
"The die is cast. It's done," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), moments after 60 Democrats signaled, with a single procedural vote, that they will stick together to pass health care reform.
As the clerk read the final tally aloud in the Senate chamber, Democrats, seated at their desks, muffled all of their emotions--enthusiasm, anxiety, relief. Sitting at his desk Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) clutched Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) and Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-DE)--his colleague on either side--by the arms. Members smiled and softly pumped their fists, but in accordance with the rules, the floor was mostly silent.
In the reception room just outside the chamber, Sen. Ted Kennedy's widow Vicki embraced Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and John Kerry (D-MA). Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, standing alone in the corner of the room, shouted a hearty congratulations to Dodd.
"Harry's going to almost have a drink," Schumer joked about the Mormon majority leader.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE)--two of the final hold outs--reminded reporters that they'd oppose the bill that emerges from negotiations with the House if the language changes dramatically, entrenching the conventional wisdom that the House will have to accept a final bill that's significantly less progressive than the bill they passed this fall.
"I'm afraid that a splitting of the differences here will not work," Lieberman said. "It took a lot of work to bring this 60 together, and this 60 is delicately balanced."
But, crucially, even Nelson speaks of the bill before the Senate now as if it's already been passed.
"The next step, of course, will be to see what happens with the conference," Nelson said.
A disappointed Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) had harsh words for Democrats, who, nearly a year after the legislative process kicked off, she says are rushing this bill to passage. But, interestingly, she did not rule out contributing to, and ultimately voting for, the conference package.
Lynn Dee
December 21, 2009 2:36 AM
Sen. Snowe's complaint that the Dems didn't wait to allow 72 hours to peruse the bill online is just jaw-dropping. The main reason for that is that the horse-trading continued until yesterday. Snowe (or any Republican) could have eliminated the necessity for that simply by being part of the process. Then they not only would have had more than 72 hours to read it, they could've helped to shape the damn thing.
But they opted not to do that. Too bad, so sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
December 21, 2009 6:49 AM in reply to Lynn Dee
Can you name one Senator that has actually read the whole bill? I doubt it, but that misses the whole point of putting legislation online. It's the revolutionary idea that the rest of us can see what the law is, being discussed.
But I suspect you're one of those who believe the left can do no wrong, and should not be questioned. Tsk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
December 21, 2009 7:35 AM in reply to shooter242
Enjoy your healthcare knowing that you will not be dropped for any pre-existing or developing medical conditions. No need to thanks us or apologize for your thoughtlessness towards your fellow citizens...all Americans.... who will benefit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
December 21, 2009 8:10 AM in reply to Moloko+
Why don't we see what comes out of conference before you get too cocky, don't you think? It may not resemble anything discussed to date, making my point about seeing what is being voted on, all the more pertinent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
December 21, 2009 8:44 AM in reply to shooter242
Well I'm hopeful that you and all Americans will be covered. Because you and all Americans deserve basic healthcare. And unlike some, I will not be praying for you to get sick just to make my point. In fact, I will petition the Almighty to protect you so that we may have interesting internet conversations for many years to come.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
December 21, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to shooter242
Good point. We need to wait to see what comes out of conference. Given that good point, it would be stupid to say something like "Can you name one Senator that has actually read the whole bill?", since that won't be the final wording of the law, anyway.
Also, there's nothing more pathetic than adding weasel words like "I suspect" right before casually accusing someone of being an unprincipled "Kool-aid drinker". If you're dumb or authoritarian enough to just label anyone who disagrees with you as "unhinged" or suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome", then you're even more worthless than you seemed at first blush. Blow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
December 21, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to Clavis
If you are familiar with legislative language you can read through this bill and get the important parts down in an hour or so of reading which if supplemented with a more thorough back check via the CBO score tells you all you need to know. You don't need it read aloud to you nor would you be able to understand it if so read given all the boilerplate.
Those of us who went to college and particularly those who went on from there to grad school/law school learned from necessity how to read 500 or a 1000 pages or more a night in assigned reading and get a meaningful understanding. On the other hand it might take hours to properly read and understand a 500 word poem. It' a different kind of reading.
Health Care bills ain't poetry. And only morons don't understand the difference. In retrospect maybe shooting your self through the head 242 times was a mistake?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 21, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to shooter242
The green-eyed monster is a bitch - isn't it shooter??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
December 21, 2009 7:53 AM in reply to shooter242
Well shooter, we let the right wing run with it for 8 years, with very little substantive opposition, and they screwed the pooch, didn't they? Hence the minority position they find themselves in now. So I for one am willing to let the other side of the aisle have a turn. I think we settled that with the last big election we had. You're along for the ride, same as we were for W's tenure. In the end, he demonstrated that the GOP cupboard was bare in a way that all the left wing bitching and moaning could never do. GOP just ain't got nuthin'. They can try to channel Reagan, they can be reactionary and complain about everything, they can talk big, they can put Michael Steele in charge, carry guns around, whatever. Where are the non-stupid ideas? Show us something, GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
December 21, 2009 8:17 AM in reply to mass_murdock
You want ideas, here you go....
1. Kill insurance anti-trust exemptions.
2. Tort reform
3. Interstate insurance competition.
As for being in the minority, that's not a problem. Conservatives are by nature better at being in the minority. We have better things to do than run other people's lives.
I voted for Obama to get out of war. But apparently the left wants to be the new warmongers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
December 21, 2009 9:00 AM in reply to shooter242
As far as getting out of the war....I worry about Pakistan's nukes. How are we to ensure that they do not fall into the hands of bad people that could blackmail the world?
As far as your suggestions about health care costs - I would like to see anti-trust exemptions removed too. And tort reform is fine - but have not some states already done this? Are they experiencing significant health care cost reductions because of it? And interstate competition worries me because of the possibility of junk insurance. And how does moving the insurance management to another state imply significant cost reductions? Is it reductions that would occur due to lower overhead expenses from management being in another state?
There is an old saying - big rocks first. Tort reform does not seem like a big rock - just an attempt to going after trial lawyers who are seen as Democratic Party allies. And junk insurance is unacceptable. Are you willing to accept strict insurance regulation if interstate coverage is allowed to prevent junk insurance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 21, 2009 9:08 AM in reply to shooter242
You sure live in a fantasy world if you think rethugs don't run people's lives. Remember Terry Schiavo, remember denying women the right to choose. Rethugs don't run people's lives?? What fucking bullshit. You people are despicable sorry excuses for humans is what you all are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr Lemming
December 21, 2009 9:37 AM in reply to shooter242
Shooter, if you're just going to dish out contentless Republican spin why not go where it might be better appreciated?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
December 21, 2009 11:07 AM in reply to shooter242
Tort reform! That's a great idea! Let's eliminate one of the few ways that an individual can check the vast power of the corporation -- the lawsuit! Awesome! You're a genius, shooter! While we're at it, let's change bankruptcy laws so that people who suffer a catastrophic illness are MORE likely to fall into poverty -- oh, wait, the government already did! Shooter's got the right idea -- let's give corporations MORE power and make the people LESS capable of standing in the way of corporations!
Hmm... given his attitudes, maybe shooter IS a corporation...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old-Style Progressive
December 21, 2009 8:18 AM in reply to shooter242
Actually, you're wrong there about senators not reading the bill. I was once exposed to life on the Hill, and generally speaking, if the member-of either house-has an interest/stake in the legislation, they'll either read the bill in whole, or the official summary, the latter of which is more interesting anyway. Ergo, no Republican would bother cracking it open, while most Democrats have a good idea of the major details. The only reason for the many, many pages of legislation is to make it fit into existing law, which is no small matter-there's an entire office dedicated to doing this. They could make all our lives simpler and create a whole new system, like the Canadians did (8 pages of legislation), but that would be too simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CommunityOrganizer
December 21, 2009 9:01 AM in reply to shooter242
I think transparency is good. But do you really think the GOP Senators, with a few exceptions, really have any motive or desire to contribute meaningfully to the bill? Their stated intention is to sabotage the process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SteveGinIL
December 21, 2009 9:31 AM in reply to Lynn Dee
Snowe is a two-faced bitch.
Where was her complaint when the AUMF from President Stoopid was given to the Senators around midnight when the vote on it was to be in the morning after?
She can kiss my ass. I trust Durbin or Reid told her that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Homefries
December 21, 2009 3:45 AM
Our first baby steps to true health care reform, finally. Still have a lot of work to do, but, congratulations to those Senators who pushed it through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sabocat
December 21, 2009 7:20 AM
Full:http://www.countercurrents.org/laskin211209.htm
Finally, proponents of the mandate often cite the fact that states require drivers to purchase auto insurance as justifying a federal individual mandate for health insurance. This is a facile comparison that ignores the constitutional differences between federal and state authority to regulate. As noted above, Congress can only legislate when there is a specific provision of Article I of the Constitution that authorizes it to enact that type of law. Conversely, the states have virtually unlimited legislative authority to pass laws that foster the public welfare, health and safety. Driving is a privilege, and the states are free to impose any reasonable condition on the exercise of that privilege that they choose. In any event, the states have limited the auto insurance requirement to the purchase of liability insurance to cover injuries sustained by third parties. No state requires drivers to purchase insurance to cover their own injuries.
For single-payer advocates, a very powerful argument is that, while the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance is unconstitutional, Congress can lawfully tax to support a government financed health insurance program. Article I empowers Congress to use its taxing powers in support of government programs that foster the public welfare; this is the constitutional authority for Social Security and Medicare. But to extend that authority to requiring Americans to purchase a private commodity raises profound civil liberties issues. If Congress can compel the purchase of insurance from a for profit insurance company, it can compel the purchase of any commodity if there is an arguable public policy to support it. The auto industry is collapsing? Forget Cash for Clunkers, just order Americans to buy cars or tax them if they don't. Obesity crisis? Order Americans to join health clubs, or tax them if they don't. If Congress gets away with this, there is no stopping point and Big Business will have succeeded in making Americans into involuntary consumers whenever it so chooses.
*Sheldon H. Laskin is an attorney who has appeared in the United States Supreme Court. He is an Adjunct Professor in the Graduate Tax Program at the University of Baltimore Law School. Mr. Laskin specializes in state tax cases under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
December 21, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to sabocat
Article 1 Sec 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
I have heard arguments as to why the "general Welfare" language doesn't mean what it seems to mean here and in the preamble but arguments that rely on states having that obligation and hence allowed to regulate it and the Congress not seem based on nothing but asshattery.
States no 14-50 were created subject to Congressional action and only have the powers granted to them via the Constitution. And I don't see anything in Article 4 that grants them authority denied to Congress.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article4
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
December 21, 2009 3:11 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
Given the tremendous existing intrusion of the government into people's lives, it's funny that the line is drawn at this not particularly expensive tax. We have already determined that the federal government can regulate whether a black people and white people can eat at the restaurant because it is a matter pertaining to Interstate Commerce. I agree with the policy, but it's a little hard to walk back Federal power into some sort of originalist libertarianism. Congress passes a great many taxes or tax credits which require people to do or not do things. The reason for the mandate is that people with no health insurance are gauranteed service in emergency rooms and leave bills they cannot pay. A taxi driver could just as well argue that he did not need auto insurance because he personally was never going to cause an accident, and if he did he'd pay it out of his own pocket. Individually, that may be true, but in aggregate uninsured people cost a lot of money to providers, who are the main driver of rising health care costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tchamp77
December 21, 2009 7:26 AM
Since no Republicans are on board, the conference committee should strip out all Republican amendments to the bill!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
December 21, 2009 10:22 AM in reply to tchamp77
please post that thought on every blog you can today, hopefully someone in Congress will read it and take it to heart.
No more "Mr. Nice guy", the R's have proven they don;t care about legislating, they are simply there to say "NO" to whatever their Democratic fellows propose, in both the House and Senate.
Franken's bill is a great example. If not for this partisan poison, there would have been a better HC bill.
Lets just hope the in the wake of this legislative malfeasance on the part of the R's, thebase that got roused for Obama re-ignites their pilot lights and turns out to encourage turnout in the 2010 elections.
If you thought 2008 was an historic election year, just wait for the next round.
2010 could prove to break all the molds, if we can just channel the public indignation at this obstructionism into votes for progressives on ballots across the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 21, 2009 7:46 AM
I really wish I could feel good about this but, from what I've seen, there are not enough controls on the inurance companies, the abortion compromise is an abomination, I doubt the subsidies will be sufficient and, when you get right down to it, this is a tax - a massive one - albeit, paid directly to private insurers instead of the government.
The CBO scores it as a slight plus but that's only because millions of Americans will be paying thousnds of dollars/year to the insurance companies for something they felt the did not want or could not afford. Somehow, I think a lot of them will be less than thankful aout that.
The mandate with a public option would have been palatable. Without it, I think it will come back and bite the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Flybynite
December 21, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to cawleybo
You are completely ignoring the massive transfer of wealth from haves to have nots under this bill. Where are all those subsidies coming from again? And who is going to benefit from them? Don't let yourself be blinded to the forest by the trees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 8:09 AM
Yes, and the legacy is already unfolding as Sen Dodd abandons real financial reform:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/12/21/gop_critics_in_senate_shaping_financial_overhaul_bill/?page=1
To everyone who advocated capitulation on HCR and is angered upon finding that the Dems are doing Republican-lite to other key Dem initiatives, please look in the mirror. But, hey, it's an historic achievement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
December 21, 2009 8:18 AM in reply to wbgonne
It's republican-lite because needing all 60 Dems we had to bring the Republican-lite Dems on board in order to get it passed. Such is the reality. Who is looking back in the mirror are Dem-voting conservatives in Nebraska. They are part of our caucus whether we like or it not. Had a Repub been in Nelson's place all we would have is the status quo. It sucks. But it is better to have something that sucks rather than really sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 8:38 AM in reply to acamus
You are utterly missing the point. Because of how things played out on HCR, now the landscape is established. But it didn't have to be that way. With a Dem President, an overwhelming House majority, and a near super-majority in the Senate you are resigned to Republican-lite measures because of some people in Nebraska who say all that can be accomplished is what the Repubs would do but for their insanity? Lord help us but Democrats simply do not know how to play the game. What a waste.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CommunityOrganizer
December 21, 2009 9:03 AM in reply to wbgonne
The super-majority in the Senate is illusory. Recall that Joe Lieberman campaigned for McCain. Still, every vote possible will be needed on climate change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 9:08 AM in reply to CommunityOrganizer
When analyzing the dynamics of the Senate there are two factors not immediately apparent: party discipline and presidential power. Those omitted ingredients are the cause of the present Democratic weakness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moloko+
December 21, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to wbgonne
There are many articles popping up describing how the abuse of filibuster has changed our government. Paul Krugman calls it a "A Dangerous Dysfunction".
The healthcare debate is only the most recent example of how our democracy is in peril. From the 2000 election on we saw that voting and election funding needs to be fixed. And from the healthcare debate we see that filibuster gives gives the Senate too much power. Others more observant than me could likely add to this list.
I think of these events as a beacon shining a light on what should be priorities of the American people. Lets repair our election process and this filibuster problem...then the rest will come out like it should - in my opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 9:19 AM in reply to Moloko+
I am not convinced that the filibuster is the problem. If the Dems had utilized their full leverage -- including party discipline and presidential leadership -- yet failed, then one might blame the filibuster. But HCR never approached that type of full-throated effort. I would imagine that the Dems were keeping their powder dry for a bigger battle but, fact is, there is no bigger battle than HCR. especially when it sets the tone for the future. (See the financial reform noted above.) The Dems will mightily regret how they caved in on health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 21, 2009 9:38 AM in reply to wbgonne
I have asked you about 10 times and you have refused to answer: How could Obama have frightened Ben Nelson and forced him to vote for a public option or medicare buy-in?
You haven't answered because you don't know. You just sit on the Internet and complain but have no ideas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 9:45 AM in reply to FreeRider
I just presented more ideas in the above several posts than you have in your entire life. Regardless, if you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the power of the presidency and the power of partisanship, then you are simply living in a pretend-world. Or. more likely, making excuses for the Democrats' failure of leadership. I'll tell you this: if the Republicans find themselves in the elevated position of power the Dems now occupy then you'll see how the game is played.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 21, 2009 9:52 AM in reply to wbgonne
Still haven't said how Obama could make Ben Nelson afraid of him.
You're the one living in the pretend world, acting as if Obama has some magic wand to corral Democrats on every issue he wants.
Is that the same magic wand that Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter and Clinton used to get Democrats to pass healthcare reform? Oh, wait . . . their magic wand must have been broken, too!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 9:58 AM in reply to FreeRider
Do you want me to write lines for Obama? And what about party discipline? And how about my comparison to Republicans wielding power? There are 2 possibilities and neither is appealing: either Obama and the EstDems really don't know how to exercise power or they do and they got exactly the health bill they wanted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 10:00 AM in reply to FreeRider
Oh, and stick your magic wand up your pony's ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 21, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to wbgonne
You act like a spoiled child acts when he/she can't answer a question. I am waiting too for you to answer FreeRider's question. Put up or shut the fuck up/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 21, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to wbgonne
If I did that, how could Obama wave it to make all Democrats march lock-step on every vote?
Tell me about how Bush used his magic wand to privatize social security and to get permanent tax cuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
December 21, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to wbgonne
Democrats DO know how to play the game. This legislation is what they want. Republicans only look more competent because the con they run is simpler -- all government is bad and all corporate and private control is good. Democrats have a tougher game -- keeping in good graces with people who want to actually improve peoples lives with good government and, at the same time, only pass legislation that advances corporate control over society and increases the wealth of the wealthiest. Do you think it's easy ceding health care to wasteful corporations while the vast majority of Americans want a public option, and drug re-importation, and choice over abortion, and ....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jward
December 21, 2009 8:23 AM
I am so happy! I'M going to drink to Harry--and Vickie and Ted, and Schumer, and all the rest, and all of us who put Obama in. Yes, in spite of all opposition, we can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
December 21, 2009 8:58 AM
Imperfectly exquisite. Medicare is shored up, 90+ percent with coverage, no preexisting condition rip off, and better consumer protection. As a hospital trustee with single payer leanings, I don't think this is Benedict Arnold territory. John Prine was right, though; all my friends turned out to be insurance...salesmen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 21, 2009 9:48 AM in reply to Old Marsalla
Medicare is shored up? So I guess you are ignoring those two reports from the CMS actuary stating that the Medicare cuts in this bill will lead to a significant decrease in services for the elderly. You have to be a partisan hack of an almost unbelievable magnitude to claim that half trillion dollar cuts in Medicare "shores" it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SteveGinIL
December 21, 2009 9:27 AM
This is a stake in the GOP's heart...
Yes, this could be the GOP Apocalypse, NOW.
It smells like. . . something that starts with "V".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 21, 2009 9:45 AM in reply to SteveGinIL
Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that. You just keep telling yourself that a bill that is immensely unpopular that forces Americans to buy insurance from privated companies and requres ten years of taxes for six years of benefits is going to be a "victory" for the Democratic Party. You should google "political suicide and health care reform" and look at the list of even left-wing blogs admitting the Dems are going to get killed in 2010 over this.
Here, I will handily link such a site for you:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16500/dont-pass-this-health-reform-bill
Get ready to say hello to Speaker Boehner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 21, 2009 10:06 AM in reply to masanf
Speaker Boehner...I'm not sure whether to laugh at the absurdity of that concept, or cry because there are people who actually think that would be a positive thing for America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SteveGinIL
December 21, 2009 8:00 PM in reply to masanf
Actually, passing this bill will ensure that the Democrats pick up as many seats as in the last election. People are HAPPY this passed cloture and that we will join the civilized world with a national health cares system. We won't be among the Darfurs anymore. Now if the Dems had FAILED, you would have had an argument about Speaker "Boner". As it is, history will be a-passin' by the Republican Party, as you split into TeaBagger Party and the TailGunner Joe Party. Nothing would please the Dems as much as the religious right no longer aligned with the loony right. Or is that the Silly Party?
Once we get enough Senators to get around the Blue Dogs, then you'll see some REAL government. Whatever they come up with in Conference Committee this time, it will all be approved after the next election. I expect them to be able to move up the 2014 date to perhaps the end of 2011, like Bush the Village Idiot moved up the tax cuts for the rich the year following the original bill which was passed through reconciliation.
The GOP isn't a governmental party; it only wants to dismantle government, on behalf of the corporations and the ultra- wealthy. They hate gov't because it is the only thing that can stop their raping of the populace. When they aren't in power, they do everything they can to make sure the Democrats can't actually act as a government. When they change Cloture to 50%+1 vote, the GOP will have no capacity to do ANYTHING to stop the juggernaut.
REAL GOVERNMENT! HALE-FUCKING-LUJAH!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
December 21, 2009 9:34 AM
The Hamsher/Palin/Schlafly/Norquist/PUMA Bus Tour Will Make it All Better
by high bitrate, Daily Kos
"I'm really impressed by the level of commitment to ideology that leads commenters to insult Al Franken on an Al Franken diary for not being progressive enough and for calling him a "douche". I'm going to thank Jane Hamsher and the entire paid firedoglake crew for stirring the activist pot and being willing to accept another 20 years of unsustainable status quo in order to proclaim "ALL OR NOTHING - DIE, POOR DIE", and thereby creating an atmosphere where people can proclaim that Al Franken is not doing enough.
"I'd also like to thank firedoglake and its mysterious donor base of eleventy kazillion progressives (even though it might seem a tad incredible that a media outlet can support a number of paid activist staff, considering that FDL didn't come up on my radar until this year) for keeping the dreams of PUMAs alive. You'd almost think their funding sources are mysterious, but they do so, so, so very much for all of us by helping in the climate of obstruction and blind rage, and in making common cause with Hitler/Death Panel poster carriers they help elevate American political discourse.
"If it weren't for Jane and the FDL crew, I couldn't have this dream job of being one of Rahm Emanuel's paid web commenters, nor would I get to sit in on vital meetings with Rahm and the President, coordinating my means of discussion on web forums and chat sites in order to sell out progressive ideas."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sabocat
December 21, 2009 9:46 AM
FDL:
The Senate's health care bill must be killed.... See More
It is an ungodly mess of errors, loopholes, and massive giveaways. When the American people find out what's actually in this bill, they will revolt. Congress and President Obama have no choice but to do better for health care than this bill.
Sign the petition: the Senate health care bill must be killed.
How bad is the bill?
Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not
1. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS
2. After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
3. Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court
4. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays
5. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits -- like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions -- until 2014 when the program begins.
6. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others
7. Grants monopolies to to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
8. No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years
9. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of 4 will rise an average of $1000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, you family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
10.
I could go on, but it should be clear: this is not reform. This is a con job.
Sign our petition: kill the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 21, 2009 10:15 AM in reply to sabocat
Killing the Senate Bill is absurd. There ARE many good things in it Progressives can support.
We fought the good fight to get a strong PO in the Senate Bill; or push it towards a more progressive design. And lost.
Its going to be what its going to be now. We'll continue the fight in conference and beyond to try to make it better.
FDL and MoveOn should focus there.
Instead of throwing a fit because the Senate Bill is not Progressive enough. We already know that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
December 21, 2009 10:25 AM in reply to willia451
Kudos. Let's not pull another Bush can't be much worse than Al Gore here. Of course vigilance is required and this is far from intellectually consistent, but more people are covered and good things are accomplished. It's not a revolution, but it's a start. Don't overestimate the power of the presidency and a 58 dem Senate. It isn't what any of us wanted, but do we really think fratricide is the answer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 10:33 AM in reply to Old Marsalla
No. Which makes all the more inexplicable the Est Dems decision to sell-out progressives on the public option even though it remained OVERWHELMINGLY popular across the country and througout the "debate."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr Lemming
December 21, 2009 9:59 AM
Interesting to see the desperation tactics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sabocat
December 21, 2009 10:13 AM
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/killthisbill?source=web&subsource=side
Kill the bill.
interesting name, Dr. Lemming
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 21, 2009 10:26 AM in reply to sabocat
So you agree with the Teabaggers and the obstructionist GOP that the bill should be killed?....But for different reasons. Umm, Ok, that clears it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
December 21, 2009 10:31 AM in reply to Dorn76
Dorn, I know some of the FDL libs are sincere, and absolutely correct in their judgement of this watered down bill. And I commend them for sticking to their guns from their left side perspective.
But too many of the posers who are referencing Jane's work are not sincere at all, they are simply trying to divide the left from the center.
I have nothing but respect for progressives who complain about this bill, for all the right reasons.
But the wingnut gamers who refer to those complaints because they have no argument of their own are just hypocrites.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 21, 2009 10:26 AM in reply to sabocat
So you agree with the Teabaggers and the obstructionist GOP that the bill should be killed?....But for different reasons. Umm, Ok, that clears it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 21, 2009 10:27 AM in reply to Dorn76
My question is doubly relevant, as you can see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
December 21, 2009 10:26 AM
There's no way either the disgruntled right OR the disgrntled left can take away the history of this moment.
It may not be what they want, but it is something that has never happened in this country before. So, whether you like it or not, it is historic, and represents more than a baby step in the battle for hearts and minds in our own nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 10:30 AM
"The disgruntled right" is the minority party. They are SUPPOSED to lose and be unhappy. The disgruntled left is within the majority. Big difference
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
December 21, 2009 10:37 AM in reply to wbgonne
None of that changes the fact that, even in it's diluted form, this legislation will represent historic progress in healthcare reform.
Once it is on the books, then it willbe time to scrutinize it exhaustively and look for openings in the process to improve it.
No doubt, every time we lean forward towards reforming the reform, the healthcare factories and insurance companies will spend millions fighting it.
But if this bill is any indication, we ARE gaining ground, an inch at a time, but considering how far we were driven back under Bush, every inch equals a stunning vistory, one more Public David winning out over the Corporate Goliath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 21, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to JEP07
I understand your point. But to follow your analogy, there is a time when you take inches because that is all you can get. And there is time when you take a yard. Knowing the difference is political wisdom. Here's another problem: I just checked and it seems probable that the Dems will lost at least one senate seat in 2010. Then what? Obama and the Dems better start moving the national discussion in a progressive direction or else they will get NOTHING when they lose the 60th senate vote because there will be no reservoir of popular support to draw upon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sarah
December 21, 2009 11:17 AM
If this bill pass, 30 million more Americans will have health insurance. Thus, a large proportion of the 20,000 people who die every year in this country because they do not have health insurance will not die. A large proportion of the thousands who file bankruptcy every year because of health care costs they cannot pay will not have to do that.
I am very concerned because the bill does not contain the cost control we so desperately need and thus feeds the endless and ever growing need of the health care providers, drug companies and insurance companies for higher profits and more money. But, at least a lot of people will live because of this bill. Thank you Harry Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaosJohn
December 21, 2009 11:55 AM
"If this bill pass, 30 million more Americans will have health insurance."
Where do you get that information? I'm one of the 30 million uninsured. Nobody is going to give me insurance. In fact, they're going to take a big chunk of money that I don't have and make me buy a crappy product from the same people who got us into this mess.
NO "FAVORS," please!
Making criminals out of those of us who aren't insured does NOT equal providing insurance, making it affordable, or anything like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaosJohn
December 21, 2009 11:57 AM
Martin Luther King warned about the "tranquilizer of gradualism" with respect to civil rights legislation. The Democrats should be paying attention now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
December 21, 2009 12:00 PM
One often overlooked aspect in this whole convoluted issue is the fact that stimulus funds are being invested to make health care records and information much more accessible and transparent. In the final analysis, the system will not improve until consumers have the ability to know what they are paying for and whether it is working. Obama is, for better or worse, a pragmatist. Last year at this time we were expecting an economic apocalypse, so the fact that we dems can argue about this is a stumble towards improvement. Take heart--at least we aren't republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
December 21, 2009 8:51 PM
So what exactly has OhLympia Snowe done for healthcare reform for the last eight years? Zip. Nothing. Zero.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?