After an hour-long lunch with the Senate Democratic caucus, former President Bill Clinton found himself surrounded by dozens of reporters, and summarized his message as one of the urgency of action. "The worst thing to do is nothing," Clinton said of the party's health care reform push. "We can do so much better."
As they emerged from the lunch one by one, a number of senators echoed this rendering.
"His message was very simply it is so important that this be done, that there are so many people, I think 30 percent of the population he said at one point or another, don't have any health care coverage," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told TPMDC, "and so the ability to fix the problem is really upon us."
"He made clear that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity," she added, noting that Clinton did not directly address the politically divisive policy aspects of reform--abortion, the public option--in his presentation.
To members who are facing tough re-election races next year (such as fellow Arkansas native Blanche Lincoln) Clinton's message was equally simple: "You're going to do it, and then people are going to begin to see that none of the bad things that people are talking about will come to pass, essentially," Feinstein said.
Conservative Democrat Ben Nelson didn't necessarily agree. "Failure could be passing a bad bill," Nelson told TPMDC. "I think it's important that we try to put together the best bill that's possible, and see what it consists of and then I can make a decision whether I'll support it or not."
"I think he made a good point about good governance are the best politics. A good bill will be good politics," Nelson added.
But what about an imperfect bill? Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) told TPMDC Clinton warned the conference not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. "Recognize that you're going to have to deal with an imperfect situation and take this as the guideline--as a start--with an understanding that if you look back at history, that the laws that were written were not always--that were not perfect had opportunities to be fixed along the was."
Lautenberg added that Clinton is "encouraging the passage of the bill," and telling Democrats "not forget that [Congress will] have a chance to amend these things as time passes."
Clinton also touched on other issues, including education and energy, all with the explicit understanding that Democrats can and must also succeed at creating jobs and healing the economy with the reforms they pass.
"The main message as I heard it was pass a bill for all the reasons that we could articulate on health care but also, and importantly, pass a bill to help the economy, long term especially, in terms of debt, and in terms of being able to have businesses be competitive," both domestically and internationally, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) told TPMDC.
"He talked about health care and he talked about energy," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). "Above and beyond health care, one of the points that he made is that we can substantially grow the economy and create decent paying jobs if we tackle the energy issue and transform our energy system."
"His feeling was that, from a public policy and a political point of view, the American people want us to pass health care," Sanders said.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 2:46 PM
the DLC marches on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 2:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
isn't this the guy who signed Nafta into law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 2:53 PM in reply to Indie Pro
"You're going to do it, and then people are going to begin to see that none of the bad things that people are talking about will come to pass, essentially," Feinstein said.
like premiums on the rise? healthcare costs rising? Middle class americans having insurance, but now too poor to use it?
TPM keeps adding to the story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 10, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You could have that conversation with yourself in private, you know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 3:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
that is true. Thanks for pointing it out.
I'm just repsonding to the post as it is updated. Look away, put your fingers in your ears and sing show tunes if you must.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JeffB
November 10, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Will failure to pass Health Care Reform lead to a Republican takeover?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6473
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:08 PM in reply to JeffB
I got news for you skippy, the democratic party is gonna lose ground in mid terms. That's history. Look for a repeat of Reagan's midterms, atleast. Bare minimum.
that being said, polls and elections are no excuse to stick it to people so pharma and the insurance industry can prosper.
it is still completely within the realm of possibilities for the Senate to give us good reform. Perhaps Reid will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jadez
November 11, 2009 6:11 AM in reply to Indie Pro
this bill will come out of the senate worse then doing nothing at all.
and if i thought anyone was listening i would say why.
just assuring my fellow non kool-aiders they are not alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to jadez
I apreciate it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 11, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to jadez
You're making sense to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
"Recognize that you're going to have to deal with an imperfect situation and take this as the guideline--as a start--with an understanding that if you look back at history, that the laws that were written were not always--that were not perfect had opportunities to be fixed along the was."
what about the families and people who will be affected by this bill today.
What about the families and people who will have to make these mandates work in their budgets who are outside of the subsidies, or who will get only some subsidies.
This is cold comfort for people who live paycheck to paycheck.
Better to pass a better bill naw, that actually regulates the industry and controls costs (stops evergreening), doesn't throw women under the bus, etc. It isn't too late for that!
This does not have to be a industry giveaway. That is not the only option and it isn't too late.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
November 10, 2009 3:18 PM in reply to Indie Pro
News flash: Premiums have been rising and will continue to rise without reform. Same for health care costs.
Think about this. Right now, doctors have to pay staff just to manage claims, which involves knowing all of the different insurance companies' codes and knowing how claims have to be written in order to get them paid. The insurance companies stand in the middle and rake in the cash, and in the meantime, they put extra burden and extra costs on health care providers. The high costs of health care are largely due to inefficiency caused by the insurance companies. Is that the status quo you want to cling to?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to chimpale
absolutely not, I want better.
but that is what we're getting in this reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
November 10, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Sorry, it's hard to keep track. I thought you were being concern-trolly.
I don't want a crappy bill, but I don't want to walk away with nothing, either. If there isn't a way to enlighten the faux-Dem obstructionists, I'm open to having them hauled out and beaten into submission.
Yeah, Medicare for all would be best, but we're not going to get it with this bunch. I'm hoping we can get something that doesn't suck now and then build on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 4:54 PM in reply to chimpale
Yeah, Medicare for all would be best, but we're not going to get it with this bunch. I'm hoping we can get something that doesn't suck now and then build on it.
we share the same goals then. The Senate hasn't voted yet, and it isn't too late for reform to improve above suck.
Perhaps Reid is holding out, trying to score the best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 10, 2009 7:09 PM in reply to chimpale
Yes Medicare for All would be best. Say if we resurrected the Kennedy-Dingell Medicare for all Bill introduced in April 2007 or perhaps Wyden's Free Choice Act (which I have not read in detail).
The problem is that all the House had to work with is HR676 which is NOT Medicare for All, which would focus on getting private insurance out of the picture but instead tries to go beyond that to drive profit and so private investment entirely out of the whole medical sector. It over-reaches so far that even those of us who embrace a social democratic solution can only shake our heads.
In the first six pages of HR676 Kucinich proposes universal insurance with no cost sharing for everything from medical treatment per se to dental, vision, hearing aids and long term care (all services not provided by Medicare today) plus quite pointedly extends that to all residents whether they be citiizens or legal or illegal immigrants. I doubt even the Nordic Countries tried or even achieved all of that in one gulp all while insisting that all investors in medical care divest.
From any realistic political perspective HR676 is at best posturing in that it goes far beyond even th British NHS system. That progressives didn't have an opportunity to get their names on record voting for this is a blessing. That Kucinich is stomping his tiny feet and voting against the main bill because he did not get this piece of crappy vanity lesson tells you most of what you need to know. That some soft-headed progressives are cheering him for it tells you the rest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 11, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
Hey, I'm one of them, but I'm ready to be educated. What about S 703, Bernie Sanders' bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
November 10, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Hey, I live in Canada, and hate NAFTA as much as any sane American. We have never forgiven the bum who sold out our country for that trade bill, however, you have a bigger problem and that is health reform. If I'm drowning, I don't care if my enemy throws me a lifeline. I appreciate Pres. Clinton trying to stiffen the backbone of these senators. Like I've always said, how do you guys live with a health situation like you have. I couldn't imagine what it must be like to fork over thousands of dollars every month for health insurance, and then I need it, I'm told sorry you have a preexisting condition so you are disqualified. I'm sure I would probably end up in prison. That is pure and simply high way robbery. Above all, when bums like Lieberman says he won't even allow the bill to be voted upon, it shows how selfish and heartless these six senators are. No amount of money is worth 45000 lives a year, and that is year after year after year. I can only imagine what slavery must have been like with these uncaring individuals as slave owners, I'm sure the half has never been told. Sad. Sad
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
November 10, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to truthspeaker
I was living in Europe decades ago and considered staying because of the politics in America. I finally decided it would cowardly of me not to go back and try to change America for the better. Now that I have teenagers I'm begining to doubt my choice. I may just tell them to flee while they can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:16 PM in reply to truthspeaker
I hear ya.
the DLC and Clinton, and Obama I reckon, are about triangulation. Give the industry what they want, gain something small, call it a win. People suffer that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 10, 2009 10:41 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yep. And the Telecom Dereg Act (yeah, that's what we needed... more concentration of media ownership into fewer corporate hands). And Phil Gramm's Financial Services "Modernization" Act, which included the repeal of Glass-Steagall among other gems. That worked out real well. Thanks, Bill (oh, and Bob Rubin, too).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:47 PM in reply to gharlane
if the democratic party was truly serious about cleaning up our current economic mess, and ensuring it never happens again, they'd repeal Glass-Steagall.
It's that simple. And depressing that this isn't even being talked about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 8:25 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Glass-Stegall has already been repealed, brainless. If you're going to be a siren of doom and gloom, it might help if you had a clue about the basics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 9:42 AM in reply to FreeRider
it's the repeal of the repeal I mean. My bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 11, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to Indie Pro
You ain't kiddin'. Back in 1993, President Clinton did not have the LBJ-like intestinal fortitude to crack heads and bust gonads, for the health care bill which, supposedly, was more effective than whatever it is we're getting today (if we get it).
Result? No health care reform, and generation-long conventional wisdom that not only are Democrats ineffectual, maybe the whole idea of health care reform really is questionable and controversial. Thanks, Bubba.
So here we are, today, facing the best deal we can get. Who shows up? Bill Clinton. Informing the Senate, in that "President Emeritus" pose he likes to strike, that he may have been wrong all along.
Now, apparently, all you really have to get is a bill, not a good bill. For political purposes, you see. Forget all that stuff he said about standing one's ground for a "good" bill; hell, if he couldn't pull it off, mere pikers like you? Ha.
So if we do get a bill passed, and it turns out to be naught but a weak series of sops to the insurance and pharma industries, where millions still go uncovered and coupled with a whopping set of brakes on a woman's right to determine her own reproductive health... we need that, if only for the p.r. of a political victory. He has seen the light, now.
Thanks again, Bubba.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to Barry Champlain
I agree.
why are there no jobs? Free trade and Nafta have a lot to do with it. Even the tech industry lost many jobs overseas. That's what you get with the DLC and triangulation.
The democratic party ia moving more and more to the right. More conservative. More pro-business. People have been on the losing end of that philosophy for decades now.
Yet, they are shocked, SHOCKED! that they are losing the big tent as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 10, 2009 3:00 PM
I find it rather disheartening that it seems necessary to tell the Democratic Senators that the worse thing they can do is nothing. This is now a win-or-die situation for those Senators in problem elections, and failing will adversely effect most Democratic elected officials, Senate or otherwise.
And if some Democratic Senator puts their own reelection above the election futures of the entire Democratic Caucus in the Senate - he or she is going to have very few friends going forward, even if it gets that individual through the next election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 3:08 PM in reply to Richardxx
And if some Democratic Senator puts their own reelection above the election futures of the entire Democratic Caucus in the Senate
it's as if they don't understand that the future of the entire Democratic Caucus is what Healthcare Reform is all about!
wait. what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 10, 2009 3:19 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I don't think it's debatable that the failure to pass a bill, any bill, will be a disaster for the Democrats next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 10, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to Dorn76
Well, I guess anything is debatable, but sometimes the writing is on the wall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to Dorn76
The Senate hasn't even voted on a bill. They can address all of these concerns. They could be the champions of real reform!
FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.
or
FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs
While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/143842/do_we_really_want_to_enshrine_insurance_monopoly_into_law_this_and_5_other_complaints_about_the_health_bill/?page=1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
November 10, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Private Health Insurance Industry monopoly?
In 2007, total health services and supplies expenditures in the US were $2.1 trillion of which $775 billion were payments from private health insurers. That's 37%. $974 billion are from public payers. That's 46%. The official CMS projections for 2018 have the share paid by private insurers falling to 33%, and public expenditures rising to 52%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 4:23 PM in reply to Economides
that's a good point. I think in his comment he is separating those on medicare and medicaid. The boomers will def have an effect on the numbers.
I think he's speaking to those affected by the mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 10, 2009 10:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Health care reform is for America. America wants it. I assumed everyone here recognized that. But failure to deliver now that the Democrats have gotten this close will be a major blow to the Democratic Party.
Such a blow will empower the conservatives, which will itself be a major destructive action for America.
America can be a nation for the people and especially for the middle class. Or it can be a nation that belongs to the wealthy and to the top executives of big often monopolistic businesses, the major Wall Street Banks, and to their paid politicians.
Is there anything I just wrote that is not a given?
But the Democrats can now only fail on HCR in the Senate, and if they do it will be devastating to the Democratic party. It will be because some damned Democratic Senator cannot see past his own f***ing career to the needs of America. (Hello, Joe. Ben. Blanch.) The American people will see that next year and in 2012. Count on it. Democratic weakness and failure at this point is unacceptable and will be punished. And I'll help if that is what it takes.
What have I missed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 11:05 PM in reply to Richardxx
Nothing.
I take umbrage with the prospects of the democratic party being more important than people.
but as it stands, I take umbrage with the trilangulation of this bill. Far too much is conceded to the industries at the expense of the people. That'll come back to bite the democratic party, and then how does that fit into the GOP comeback?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 10, 2009 11:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I thought that was what I wrote. I agree with you.
I just find the difference in party discipline between the Democrats and the Republicans to be puzzling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 11:35 PM in reply to Richardxx
dammit, I meant to agree with you, and I went into a rant, but it posted at the bottom. My bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
November 10, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to Richardxx
I can take the charges that I'm an "Obamabot" and such in stride. I'm perfectly comfortable with my outspoken support of his candidacy.
The naivete I will cop to is that I really did not believe the Democrats would fracture and start undermining their newly elected president this time around, at least not until they had a couple of significant legislative victories under their collective belts. But, for whatever reason, Democratic Senators only seem to find their spines when a Democrat is also pccupying the White House. I've seen this phenomenon with three successive Demcoratic presidents, but I still have not seen a compelling explanation for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 10, 2009 6:22 PM in reply to brewmn61
Which Democrats have found their spines? It seems the spineless outnumber the other kind by a factor of 20!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
November 10, 2009 6:27 PM in reply to CVille Dem
A lot of them seem to be pretty stout in their determination to water down or deny Obama success on his policy initiatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 10, 2009 10:37 PM in reply to CVille Dem
I suspect the only thing that "unifies" the Democrats is that they oppose the idiocy of the conservative Republicans. The result is that the Republicans vote as a block, but the Democrats tend to each, individually, to their own thing.
That's the best explanation I have to why there is no unity in the Democratic Caucus. It would explain the old joke about being a Democrat so not belonging to any political party.
Anyone have a better explanation for the lack of party discipline in the Democratic Party? I'm still looking for it if you have one. In any case, I wouldn't touch Harry Reid's or Nancy Pelosi's jobs for anything. And what Nancy did to get the House to pass a health care bill is absolutely amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 10, 2009 11:39 PM in reply to brewmn61
I concur with your support of Obama. I think that the progressives who are attacking him are frustrated Nadarites (or something similar) for which only the perfect is satisfactory and any compromise is treason. Politically they are powerless losers. It doesn't matter if they are right or not. They won't have much effect on real government decisions.
As for the fracturing of the Democratic Party, it seems to me to be almost inevitable. The Democratic Senators are mostly not dependent on the party for election/reelection, so they are not as subject to party discipline as the Republicans are. There is also no outside political force like the conservative talk show people who can be dangerous to a politicians continued occupation of office, and those talk show conservatives are controlled by the big money people in America (who buy their ads.) They also have a built-in controlled voting block in the social conservatives.
What unifies the Democrats? What power of the party protects them? Whatever there is, it seems to me to be a lot less powerful than what the Republicans have on their side. Look at Snowe, for example.
That's my best guess about the difference in party unity between the two parties. The ideology, in my opinion, follows these structural pressures. Ideology might be a measure of party unity, but I don't think it causes it. And I think that most of the conservative ideology is what the paymasters want it to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
November 10, 2009 11:49 PM in reply to Richardxx
"What unifies the Democrats?"
I thought it was a mandate to enact programs that benefit the middle and working classes. Boy, was I wrong on that one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DKDC
November 10, 2009 3:44 PM
Man, Congress just keeps passing laws that don't conform to all of my exacting standards - what is up with that? Haven't they read the many posts I have thoughtfully prepared for progressive websites??? When are all 435 members of COngress going to start paying attention to ME????????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 10, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to DKDC
ha! So True. LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
November 10, 2009 9:34 PM in reply to DKDC
LOL!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!! Well said, well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
November 10, 2009 10:38 PM in reply to DKDC
Oh, you make my day! Thank you, thank you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 10, 2009 11:45 PM in reply to DKDC
No! No! They've got to start listening to ME or they'll get it WRONG! Again!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 11, 2009 12:16 PM in reply to DKDC
DKDC:
Let me remind you, smartass: WE PROGRESSIVES HAVEN'T BEEN WRONG. ONCE. EVER.
Iraq, the financial shitpile, health care... name one, sweetheart. ONE. Where we didn't call it. I am waiting. And I am goddamned tired of hearing the constant calls to the progressive Left, to apologize for the crime of being right.
Sure, we're the "Leftie fringe"... all we ever did was mobilize to put enough bodies out there that an Actual Black Guy (and we'll just bet that automatically makes him a liberal... right? [g]) could spit in the face of Beltway wisdom, and become President of the United States, by a healthy margin. And give him two houses of Congress to play with. And even though that sort of makes us the majority... we're still the "Far Left". Amazing how that works.
So yeah, DK, go right ahead, demean what we have to say to our elected "leaders". We with our silly progressive blogs and advocacy organizations and flash-fundraising mechanisms have shown the only goddamned "leadership" in this entire farce. And furthermore, even though you clearly imply that we should, we don't have to check our tongues before speaking, wondering "What would the business lobbies that own me have say about this?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cmpnwtr
November 10, 2009 4:03 PM
Cut the crap, ignore the peanut gallery, and get it done! Clinton knows the hard way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
November 10, 2009 4:15 PM
Was Lieberman there?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 10, 2009 4:59 PM in reply to mike from Arlington
Yeah, where was Traitor Joe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
November 10, 2009 4:40 PM
How can the government mandate it's citizens to purchase a product from a for profit non-governmental corporation where they have no influence over the product, the contract or the cost of the product? I cannot see any instance where this would be upheld by the courts. The entire premise seems illegal from the get-go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 10, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to xargaw
Government is not "forcing" per say. Read carefully and comeback
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to kash79
http://www.answers.com/per%20se
http://www.answers.com/topic/mandate
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 10, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to Indie Pro
As long as we're posting links, here's Ezra Klein's response to Marica Angell's "scrap it all and go for single payer next year" post at Huffpo. (Link to Angell is in Klien's post.)
I'd say, between the two of them, they've pretty well covered the opposing viewpoints. And, no surprise to anyone, I think Klein's argument is exactly right in every respect:
On a personal note, there's a been a tendency, sometimes, to accuse those of us who've continued to support this thing as it's been run through the sausage mill of just trying to put points on the board for entirely political purposes without regard to the consequnces for real people or, worse, of just obsessively doing it because of our dog like devotion to Obama. I would humbly and respectfully request that those of you on the side of the Angells (rimshot) please stop it.
I don't question the sincerity or the motives of the "scrap it all, death to the insurance companies, single payer or nothing" faction. Indeed, I share many of their sentiments that drive them. I do, however, question their judgment.
But the thing about questioning judgment, as opposed to questioning motives, is that when you question the judgment of another you necessarily are implicitly conceding that it may be your own judgment that's at fault and acknowledging that time will tell.
Do I have "purely political" motives for thinking passing the legislation in either of its current forms is better than doing nothing? Uh, yeah. But I am not motivated by partisanship for it's own sake but, rather, by genuine horror of what the Republican Party has become and what could happen if they claw their way back to power in their current state of madness. That terrifies me.
But terrifying or not, it's also quite incidental to my primary concern. I'd be blind not to notice it, and dishonest not to acknowledge it, but it's not the main thing. The main thing driving me is the empirically validated belief that, as Klein put it, success breeds success while failure invariably and inevitably leads only to contraction of what is envisioned as possible next time around.
History and human nature argue that a success now will expand the vision of what it is possible to achieve next time. Failure, however, will inevitably and invariably contract that vision and, the simple ugly truth is that we simply cannot afford any more shrinkage of the vision of what's possible on health care. This is it. The next step down from here is the kind of crap the Republicans are peddling. It is my judgment that the paramount imperative is reversing the trajectory on this issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 5:36 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I look forward to reading Klein's response. Though, this is the guy who didn't even believe a public option is needed, if I remember correctly.
and again, real people will have to live with this. If success is so important, then work to make the reform good for the people, and not just the insurance compsnies and pharma.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 10, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
No one would argue that we shouldn't continue to push to make this bill the best it can be. What people have argued is that dumping the whole thing and hoping for better next year ignores the lessons of history. What possible logic says that if it fails this year it will be easier next year? If anything, the forces lined up against it will be emboldened and those pushing it will be more reluctant to expend the energy and political capital to get it done. And Senators like Lincoln will be even more reluctant in an election year. There's a reason it's been more than 15 years since the last attempt.
Half a loaf really is better than none. Get the best bill you can but be ready to accept imperfections on the less important facets to get the most important parts enacted. I'd rather have an imperfect reform now than wait another 15 years for possibly something better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:05 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Well if it is passed with its many inperfections, it'll be democrats who suffer.
I don't see this as "my team right or wrong" as if this is football, sorry. I see this affecting many people.
and when those people are hurting due to this, and clamoring for reform, will they look to the party that forced bad reform on them? Or the party that points out how "right or wrong", "do or die" the demorctic party was to pass this bad reform, knowing it was a giveaway to the insurance industry and pharma.
What does history teach us about that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 10, 2009 5:48 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Since we already know Medicare is popular why don't we simply, simply, simply expand it instead of passing a bill that no one understands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 10, 2009 7:27 PM in reply to bluebell
How do you finance it? Under current law premiums from enrollees pay only about 25% of costs. It is not like the answer is "Open Medicare, everybody pays $90 a month and it is all good". And broadening the risk pool to a younger more healthy population doesn't backfill much of that 75% financing hole.
Who pays? And how much? And how?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 11, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
Taxes, which are fine by me. A broad based VAT as they have in Europe works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 11, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Should have tons of votes in Congress for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
November 10, 2009 6:30 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
"The main thing driving me is the empirically validated belief that, as Klein put it, success breeds success while failure invariably and inevitably leads only to contraction of what is envisioned as possible next time around. "
If only more elected Democrats agreed with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:11 PM in reply to brewmn61
success breeds success is cute, but the house bill is far from a succcess, and could breed alot of failure for the democratic party, and many people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
November 10, 2009 11:28 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Do you honestly think that failing to pass a bill, even one as flawed as you seem to think this one is, will actually improve the chances of a good bill being passed in the foreseeable future? In case you haven't noticed, the bill isn't on shaky ground because it's not progressive enough. There are wealthy, extremely powerful vested interests that oppose any true health reform, and they have had almost unfettered control of Washington for thirty years.
A bill that establishes access to health care as the responsibility of the federal government is a huge victory for progressives. I'm sorry you refuse to see that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 11:41 PM in reply to brewmn61
I'm sorry you fail to see the repercussions of acquiescing to extremely powerful vested interests at the expense of the community at large. We each have our battles I reckon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
November 10, 2009 11:46 PM in reply to Indie Pro
This IS a victory against those interests. Where are the votes for the change you claim you want? Newsflash: those votes don't exist. Enjoy howling into the wind, because that's all you're doing here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 10:07 AM in reply to brewmn61
the failed on the name alone:
America's Affordable Health Choices Act
they even named this bill like a rebulican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 11, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to brewmn61
Not if we and our elected officials took a moment to educate the electorate. They're usually too busy condescending to them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 9:58 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Okay, I read it, and big shock, I'm about as moved by this argument as I was by his argument that we don't need a public option.
by his standards, if the Stupak amendment survives, people should just suck it up and accept it, do you agree?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thisniss
November 10, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to xargaw
I was "forced" to get automobile and homeowners insurance, too. Mandates really aren't that novel. My great hope is that someday I will be able to buy health insurance through USAA, which currently handles my other government-mandated insurance needs. If you don't know what USAA is, you should google it as an object lesson in how "for profit" insurance can work well for its subscribers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 10, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to thisniss
But saying the government mandate it's citizens to purchase a product from a for profit non-governmental corporation is half-baked statement that doesn't asses the bill fairly. The context in which the mandate is designed is a little more complex and a little more customer friendly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 10, 2009 9:20 PM in reply to thisniss
Yes, well that homeowners insurance mandate is to protect the bank, not you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 10, 2009 6:25 PM in reply to xargaw
They are influencing the cost. The House bill mandates a minimum 85% medical loss ratio (i.e. at least 85% of the money collected in premiums must be spent on claims payments).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 10, 2009 7:18 PM in reply to xargaw
I guess that is why the CEOs of all companies that sell mandated automobile liability insurance are rotting in jail today.
Oh wait.
Or do you have control over any aspect of your car insurance? I don't think so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
November 10, 2009 4:55 PM
It's the filibuster. It's not good government to allow a minority to stop legislation. The point of elections is to allow the elected to govern on behalf of the people. But, with the filibuster, nothing gets done.
Ben Nelson knows, for example, that the legislation has at least 50 votes in the Senate. Yet, he insists on saying that, with the GOP, he could filibuster the bill. It's nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 10, 2009 5:02 PM
Sounds like Orahma's sending a message: pass something, anything, please!
And...huh...I think I'm going nuts: I found myself in agreement with something Ben Nelson said - a poorly designed bill (po, subsidy, mandate, whatever) is a defeat, too, even if it passes. If it doesn't work, you've cheapened your brand. People no buy later. I get the sense the Obama's nervous about how a defeat will look on his resume when he's back in the job market. Forget about looks. Please get us something that keeps our premiums down and provides quality coverage for everybody. Quickly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 10, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Yeah, this would fall under the "enough already with the questioning of motives" thing I mentioned above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 5:38 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
isn't this post about Bill saying
"Whatever You Do, Don't Lose"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 10, 2009 6:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Sorry, yes: Bill's calling for less now, more later. Nelson could be saying: less now could make more later difficult. Which I sort of agree with. People on the right see a poorly designed po and tell independents: 'See what you're in for if we try single payer?' Not so sure that failure (no legislation) will lead to a smaller vision of what's possible, either. Less now could make us hungrier for sweeping change, bold initiatives. Clear the decks for a fresh start. Make Republicans take the blame for defeat and come back stronger next time. Dunno. What am I missing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:13 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
a football team mentality towards politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 11, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Right. "Success breeds success". Sounds like something Dale Carnegie or Donald Trump might say. Nothing quite so alienating as motivational speakers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
November 10, 2009 5:21 PM
"There are so many people, I think 30 percent of the population he said at one point or another, don't have any health care coverage," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told TPMDC, "and so the ability to fix the problem is really upon us."
Yes, we can mandate that they buy it from private health insurance companies. Hooray. "Mission Accomplished."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
November 10, 2009 5:29 PM
I think that when the time comes, they will vote for the bill. IDK about LIEberman though, he is being so damn vocal it's disturbing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jdpirtl
November 10, 2009 6:07 PM in reply to theone718
I think that Lieberman has realized long ago that he will be facing liberal challengers in his future elections for a long time coming, and instead of realizing that his constituents looked at his history during reelection of a "fairly" liberal and open minded person, he believes that a more conservative representative is what his constituents want*.
*This is all presumed, I am not a constituent of his and believe him to be quite crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
November 10, 2009 6:45 PM in reply to Jdpirtl
No, Lieberman has concluded that there is no way he will be elected next time and plans on retiring after wreaking his revenge on the Democrats who rejected him the last time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 10, 2009 6:55 PM in reply to theone718
Yeah. He fears that a corrupt, parasitic government that has already bankrupted SS and Medicare will destroy the entire healthcare system and his country.
He's a crazy old man who doesn't understand the concept of the "money tree".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:50 PM in reply to Silence
that a corrupt, parasitic government that has already bankrupted SS and Medicare
you are talking about conservatism and the GOP right there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 10, 2009 5:49 PM
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) told TPMDC Clinton warned the conference not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. "Recognize that you're going to have to deal with an imperfect situation and take this as the guideline--as a start--with an understanding that if you look back at history, that the laws that were written were not always--that were not perfect had opportunities to be fixed along the was."
Couldn't agree more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 10, 2009 6:24 PM in reply to kash79
But that's what the left/progressives have always done, and likely will always do. Demand an all-or-nothing scenario, walk away empty-handed, and comfort ourselves by having "lost pure" while ignoring the vacant space between our palms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 10, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to The Old Grouch
Always? Labor protections, social security, OSHA, Medicare, civil rights -- when we had some influence in the party we did great things. It's only since the DLC strategy of reinforcing Reaganism took over that we've been left empty handed. Hard to enact progressive legislation when you have two conservative parties preaching a conservative ideology.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 10, 2009 7:32 PM in reply to bluebell
You're outta your freaking mind and don't have a clue about history!!
FYI, "pure" liberals like you were mad as hell at FDR for social security because they didn't think it went far enough. There were so many people who weren't covered. It also started at 65 when the life expectancy was 62!
"pure" liberals like you castigated Johnson because Medicare wasn't good enough, didn't cover enough people or enough things.
The "purist" wanted them to scratch the whole thing. Thank goodness FDR and LBJ told the purist to "fuck off!"
Now you have the nerve to brag about what these bills when, if you had been around at the time, you would have been bitching and moaning that FDR and LBJ were selling you out.
FUCK OFF!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 10:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
Nixon was more liberal than you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to Indie Pro
And this is relevant to my post, how? Oh, I see. You can't refute the facts that LBJ and FDR took shit from a bunch of know-nothing "purists" whiners like you when they were trying to pass SS and Medicare, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 9:39 AM in reply to FreeRider
sincerely, you ahould look into it. Nixon was more liberal than you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Seriously, you should look into it. A special ed 4th grader is smarter than you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
see, I try to help and all you give back is hatred and name calling.
You fail to realize how liberal both parties were stretching back from Nixon to FDR.
You try to frame this as if it is about purity. It isn't. No argument I've made is about "purity". My arguments are about best policy.
You don't even make counter arguments. You don't even know how to argue, or admit when you've made a mistake.
People who agree with your "for the party rah! rah!" position don't even want you on their side.
What I should be recommending is:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Ask a special ed 4th grader for help with your homework.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to FreeRider
weak
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Ask a special ed 4th grader for help with your comebacks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 1:31 PM in reply to FreeRider
you've repeated the same thing 3 times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Ask a special ed 4th grader for help with your counting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to FreeRider
see now we're at the point when you're funny. I Like this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 10, 2009 10:31 PM in reply to FreeRider
And as for you - get the bloody fucking hell off my side in this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 11, 2009 8:23 AM in reply to The Old Grouch
I'm stating my opinion, asswipe. If you're bothered because you agree with it, you can always change your opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 10, 2009 10:31 PM in reply to bluebell
And your chronic insistence on forming a third party helps this how?
(Hint - you can become a mirror image of the teabaggers, you know.)
And when (if, more likely) you actually learn some history, FDR and other earlier Dems did not exactly have easy-breezy times enacting those. What we got with them were...wait for it...compromises.
The right wing has the jerk market cornered - and has for some time now. You're proof, though, that we don't have to cede the ignorant market at the same time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 11:34 PM
I think it was mansbestfriend who wrote the other day that the GOP it is about power.
I think for the DLC/triangulation part of the the democratic party it is about power too.
but for others in the democratic party, I think you are correct. Many liberals, progressives, environmentalists, etc see the democratic party as their only choice, usually. In all fairness, there are some good conservatives. This motley team is what you get in a "big tent" party.
With the consolidation of the media, banks, and industry; and with the increasing corporatism in all -I think liberals, unions, environmentalist need to be more active and vocal because what we hear the most are center and right voices. The left is seldom heard.
It is the serious lack of real debate on healthcare reform and other issues that troubles me. The media is shortchanging Americans. Progressive ideas are what this country needs, and not more of the conservativism that tilts towards industry.
Wages have been stagnant for too long. Too many jobs have been lost overseas. I may be heavy handed, but I believe in the people and community. That is truly what makes America great, and I think it is worth fighting for. Not that I think you are against it, I started ranting, sorry.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 10, 2009 11:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I meant this as a reply to Richardxx way up there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 10, 2009 11:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Stay on your soapbox. You make a lot of sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?