their thoughts, I would not worry. Few folks outside the Beltway have heard of either.
That particular documents is describing a proposed national plan. Note the number of people who would be covered by each idea — 11.5 million here, 11.8 million more there, 5.5 million more, etc. Those are national numbers.
Let’s be clear. When Dean has every person up to 25 and every person below 185% of FPL in a something like SCHIP, it’s a public plan, a very strong public plan. Everyone means everyone. That’s guaranteed issue. When small businesses can choose from a list of plans like federal employee’s do, it’s an exchange — all it takes is a website — GOOGLE MassCare Connector. Getting access to that exchange if you contribute is “pay or play.”
So Dean proposed very strong versions of the same concepts we see today, and it’s surprising that anyone would suggest otherwise, just because he wasn’t using the same terms in a debate that would occur 5 years later.
On these threads, commenters have sometimes suggested that a viable path to single payer is to start with opening Medicare for the oldest — say ages 55-64 — and phase in age groups over time. Dean proposed to start at the youngest, up to age 25, and the poorest — up to 185% of FPL. Looks to me like a single payer phase in, but he doesn’t use those words in the documents cited.
So why anyone here is villifying Dean, who has been trying to create strategies to get us to universal care for a decade, just escapes me.
I had a straight informational question about the nature of private plans on the FEHBP and the degree to which they retain capacity to screw beneficiaries.
I confine my “vilification” of Dean to his lack of candor regarding the robustness of the public plans on offer in current bills.
My understanding is that if you are a federal employee, you can’t be denied coverage for prior conditions. My experience (long ago) was with a state program for state employees, and the same was true for that system (California). But the description on the Dean for America site doesn’t nail this down. I just think it’s logical. On the SCHIP eligibility, I think that’s pretty clear.
wrt to the “honesty” question, I’ve heard Dean on a couple of occasions live, and he’s very aware of how the concept he advocates can be/is weakened in various versions. He’s fighting for the concept to get established, which is where the media debate is, given the focus on co-ops and triggers, etc.
I’d add that didn’t Hacker–Mr. public option hisself–recently state something about the PO would in time grow into a single-payer system?
I haven’t seen that. I’ve seen Hacker several times, and included his appearances before Congress and on PBS News Hour in a couple of posts. What he seems to be saying is that if given a choice, people will make the choice between public and private plans, and it will sort out to some allocation they’re comfortable with. I’m certain he sees this as transitional, even transformative, but whether he’s said “this leads to single payer,” I don’t know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sTfZJBYo1I
I think this makes it clear.
Thanks. That’s a good piece to have. I’ve made the same point about “trojan horse,” only I said “it’s not ’stealth’” since what the idea is doing is transparent; no one is being misled, and people can choose or not.”
Conservatives have seized on that piece as proof that the PO is the ultimate evil. And from their point of view that is correct. I think the PO is the way to single payer, it just will take a long time to get there, much misery, more bankruptcy and death.
Not recently, to my knowledge, but he did “go there” a year ago when he was helping to recruit progressives to the HCAN coalition. But he was talking about a completely different and far more “robust” PO than is on offer now.
See this talk he gave on July 21, 2008, to the Tides Foundation.
At around 18:20 in the video, he shows a chart from the Lewin Group estimating a steady migration from employer-based private insurance to a Medicare-like public plan that (WAY unlike the current plans) would be populated at its creation with about 130 million beneficiaries. He says:
Thanks–much better response than mine. Don’t you still think though, that even with a disabled PO, it will still in time become single payer? It will simply take longer?
I think that regardless of what gets passed this year, a profit-purged health financing system (I really don’t care if it’s truly single payer vs other proven systems) will not happen without a major mass movement. It will not emerge passively from HR 3200; probably not even from full-frontal Hacker.
Meanwhile, I agree with PNHP leaders that overselling the weak PO as “real reform” or “robust” could backfire in a way that gives public insurance a bad name and actually makes it harder to kick-start. And all that time, wasteful entities, kept artificially distant from existing governmental health-financing infrastructure to placate Rethugs and Blue Dogs, will sap valuable resources.
None of which is to knock FDL’s valuable damage-control efforts to block extreme mischief in the form of triggers and co-ops. I’ve said before, this is invaluable work to protect the feeble from the venal.
Hey happy first day of autumn everybody!
Welcome to the School of Hard Equinox.
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 09:20 AM by babylonsister
Mike Ross Raises Eyebrows With Healthy Haul
by Marcus Stern, ProPublica – September 22, 2009 5:00 am EDT
This story was co-published <1> with Politico and appeared in that paper on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009.
Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross — a Blue Dog Democrat playing a key role in the health care debate — sold a piece of commercial property in 2007 for substantially more than a county assessment <2> (PDF) and an independent appraisal <3> (PDF) say it was worth.
The buyer: an Arkansas-based pharmacy chain with a keen interest in how the debate plays out.
Ross sold the real estate in Prescott, Ark., to USA Drug for $420,000 — an eye-popping number for real estate in the tiny train and lumber town about 100 miles southwest of Little Rock.
“You can buy half the town for $420,000,” said Adam Guthrie, chairman of the county Board of Equalization and the only licensed real estate appraiser in Prescott.
But the $420,000 was just the beginning of what Ross and his pharmacist wife, Holly, made from the sale of Holly’s Health Mart. The owner of USA Drug, Stephen L. LaFrance Sr., also paid the Rosses $500,000 to $1 million for the pharmacy’s assets and paid Holly Ross another $100,000 to $250,000 for signing a non-compete agreement. Those numbers, which Ross listed on the financial disclosure reports he files as a member of Congress, bring the total value of the transaction to between $1 million and $1.67 million.
And that’s not counting the $2,300 campaign contribution Ross received from LaFrance two weeks after the sale closed.
more…
http://www.propublica.org/arti…..fam…
How Villagey of Mr. Brownstein.
When Dr. and Gov. Dean advocates for the public health needs of Americans, he is shrill. When Kent Conrad, MaxTax Baucus and Mike Ross sell them out, while ripping at their pocketbooks, they are Serious Players. When Blanche Lincoln (D-Walmart) does the same she is pragmatic.
Since when did the standards and mores of Karl Rove become “normal” instead of criminally fringe? Was that about the time that Enron, Walmart and Goldman Scratch became the standards for corporate conduct? Or could that be merely an aspiration that the MSM agrees with and promotes, a development whose coattails the White House is happy to hold onto?
Perhaps it’s true, Rahm, that the Mafia hasn’t really left Chicago; it’s just changed the faces with which it does business and elected a few of them to public office.
Perhaps this has come in later comments-having to skim fast – but Scarecrow’s point, which seems to have been missed even by some posting – is that Dean’s described proposal IS A PUBLIC PLAN.
He just didn’t use the words, but he described a “public option,” in today’s terms.
Chait, obviously, didn’t pay attention to the quote he used, or didn’t bother to think, or he would have recognized that. Either, or both, seem likely.
Not as I read it. Chait and Klein definitely treated Dean’s plan unfairly, particularly Klein’s line about the lack of insurance market reforms. Dean’s proposed expanded eligibility for SCHIP was certainly a good thing — expanded eligibility for an existing public program. Of course you could say the same thing about expanded eligibility for Medicaid in the PO-free Baucus bill.
But by my read, and I think scarecrow’s, the “affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive” appears to be the same arrangement Dean calls for regarding small businesses: creation of a government-subsidized exchange of private plans.
I’m not saying the Dean plan was bad for its time (taking off my SP advocate hat for a moment), but a “public plan choice option” of the sort that subsequently caught the imaginations of many liberals and progressives isn’t there. That’s not surprising; Hacker’s proposals hadn’t yet gained a following among advocacy groups and national candidates.
Yes, I’m saying that Dean did propose a public plan — greatly expanded SCHIP — and not as an “option” that those within the category could choose or not. They just got it, period.
You could expand government sponsored insurance from the top down (lower Medicare age), or from the bottom up. Dean proposed to start at the bottom (children through young adults) and include the poorest — adding over 23 million people to the public system.
The TNR et al were suggesting that Dean “didn’t even propose” X, Y, and Z. Literally true, but what he proposed was even more dramatic.
Dean’s transition is automatic; if you’re part of the identified group, you’re in. Hacker proposed a voluntary transtion. Create a public choice and let people choose it or not. That’s a public “option.”