Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Olympia Snowe's Strange Definition of 'Mainstream'

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 5:01 PM on November 5, 2009.


Sen. Snowe's opinions on health care policy have taken on quite a bit of significance in recent months. That's a shame.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Steve Benen in your
mailbox!

 

Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) opinions on health care policy have taken on quite a bit of significance in recent months. That's a shame.

Today, for example, she was asked for her opinion on the House reform bill, which may get a vote in just 48 hours. "I do not know what world they live in," Snowe said, apparently in reference to House Democrats. "But all I know is it is totally detached from the average person, the average business owner who is struggling to keep their doors open and to have that level of taxation is breathtaking in its dimensions. I just think it is so out of proportion with reality and with mainstream America that it is hard to believe, frankly."

Perhaps Snowe went into more substantive detail -- explaining, for example, what she considers "mainstream" -- but I haven't seen additional reporting. She just seems to think the House bill is some kind of outrageous disaster.

It's possible Snowe just doesn't know what's in the House bill, because her assessment is wrong.

The health-care reform bills emerging from the House and Senate, when melded and enacted, will constitute an epochal achievement: the near-universal provision of medical care to the American people. But the House version is clearly the more epochal, as the health coverage it provides is more universal, chiefly because it's more affordable.

For families who buy their insurance on the exchanges that both bills establish, for instance, the House bill includes more generous subsidies -- on average, $1,000 more, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The House bill also offers a lot more assistance to Medicare recipients by reducing the cost of their prescriptions. While the bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee renews the Bush administration's mega-bucks gift to the drug companies by continuing to prohibit Medicare from negotiating drug prices with them, the House bill authorizes those negotiations. The Senate bill reduces by half the payments that Medicare recipients must make for prescription drugs that fall into the "doughnut hole" (annual drug expenses are covered up to $2,700, and coverage kicks in again at $6,100, but for all purchases in between, Medicarians are on their own). The House bill would cover all prescription purchases by 2019.

 

 

 

Jon Cohn said of the House bill, "The issue here is whether the House produced a fiscally sound bill that puts health insurance within reach of most Americans while starting to reform the system. And, based on everything we're hearing, it does.... Among the proposals on the table, it looks like the House version provides the most people with affordable access to medical care. It also pays for itself."

FamiliesUSA President Ron Pollack said the House bill "sets the gold standard for legislation that deserves to be adopted this year."

What world does Olympia Snowe live in?

Digg!

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."


Americans Lack Economic Literacy; Some Hold "Insane" Views on Stimulus Spending
According to pollsters.
November 20, 2009.
Why Fiscal Conservatives Should Love the Senate Health Care Bill
If our political landscape were slightly saner, Republicans would embrace this bill with both arms.
November 19, 2009.
Rep. Virginia Foxx Credits GOP for Civil Rights Legislation
Wow.
November 19, 2009.
GOP Lawmakers Accuse Holder of Being a Terrorist Sympathizer
Holder literally burst out laughing when confronted with this absurd line of questioning.
November 19, 2009.
Yet More Mind-Bending Racism From the Right-Wing Media
This time it's Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden. And it's pretty shocking.
November 18, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
What's wrong with what she said?
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 5, 2009 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Snowe is referring to the fact that people earning $250,000 per year or more will have a major tax increase to fund the shortfall in health care and other initiatives.

$250,000 is a low to average profit for a small business owner, and asking for $15,000 of it increases the chance that a small business will fold. Also, small business-owners provide more than a third of the jobs in this country, and the extra tax burden could cause job loss.

I think, along with Snowe, that the $240,000 figure is too low. I'd like to see small business exempt from a good portion of the tax increase, and speculators, investors and trust fund kids whose money doesn't contribute to the work force pay the greatest share.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]