The rise in stock prices has been particularly striking in the period since Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said on October 27 that he would filibuster a Senate health care reform bill if it included a public option – a threat that caused Senate leaders to cave without much of a fight.

Here’s a quick breakdown of major health insurance company stock performance from Oct. 27 to Friday’s market close:

• Coventry Health Care, Inc. is up 31.6 percent;  
• CIGNA Corp. is up 29.1 percent
• Aetna Inc. is up 27.1 percent;
• WellPoint, Inc. is up 26.6 percent;
• UnitedHealth Group Inc. is up 20.5 percent;
• And Humana Inc. is up 13.6 percent.

By comparsion, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is only up 2.3 percent during that time; the NASDAQ Composite is up a (relatively) paltry 1.4 percent.

Reuters noted the big bump Monday morning, after the bill passed the first critical test in the Senate:

“All in all, relative to the last version of health reform issued by the Senate, things have turned out pretty well for the health insurance industry,” said Carl McDonald, an analyst at Oppenheimer. “In particular, all versions of a government-run health plan have largely been eliminated.”

Thanks to Lieberman’s threat, health insurance companies dodged a major competitor that could have lowered margins, siphoned off customers and impacted profits.

Source: Google Finance

By comparsion, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is only up 2.3 percent during that time; the NASDAQ Composite is up a (relatively) paltry 1.4 percent.

Reuters noted the big bump Monday morning, after the bill passed.

Change of the magnitude envisioned by health care reformers does not come easily. There have been many frustrations and there will be more. But, as a senior White House staffer with a ringside seat for the slow death of comprehensive care in 1994, I am keenly aware of the real alternative to the bills now before us: millions more Americans without health care and billions more for health care spending as the same challenges President Clinton tried to resolve continue to metastasize unchecked.

So while I have great respect for Governor Dean, and we have worked together to provide the strongest health care reform bill for the American people, I come down on the side of the Senate passing the bill.

Here’s why:

The Senate health care bill is not without its problems. But if enacted, it would represent the most significant public reform of our health care system that Congress has passed in the 40 plus years I have worked in politics. The bill will give health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured, lay a foundation that will begin to lower costs for millions of families, and provide all Americans with the access to adequate and dependable coverage when they need it most.

[The top ten reasons for why progressives should support the Senate passing the bill...]

The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health costs from eating up an ever-increasing percentage of our national productivity.

The House bill has two major cost-control mechanisms: the public option and the 85 percent medical-loss ratio requirement. The Senate bill is on track to have neither, and nothing new to replace them. The Senate bill is a recipe for national disaster. If it’s that bill or nothing, I prefer nothing.

We all know America’s current health care system is failing — and it’s failing everyone, not just the uninsured. It is far too expensive: Americans spend 16 percent  of GDP on health care and get worse results than countries that spend half that. Literally.

We need health reform that expands access to quality health care, abolishes unjust practices of insurers, improves value to the country, and puts us on a trajectory to continue to improve our health care system over time.

But the Senate has systematically stripped out nearly everything I liked about what was proposed in the early, heady days of health care reform. They have done so in order to please a handful of so-called centrists who care more about protecting corporate profits than protecting the people they claim to represent. [more...]

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage.  Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this — the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional “centrists.”  Right.  The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives.  The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start — the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.   And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so: 

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, said it would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise. Feingold said that responsibility ultimately rests with President Barack Obama and he could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.

“This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth,” said Feingold. “I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.”

[more...]

Influential liberals have begun arguing a funny kind of liberal Catch-22: The health insurance “public option” is already so diluted, it’s no longer worth fighting for. Got it? Because liberal Dems got played by conservative Dems, they should forfeit the entire game.

Crazy as it sounds, it might also be true.

American Prospect co-editor (and Clinton administration health policy advisor) Paul Starr kicked off this line of reasoning in the New York Times Nov. 28. “Liberals should be prepared to give up what is now a mere symbol for changes in the bill that would deliver affordable insurance more effectively and quickly to the millions of Americans who desperately need it,” Starr wrote. Starr’s preferred changes included moving up the bill’s start date from 2014 to asap — which is practically and politically smart — and establishing federal “regulatory authority to prevent insurers from engaging in abusive practices and subverting the new rules” that prevent discrimination based on age and preexisting conditions. Those were great ideas but they should have come along with a public option, not instead of one.

But now that a so-called Gang of 10 — five liberal Senate Dems, five conservative Senate Dems — has begun meeting to seek a public option compromise, the argument for substance over (public option) symbol is getting real traction. Two “compromise” proposals have been floated: Letting Americans as young as 55 buy into Medicare, and ditching the public option for a proposal to let individuals use their own money, or federal subsidies, to buy into the federal workers’ plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management — the same plans offered to Congress and the president.

Letting older but still Medicare-ineligible people buy into the popular public plan for seniors seems like a clear win. (Although Democrats seem to know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so without details, it’s hard to say that conclusively..) People aged 54 to 65 are the hardest hit by our current system — they’re most likely to be denied care or dropped by insurance carriers for health troubles, all while also being hit hard by layoffs. Plus, adding a big chunk of “younger” folks to Medicare seems like a way to stabilize Medicare as well as — assuming the experiment is successful — gradually make a case for “Medicare for all.” [more...]

On Saturday, Senate Democrats gathered the 60 votes needed to open floor debate on the plan, which would make the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion healthcare system in 40 years. It is the Obama administration’s top domestic policy initiative.

No Republicans backed the procedural motion and a handful of conservative Democrats, whose votes were crucial, supported the floor debate but remained uncommitted to the bill itself.

One of those was Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, who said on Sunday that he could not support the plan without big changes. [more...]

Normally, I would be among the first to critique the bills. By temperament and training, I’m both a skeptic and a critic.

But in this case, I think it is important to recognize  that we cannot expect this first piece of health reform legislation to be anything but wildly imperfect.  In fact, I’m impressed by the progress Washington has made in just ten months. I’ve been watching the struggle for health care reform since the early 1970s, and compared to what has happened over the past 39 years, this is mind -boggling. 

These days, many progressives are expressing deep disappointment with the health reform legislation now moving through Congress. Some suggest that some legislators made deals with lobbyists and let them write the bills. Others complain that both the subsidies and the penalties are too low. Still others don’t like the fact that states can “opt out” of the public insurance option, and decide not to offer Medicare E. Finally, many ask: “Why can’t everyone sign on for the public plan in 2013? Why do we have to wait until 2013? Why can’t they roll out universal coverage next year?”

Normally, I would be among the first to critique the bills. By temperament and training, I’m both a skeptic and a critic.

Of the 45 million uninsured Americans that congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama want to help over the next decade, only 6 million, or 13 percent, would obtain coverage by enrolling in a public option, the Congressional Budget Office concluded in an analysis of the Democratic bill pending before the House of Representatives.

That number could shrink because states may decide to opt out of a public insurance plan, an escape clause that’s likely to be included in the Senate plan.

“The politics of this issue is totally disproportionate to its likely impact one way or another,” said Bruce Vladeck, a former administrator of the federal agency now called the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. [more...]

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told reporters today that he would in fact filibuster any health care bill he doesn’t agree with–and right now, he doesn’t agree with the public option proposal making its way through the Senate.

Reid said he would send the bill, which combines two pending Senate measures, to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost analysis and begin Senate debate on the measure as soon as the analysts report their findings.

“As soon as we get the bill back from CBO and people have a chance to look at it … I believe we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move to this bill and start legislating,” Reid said…