TPMDC

Democrats Agree To Tentatively Trade Opt-Out For Trigger, Medicare Buy In, And More

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

An aide briefed on the negotiations among the gang of 10 offers up the rundown of the most important aspects of the public option compromise being sent to CBO.

If this trade-off carries the day, the opt out public option is gone.

In its place will be many of the alternatives we've been hearing about, including a Medicare expansion and a triggered, federally-based public option, the aide said.

As has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.

Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to some uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.

In addition to the new insurance options, the group has tentatively agreed to new, and strengthened, insurance regulations, which the aide could not divulge at this time.

As with the process Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid undertook in merging the Senate Finance Committee and Senate HELP Committee bills, CBO will evaluate a menu of options, some of them interchangeable, so there's no certainty that this list won't change in the coming days. However, a separate senior leadership aide says that all of the options sent to CBO include the (triggered) public plan. Reid and other senators declined to offer specifics earlier tonight, as part of an agreement with CBO not to publicly discuss the policy options on the table while actuaries analyze competing ideas.

Now it's a question of what the CBO says, and then: will Joe Lieberman object to the trigger? This trigger seems awfully hard to pull. But he's said he'd filibuster any kind of government insurance option--even triggered--in the past. And if he's out, what will Olympia Snowe do?

Late Update: The White House sends over a thumbs-up.

Comments (261) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

December 8, 2009 10:34 PM   

Half a loaf apparently........

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:36 PM   

LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE LOBBYISTS, AND THEIR POODLES: OUR SENATE!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:08 PM    in reply to CVille Dem

O! BA! MA!
And for the Wall Street boys!
O! BA! MA!
And for McChrystal, our guy in Kabul!
O! BA! MA!

(Lieberman kisses Nelson under a shower of dollar bills, everybody dances)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:05 AM    in reply to Why oh why

LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE PROGRESSIVES AND LIbS IN CONGRESS WHO CAVED RIGHT ALONG WITH THEM ..............YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh wait, sorry, you guys are always the victim. They were forced to cave.....wink, wink.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:22 AM    in reply to Viva!America!

Viva, you are such a transparent tool.

1) Referring to "libs".... been visiting your homies over at redstate.com and FreeRepublic lately? Your true colors are beginning to show.

2) If the "libs" and progressives are "caving right along with" the lobbyists' Senate poodles, you konw damn well why: your beloved Saint Barack of Obama and his pet put bull Rahm have been getting on the phone and twisting some arms. It's perhaps comforting to realize that Saint Barack does indeed know how to do a "Johnson Treatment" on legislators.... but it's now obvious that he only uses it on the progressive ones.

3) If the "libs" and progressives HADN'T "caved right along with" the rest of the lobbyists' Senate poodles, you'd be here frothing and gnashing and railing against them for torpedoing this Wonderful Health Care Compromise that embodies all that is Bipartisan and wonderful in Washington DC.

Tool.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:37 AM    in reply to gharlane

Gharlane of Eddore? Is that u? lulz

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 2:33 AM    in reply to mass_murdock

Silence, worm. Did you but know, I could wipe out your entire species with a flick of my ... uh... pseudopod... anyway, insect, nobody expects the -- oh, sorry, wrong sketch ....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:10 PM    in reply to gharlane

Bipartisan? How so?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:10 PM    in reply to Why oh why

LOL - under showers of 100 dollar bills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:13 PM    in reply to racetoinfinity

I meant this as a reply to "Cville Dem" 11:08 P.M.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:38 PM   

Bah.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:53 PM    in reply to TaosJohn

Humbug!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:38 AM    in reply to ARG in Chicago

boiled in plum pudding!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:38 PM   

Is it still in the bill where children can stay on their parents' insurance policies until they are 27? That was a big one especially in this economy.

If not, I'm sure the insurance lobbyists killed it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:05 PM    in reply to CVille Dem

Some states already have that- New Hampshire has it until 26, but the problem is that children's health coverage stops being untaxed at 25 when they are no longer able to be dependents. As a result, my folks have to drop me from their insurance in 2 weeks when i hit 25, even though I'm in grad school and can't afford my own, and am legally entitled to stay on their coverage for another year- their rates don't change with dropping my coverage, but they save a $200/month tax hit if I stayed on. Dependency and coverage need to be adjusted to match.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:15 PM    in reply to holyhandgrenaid

I think $200 a month might be a bargain if you could afford it. Also, most colleges have student health insurance that includes grad students. I hope you figure out a way to get covered. This is ridiculous!

Everyone should just be covered!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:43 PM   

I can live with this quite happily. Please don't tell any conservadems I said so or they'll turn against it. Let them think liberals are bawlingly unhappy. Among us though, the extension of Medicare to age 55 is an incremental approach I've heard some single-payer advocates advocate. That covers the age group most vulnerable to being without insurance. Maybe it's good they didn't come up with the idea until this week, or it would have been shot down as too liberal.

The trigger won't happen I'm sure, but once it works to extend Medicare, there will be no coherent argument against extending it to 50, or 45... Maybe it won't even be controversial...let's hope.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:48 PM    in reply to ericf

It's not a real Medicare expansion. The idea is to allow a few people over 55 to buy into Medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:10 AM    in reply to Jyrinx

it has to be funded somehow.

at this stage i would be thrilled with a buy in option to medicare.

and if that can pass this year, it would be so easy to just keep reducing the age at which people can buy in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EH

user-pic

December 9, 2009 1:55 AM    in reply to elle a

at this stage i would be thrilled with a buy in option to medicare.

Your standards are too low. With this plan the US will continue to have the worst health care system of any industrialized country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

December 9, 2009 2:49 AM    in reply to EH

We already have the worst. This might be the first step toward making it better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:08 AM    in reply to elle a

You won't be able to buy-into Medicare if you have insurance through your employer.

They're only letting the "uninsured" buy-in.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:17 PM    in reply to elle a

....except the post says that it will be very expensive to buy in, though I don't know how it could beat the $4-600 the Insurance Vampires want for a single person in this age range now (if you don't want a 10,000 deductible.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:02 PM    in reply to ericf

The problem with the whole thing is that it takes too darn long to phase in. People need help now. The medicare buy in is useless if it is too expensive for uninsured folks over 55 to purchase. Since that most uninsured people over 55 can't afford to pay for their own insurance as it is, I am afraid this is could be one of those very common provisions we see today that sound good on paper but don't really amount to much.

Details, we need details.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

December 9, 2009 2:48 AM    in reply to ericf

Yeah; the devil is in the details, of course, but this sounds like something I could live with. It's far from what I had hoped for going into this, but this at least would give us a base to build on to reach universal affordable coverage, and I don't think the severely watered-down public option that was remaining would have done that.

I would prefer that the Medicare buy-in also qualify for subsidies right off the bat, but at least it's a start.

I will be anxious to see what Bernie Sanders thinks of the compromise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:40 AM    in reply to slb

he didn't know much about the details -- the news had just broken -- but he didn't seem too upset or disappointed last night on rachel maddow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:45 PM   

"Majority Leader" "Harry Reid"

Oxymoron.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:45 PM   

Honestly, I'd much rather have a triggered strong public option than some shit-ass public option that would be doomed from the start.

There are a lot of people in the blogosphere who are willing to die in the last ditch for that shit-ass public option, and I'll be damned if I know why.

So far as I can see, the public option turned into an empty shibboleth four months ago and anyone who’s still treating it as a make-or-break is every bit as guilty of empty, gestural politics as Rep. Stupak.

The announcement of its death, even if incorrect, has had the salutary effect of revealing who’s just in it for the theater.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:04 PM    in reply to Davis_X_Machina

This package of programs is a hell of a lot better than what I was expecting at the end of last week, and I would not be surprised if this turns in a stronger CBO analysis than Reid's public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:16 PM    in reply to Stroszek

You have to say the magic words, or it doesn't count.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:18 PM    in reply to Stroszek

If the thing about expanding the coverage the Congress gets to include private individuals is the reality, then it would be an excellent basis for universal: how many have been sayin':

"Yo, Congress: how about giving those who pay your salaries, and for your health care insurance, the same deal you have?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:31 PM    in reply to JNagarya

It won't be the exact plan Congress gets. The benefits will probably conform to the various benefit tiers of the exchange, so there will be less coverage to keep premiums lower. The key to the sub-exchange is that it involves premium negotiations and allows the government to play hardball like a large employer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:56 PM    in reply to Stroszek

As long as it gets the gov'ts regulatory foot in the door, some progress has been made.

It's obviously going to take a few days for all the rumors and conflicting information to shake out. And I'm as anxious and impatient as everyone else to find out what gives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:46 PM   

Scooooooooooooooooooop.

Way to go TPM.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 8:00 AM    in reply to Alex39

Word.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:48 PM   

Not time to end the fight--time to INTENSIFY the fight for fair health care insurance for ALL.

Once again, the Dems have proven how spineless they are. Progressives will have to recharge, withhold donations, withhold votes. Not back down. Ever.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:12 PM    in reply to Maine Independent

The problem is that there are only two viable political parties in this country. So if you withold money and votes from Democratic candidates, you help Republicans win, which would make things worse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:34 PM    in reply to Maine Independent

Seems to me witholding donations and votes is the very definition of backing down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:58 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

So in other words, if you support the people who opposed what you wanted, you are backing down and if you don't support the people who didn't vote the way you wanted, you are backing down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:35 AM    in reply to masanf

First, I want to offer personal info: I am a liberal. Not even afraid of saying so. Heck, I even recognize that socialism is nothing more than saying, "hey neighbor, your house is on fire! Here, I'm going to help you put it out and help your family get out alive. Don't offend me by offering to pay me something. I'm being your neighbor."

There's my socio-political philosophy in verbose corrupt haiku fashion.

So, okee dokee: You write, "Once again, the Dems have proven how spineless they are. Progressives will have to recharge, withhold donations, withhold votes. Not back down. Ever."

First reaction: Gun, meet bullet. Bullet, meet foot.

Second reaction: Did you happen to see the vote count from when DINO Ben N's anti-abortion bill was set on the table of no return? 54 for tabling, 45 against.

Know what that represents? I mean I hope this isn't challenging like the calculus of tensor geometry here.

That is about the count difference of folks who probably would happily vote for a complete single payer system. That's what was accomplished with the past two election cycles. We now have a clear majority in the senate that would very likely support a fairly-to-really strong HCR to take effect maybe next Tuesday.

Third reaction: There are 6 people who claim positions with the majority caucus who are pooch screwers. How and why? Because the filibuster rule that needs to be eliminated. Sure: Getting rid of it means that, when you punish the other 54 senators by damning them along with the bad six, and the Ref*cklicans take control of the senate again, then the Dem minority will have zero options for opposing legislation like lifting all taxes for people making more than a $million, etc.

But I think it's a smaller price to pay than leaving it in place and allowing one or two or a small handful of senators from standing in the way of a clear majority's will.

Are the Dems "spineless"? Really? Go ahead, punish the 54 senators that want change and bring the Ref*cklicans back in control.

That's the way to do it.

Or else you could do the simple, simple math and realize that until the filibuster rule is done away with that maybe those 54 senators need about another 6-8 compadres next year, so they can kick Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Liberf*ck to the curb and let them chair the committee of cricket oversight in their basement bathroom offices.

Get over the "spineless Dems" meme, do the simple math, take a senate reality check, and realize that punishing the willing majority in the senate only spins us back to the bad old days of Ref*ck control.

Obviously WE have not our job well enough even yet, what with the absolute nightmare of rules in the senate. WE need to double-down and maybe see if we can put a 70 seat majority into the senate. Because of those rules, simple majority does not rule and we have the obligation to pump even more seats into the senate if we want to see this neo obstructionism put to an end.

Doing anything else is the spineless move that bows in submission to the neos and lets them make the final few changes necessary to complete their destruction of our democracy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:16 AM    in reply to TheRealFish

You replied to me but I didn't write any of the stuff you quoted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:41 PM    in reply to TheRealFish

Can I borrow your definition of socialism? I think it's really great, and easy for the faint of brain to understand! I await your permission, sir.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:39 AM    in reply to masanf

Don't know why that happened. I was responding to MaineIndependent, not masanf.

Hm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:18 AM    in reply to TheRealFish

Oops. You mention that already. Sorry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:46 AM    in reply to masanf

No one said support the people who opposed what you want, there's a process called primaries.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:50 AM    in reply to dtOZONE

Of course. Ask Ted Lamont. Sadly, electability is maybe even more important than purity or litmus tests, and a hard fact to deal with.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:54 PM    in reply to Maine Independent

Like the Progressives in Congress?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

December 9, 2009 2:54 AM    in reply to Maine Independent

What's wrong with taking this as a first approximation and building on it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:50 PM   

Win for TPM.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:53 PM   

and we sit here with this piece of crap while the rest of the world laughs. This is no reform Mr. Obama...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:46 AM    in reply to surflaw

holy shit. you were in the negotiations with the "gang of 10"? 'cause as far as i know, no one other than them, their staffs, and the CBO know what's in there.

dish the details!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:55 PM   

So... no one who works minimum wage is eligible for "expanded" Medicaid. I see.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:46 AM    in reply to Jake

Maybe. Maybe not. Details. Oh, and it also relies on whether there is a reconciliation committe in our future or whether the house chooses to just sign whatever comes out here and push it to the POTUS desk. No way to say until the actual, you know, details come out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:56 PM   

My first reaction was that this was capitulation. On second glance, it's not that bad. I don't like that the Medicare buy-in only starts at 55, but then again, that's a huge expansion. And, if you want to think about it demographically, not a bad idea, *especially* since this can start next year as opposed to the public option which wouldn't go into effect for years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:57 PM   

"Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option."

Ooooh, insurance companies can create non-profit plans with huge overhead so it is even more expensive than normal insurance plans? And this way they make sure there will be no public option? This is a great idea! NOT.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

December 9, 2009 2:57 AM    in reply to omefrans

Yeah, it's easy to see that trigger is not ever likely to get pulled. But once Medicare is an option on the exchanges, it could be a game changer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:21 AM    in reply to slb

How would it be a game-changer when a huge majority of the American public would have to access to Medicare at all? There may be a lot of "older" people in this country, but the last time I checked, most of us weren't over 55.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:57 AM    in reply to omefrans

please tell me you aren't being serious. because if you are, your post is ridiculous on about 372,922 different levels.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:57 PM   

Congrats, TPM.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:59 PM   

As soon as this piece of shit becomes law, I hope Bernie Sanders starts offering amendments to improve it....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:57 PM    in reply to gizmo

'cause he's been so effective so far.

Don't put this on one man's shoulders. And don't expect much either. Amendments still have to be voted on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:40 AM    in reply to gizmo

A Senate deal that removes the public option will never become law. Such a provision won't get by the House conferees.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:50 AM    in reply to gizmo

oh, look. another one who was in with the gang of 10 in the negotiations. everybody in that room apparently ran out of negotiations and immediately started posting in this thread.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 10:59 PM   

Okay, now that I've gotten over my initial pride in TPM, I've read through the details more carefully.

My take: this is a win. I know I'm not going to persuade the gloom brigade, because nothing ever does. But if you're not a card-carrying gloomster: between the expansion of Medicare and the expansion of the federal employees' plan, there's plenty of beef here whether or not that "trigger" ever gets pulled.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:03 PM    in reply to Alex39

Also, the nationally-based nonprofit plans ought to have a decent chance of increasing competition and bringing costs down. This is sort of the Swiss model ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:05 PM    in reply to Alex39

It sets on track for a Swiss/Dutch-style system while offering another route as a contingent. As with the public option route, this is only a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:15 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Why is it we take baby-steps when it comes such matters but we jump in the deep end of the pool without so much as a blink anytime some jackass gets a hard on for a war?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:38 PM    in reply to robertecrump

because we're a war-happy society

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

December 9, 2009 3:00 AM    in reply to robertecrump

War is an easier sell than social justice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:32 AM    in reply to slb

War is easier. That is actually factually true. In this land of massive overbearing ignorance we can almost take a baby step. Compromise compromise. The sadness of this overwhelms me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:24 AM    in reply to hollywood

War is easier, because a whole hell of a lot of people like the thought of the country in which they live gloriously kicking the crap out of someone. It is popular for politicians because, if it is managed properly, it is a huge distraction from other problems and they can be one of the few to state they were successful in winning a war. That boosts anyone's political career, if (and that is a huge IF) they don't royally screw up for six years on the way to that belated victory.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:35 AM    in reply to Alex39

yes a win indeed for all but the millions who will still be without health insurance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:01 PM   

I am curious, if an insurance company feels it is being forced, via the threat of a public option, to participate in a non-profit exchange, how will they not respond by raising premiums in their for-profit plans?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:36 PM    in reply to masanf

um because then everyone flocks to the non profit plans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 6:48 AM    in reply to dtOZONE

Precisely. In case masanf has forgotten, this was exactly the complaint conservatrolls like him had about the public option in the first place (last summer). How soon they forget.

Clearly, conservatrolls' memory is quite volatile. It's a wonder most of them can remember to wipe their butts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:28 AM    in reply to Signalman

I never even once asked that question or anything like it, so you clearly have me mixed up with someone else. Amazing how asking a simple question can get one labelled a troll here.

As for non-profits, they are already the mechanism that covers a large portions of Americans (Blue Cross anyone), and I seem to recall premiums increasing still, don't you. Non-profits will do absolutely nothing, at all, to lower premiums and that has been proven now for decades. But hey, go on and insulut me for something that others "like me" have written.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:28 AM    in reply to masanf

For some reason, my extensive fisking of your response didn't next properly, and posted way, way down the page.

Please see my top-level comment (including your comments, to which I reply) below at December 10, 2009 10:21 AM.

I look forward to your reply, masanf.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:29 AM    in reply to Signalman

Next = nest. Geez.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:37 AM    in reply to Signalman

So, under your formulation, anyone who disagrees with anything being put forth by the Democratic Party is a troll?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:25 AM    in reply to masanf

"So, under your formulation, anyone who disagrees with anything being put forth by the Democratic Party is a troll?"

Is that what I said? No.

Is that what I think? No.

But I do notice *yet another* leading question from you, which further cements the notion in my mind of you as a dishonest and misrepresentative conservatroll.

If you want to know what I think, then act like a man and ask me to clarify myself. Don't come off the hip with a dishonest leading question like that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:36 AM    in reply to dtOZONE

You mean the non-profits consisting of plans being run by the same people? As I wrote in a post below this one, non-profits have been the domniant players in many states for years, and it has done absolutely nothing, at all, to lower costs. Non-profit is not synonymous with low cost, and that has been proven repeatedly in this country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:03 PM   

Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would [be] offered on the exchanges in every state.

This gets us closer to the regulated, non-profit private coverage available in Germany and Switzerland.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:17 AM    in reply to AdAbsurdum

Technically, yes, but the private insurers in Germany and Switzerland (or Israel, for that matter) have basically been trained to accept a tight regulatory framework, whereas the private insurers in the US are basically attuned to bleeding every cent out of their "customers".

Do you trust the state-by-state insurance hegemonies to play nice? Sorry, I don't.

(The Swiss, being late reformers, pay through the ass for healthcare too.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:03 PM   

"For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive..."

And uninsured individuals will be able to afford this in what way now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:14 PM    in reply to masanf

"For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive..."

This means the medicare buy in will be meaningless for most people who need it and need it now. Thanks Senators.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:19 PM   

We should get the bill passed and then pressure Congress to implement the Medicare buy-in with the subsidy in 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:19 PM   

How many uninsured people are going to die between now and 2011? How many more are going to die before the trigger's pulled? The Dems will lose the House and Senate if this passes. Voters counted on help with medical bills now, not 2 years from now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:20 PM    in reply to debbiedoesnothing

Hello, President Palin. The only people who'll have any reason to vote in 2012 are the fanatics who worship her.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:21 PM    in reply to debbiedoesnothing

Can you tell I'm pissed? I think I've voted in my last election. It doesn't matter who wins anymore - we're all screwed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

December 9, 2009 12:19 AM    in reply to debbiedoesnothing

The correct moral from this evening's lesson is that we haven't been nearly careful enough about who we elect.

Vetting candidates in the primaries and encouraging good candidates to run by providing support is vital. In most states if you wait for what the state party provides it is way too late.

Ned Lamont, although he did not pull it off, is a good example of what should be done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:14 AM    in reply to debbiedoesnothing

This does not make any sense. What if Abolitionist had refused to vote when Slavery was not banned before the Civil war. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Even if they pass the Bill that was written only by you, there is no guarantee that the next congress or President will not kill it. It is important to keep up the good fight to make sure that progress will be made. Nothing was ever achieved by saying,
If at first I don't succeed, Cry Cry again.......

Cheers

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:03 AM    in reply to RKD2

There was a difference between the parties before the Civil War. Now, both parties are nothing but patsies for corporate weasels. And it's hardly a case of "if at first you don't succeed." This isn't my first electoral disappointment. It's not the first time I've voted for someone and campaigned for them only to have them fail to keep promises. I've been fighting for health care reform for 30 years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:13 PM    in reply to debbiedoesnothing

The GOP knows one word "NO". How's that the same as the Democratic Party, or even close?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:27 PM    in reply to Dorn76

that, and 'green balloon'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:21 PM   

The media, lawmakers and us "the public." Its like the blind person lipreading the dumb person for the benefit of the deaf person.

All three however can smell failure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:33 PM   

Clink your champagne glasses Blue Cross and Cigna. The public option - no matter how awful - would force cost containment, potentially getting stronger as costs inevitably skyrocket, which they will. This is a gift to the companies that let 45,000 people a year die.

Socialism for the rich, this garbage for the rest of us.

It never changes. It never will. This is an embarrassment. We are nothing but servants to corporate America.

Has anyone removed an Obama sticker from their rear windshield? If so, what solvent works best?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:02 AM    in reply to TopJack

No matter how awful, you want the public option?

so basically you don't care for meaningful health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

December 9, 2009 12:21 AM    in reply to Viva!America!

What is currently up for debate is whether or not the current bill is meaningful reform or not. If it is not, those in favor of actual reform should probably vote it down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:33 PM   

Debbie, how many have died in the 60-plus years since national health care was first proposed? If there is any decent progress in this bill it has to pass. We never had the votes for anything stronger ... that's now obvious as it always was. All Republicans Senators are slime, and four or five of the Democrats are. Simple, depressing arithmetic. Vote this thing down, and NOTHING gets done for several more decades. Social Security was a terrible bill in 1936. But it endured and improved and is indispensible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:37 PM   

B U L L S H I T

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:39 PM   

What about Wyden's "take your employer based health care subsidy with you" proposal? Did it make it in? If it did and employers are required to offer a voucher, will the voucher cover most if not all of the buy in to Medicare?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:02 AM    in reply to Derek Stodghill

Odds for the adoption of the Wyden ammendment are slim, but I would be quite happy to be wrong about this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

December 9, 2009 12:04 AM    in reply to Derek Stodghill

That's an amendment and it hasn't been voted on yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:42 PM   

Waiting until 2014 is like, the house is on fire but we're not going to pour water on it until day after tomorrow. What is UP with that shit?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:48 PM    in reply to JimmyBobby

What is up with that shit is Americans, as a whole, are really lazy and will not riot in the streets. Hey It's Christmas, and the greatest golfer in the history of mankind is just as fallible as your drunken father.

Congress has learned Americans like taking it up the ass, no matter what gender you are, or what race you are.

This country is B U L L S H I T

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:53 PM    in reply to JimmyBobby

Waiting until 2014 is like, the house is on fire but we're not going to pour water on it until day after tomorrow. What is UP with that shit?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Joe

user-pic

December 8, 2009 11:45 PM   

Well, the lobbyist who sent that "WE WIN" e-mail was right. The insurance racketeers won, everyone else lost!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:45 PM   

Groan. Mandates?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:51 PM   

Senator DeMented predicted health care reform would be Obama's Waterloo, but it's starting to look more like his Verdun -- an immensely bloody and expensive battle just to gain a few yards of ground.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:51 PM   

I work for a not for profit health insurance company that administers MedAdvantage (Medicare replacement policies.) These policies were subsidized since 2005 with really low premiums and in 2010 the subsidies are being cut back. Elderly people are reeling from the shock of how much they actually have to pay now and for the next few years for premiums to get the utterly excellent insurance they have come to expect - and only 14% of the original subsidy has been cut so far. I can't imagine having no subsidy at all for 55 - 64 year old folks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:15 AM    in reply to morriganinoregon

I work for a not for profit health insurance company that administers MedAdvantage (Medicare replacement policies.

Some background on that one:

Under the Medicare Advantage program, created by a Republican-led Congress in 2003, the government buys private insurance coverage for Medicare patients in lieu of paying for health services directly. Supporters say MA plans have the advantage of delivering additional care to Medicare patients, including dental and eye services not covered under the traditional program.

Those additional benefits, combined with a heavy dose of marketing, have made the program enormously popular. This year, a record-high 10.5 million seniors — or 23 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries — are enrolled in MA plans, according to a June report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, an independent panel that recommends Medicare reforms to Washington policymakers.

But the extra care doesn’t come cheap. Despite promises that private plans operating under MA could eventually save money, the cost to treat the average patient in the MA program is 14 percent higher than the cost to treat the average senior under traditional Medicare.

A part of that additional cost, MedPAC noted, “consists of funds used for plan administration and profits and not direct health care services for beneficiaries.”

The argument that private plans are necessary to keep Medicare sustainable, Berenson said, “is belied by the fact that private plans always seem to require more money.”

So Medicare ends up paying an additional 14% to subsidize insurance company profits and bloated administrative expenses, when it could have provided the additional coverage (i.e. dental and eye) that makes "Medadvantage" attractive for less money itself.

Now that's what I call Republican health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:28 AM    in reply to morriganinoregon

yeah, you're part of the waste that needs to be done away with-- rethug privatized medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 11:51 PM   

wasn't the whole point of Reid pushing to include a public option in the first place was to have a higher starting point for negotiations? remember this past summer that a public option (much less a robust one) was considered impossible/impassable and the idea declared dead, so yes, what we have here is a compromise, but might it not be better than anything they would have gotten had they STARTED with a trigger or NO public option?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:02 AM   

What a needlessly convoluted, complicated, fucked-up mess.

Way to go Senate. Once again you've handed the lobbyists what they demanded. Once again you've shit on the people.

I won't be able to stomach them parading around about this piece of shit and claiming it's a great achievement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:05 AM   

Good luck trying to get any of this crap through the house. Calling Nancy Pelosi!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:46 AM    in reply to jo3wang

This thing will sail right through the House, because as the bill in the Senate proves, they don't care about reform anymore, they care about the political victory they think will come from passing a bill that is called reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:09 AM   

Keep in mind, everyone, that this is a tentative agreement. There's still plenty of time to call, fax, write, petition, etc. your Senators and congressperson!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:18 AM    in reply to Ethan

There's still plenty of time to call, fax, write, petition, etc. your Senators and congressperson!

Sure. And if you've got a couple of million to throw around in campaign contributions, you might even be able to buy one or two that the insurance lobby hasn't fully nailed down yet.

But better hurry: It's a seller's market, and supplies are limited.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:10 AM   

Good God, I hope the progressives in the House have the sense to kill this if this shit is the final bill. We're not just talking about potentially losing seats in 2010 anymore. This is about the viability of the Democratic party long term.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:19 AM   

We been screwed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:19 AM   

Trigger that Mandate TOO or just take it out completely!!!

Then whatever reforms you can get to improve things, is what we get.

No true public option = NO MANDATE!!

Use the bailout money if you want to load up the health insurance companies with cash as you have Wall Street, after all you already took that money from US!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:31 AM    in reply to synchronicity

That seems so obvious and yet must be said. The deal was that the government would force people to buy insurance if it could provide them reasonable insurance to buy. If mandates are in this bill, it will be criminally negligent of our elected representatives, and cause for a massive party among anyone working for an insurance company.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

December 9, 2009 3:13 AM    in reply to SkippyFlipjack

Agreed. Mandates with little in the way of affordable options is a non-starter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 12:57 AM   

Yes, the Democratic senators are underestimating how badly people will react to mandated payments to the insurance companies with no public alternative. People will freak out in the streets, it is a terrible thing and perhaps unconstitutional. They are foolish to unlink it from the public option.


On the Medicare advantage, it has been a good program for me. However, anyone who signs up for an advantage program misses the 6 month window of opportunity to enroll in a medicare supplemental insurance plan based on age, with no consideration of prior medical condition. Most seniors are ineligible for any supplemental insurance once that 6 month window has passed.

A remedy would be to immediately open that window again for people leaving the advantage plans, so they can get supplemental insurance with the no-prior conditions clause.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:03 AM   

This compromise shows how hard this thing is to do, Bill Clinton has been telling Dems get this thing passed warts and all. You can't change healthcare, 1/7th of the economy overnight. Congress will come back to this in the months and years to come. Incremental change is the only way the in built conservative nature of the US political system can work. You may hate it but that is the way it is, if the Bush Administration had attempted such a radical legislative agenda the same checks would have come into play. Lose the battle win the war?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:08 AM   

People: Get a goddamn grip on yourselves. This is not the final product, it's only the Senate's version — and we don't even know most of the details since Senators aren't telling us until it's scored.

The strategy has always been to get the best public option we could out of the House and use the strength of the progressive caucus as leverage in the conference committee negotiations. We've had months — years — to observe the dysfunction that is the United States Senate. Do you all not see how important it is to pass almost any healthcare bill at all out of the Senate? If we can do that, at least the process will move forward and we can work on fixing the flaws in conference. The chances of that happening are actually quite good.

The above comments sound like hysterical children, treating this leak as the last word when it's barely the first, and again sounding the alarm that liberalism is dead, dead, dead and healthcare reform will never, ever happen. In reality, all you Chicken Littles are just making things worse. Most of the comments here are an embarrassment to the netroots.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:23 AM    in reply to Big River Bandido

Flagged!! You are way too level headed for this thread. Hysterics only!!!!!!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:36 AM    in reply to Big River Bandido

Jeez, they've got the world by the balls, you think you're going to undo it with a single bill? Did you expect them to just roll over? Stop hyperventilating like a bunch of goddamn republicans and get a grip. Learn from it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:11 AM   

BIg River...Still Waters Run Deep...I hate that politics is now treated like the NFL playoffs. There is so much more at stake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:25 AM    in reply to kingsty

Politics is "now" treated like the NFL playoffs? When hasn't it been a game?

I don't think the NFL had playoffs in Lyndon Johnson's day, certainly not in Franklin Roosevelt's day, but both those men were consummate strategists who played politics as though it were football, or poker. Ultimately, one needs to have a strategy in crafting progressive legislation that can get through the Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:25 AM   

The gang of whimps has cowardly ran with their tails between their legs and the Repugnicants reel with laughter.

The Insurance bought U.S. Senate is worthless and this latest news only makes that more true.

As the Repugnicants need to form a Whig Party for their somewhat less than unreasonable ilk, the Democrats who are progressive should form a real Party of, by, and for the people.

The Revolution will be televised and talking heads will blather on and on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:29 AM   

If this turns out to be the plan, I'm done with being Dem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 2:18 AM    in reply to chigger

Agreed. Last election will be my last time voting Dem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 4:44 AM    in reply to DA in LA

For crying out loud--because you prefer all the efforts the Republicans have made on Health Reform since 1946? If you and your disenchanted brethren do not go out and vote for Dems, the Republicans will be back in power and if you think things are messed up now, give those guys another 8 and you'll see the demolition of this country. It isn't all the Democrats--it's 5 or 6 Democrats in the Senate that have thoroughly undermined this bill...Be mad at them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 7:08 AM    in reply to DA in LA

responsible republican :: teabagger

reasonable democrat :: you

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 11:14 AM    in reply to chigger

I hope you are BS-ing. The GOP healthcare reform bills were just fantastic, weren't they? Go take a nap, troll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:42 AM   

The D's were given a task, and a mandate by being given the executive branch and large majorities in both bodies of congress, courtesy of the American people to fix what is wrong with this country...and they're f'ing it up royally. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I hope they enjoy the time in power because it'll be short.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:47 AM   

I HATE SENATORS LIBERMAN, LANDREAU, & NELSON! THEY ARE UNDERCOVER SEMI-RACIST REPUBLICANS! WIN OR LOSE ON HEALTH CARE REFORM, THEY MUST GO! I TRULY WISH THAT THEIR HEALTH TAKE A TURN FOR THE WORSE!!

BY: Andre aka Dreyton Jordan

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:14 AM    in reply to Angry Mad Black Man

Semi-racist? In what way?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 10:43 AM    in reply to Angry Mad Black Man

Wow, glad to see you are civil. Wishingn someone's health gets worse because you disagree with their politics? I am glad to see you tolerate dissent. What a true patriot.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:49 AM   

I have given about $30,000 since 2004. The next sound the Democratic Party is going to hear out of me is the sound of my checkbook snapping shut. This is disgraceful, cowardly, and corrupt, and I will have nothing to do with a political party that engages in it. If we're going to have Republicans in power, then let's put the Republicans in power.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 3:46 AM    in reply to CWPP

um... we just DID you moron! See U.S. Federal Government, 2000-2008

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 1:51 AM   

Big River I agree entirely, Politics has/is always been a game of strategy. LBJ and FDR, as you say knew that, but under today's totally partisan 24/7 Cyber cycle every set back is mourned as a defeat, every minor gain trumpeted as a major victory. When this bill passes any progress made will be diluted by the partisan bickering of the 24 hour news cycle. The real point here is that a major healthcare bill will be enacted probably within a year of Obama being elected. Imperfect yes, Impossible to implement perhaps, but it will be on the books, a building block towards a better system for all. Progressive legislation will have passed through Congress. The lobbyists wanted nothing to happen and may have inserted enough language to assuage their bosses but it will remain a fact that healthcare reform passed and the country, teabaggers notwithstanding, had a proper debate about a system that is failing most and needs to cover many.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 4:47 AM    in reply to kingsty

Yes. Thank you for the sanity--I was parched.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 2:08 AM   

We'll need to see the details, but it looks like we get:
- No discrimination against pre-existing conditions;
- No dropping of insurance for health reasons;
- Coverage for 95 percent of the population;
- Medicare buy-in for people aged 55-65;
- Unspecified "new, and strengthened, insurance regulations."

Wow, what a catastrophe! Let's never give a dime to Democrats again!

(Come on, people. It's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. This is far from perfect, and as I said we need to see the details, but it would still be a HUGE step forward).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?