
What a difference a week makes. After casting votes to kill the Senate health care bill, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are meeting with high-level White House officials as Democrats try to reach sixty votes.
When Harry Reid announced that his health care bill would include a public option, but that Washington would allow individual states to opt out, it left him basically no wiggle room. He lost the cautious support of Snowe and suddenly needed to run the table in his caucus.
In the hours and days afterward, it became clear that a clean sweep would be difficult, if not impossible. Days before Thanksgiving recess, leaders began negotiating with conservative Democratic hold outs on a possible compromise, modeled on Snowe's trigger plan. And if you wanted some evidence that, on balance, the discussions are currently favoring the centrists, Tuesday offered a pretty clear picture of that.
Snowe in particular continues to speak of health care reform as a project she's a part of. Yesterday, defying her party's own talking points, she told The Hill that a new CBO report, regarding the impact of the Senate legislation on insurance premiums, is encouraging news for reformers.
The CBO report, she says, indicates that the legislation "makes strides, without question" toward extending affordable coverage. On this score she sees room for improvement: "We have to be sure that we are providing the most affordable plans to Americans, and that's not abundantly clear at this point," she said. "That's what's of concern to me."
But it's not just her. Susan Collins, Snowe's Maine colleague, told reporters yesterday that she's been meeting with Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform, and DeParle's deputy Jeanne Lambrew.
Those negotiations are ongoing, and Collins is a tougher sell than Snowe, but for the first time in weeks Collins suggested she may be in play.
"I made very clear that I could not support the bill as it's currently drafted, and that there would have to be substantial changes, but I certainly hope that that will be possible," Collins told reporters. "I think there is unease on both sides of the aisle about specific provisions in this bill, and that it's possible that we can come up with alternatives that will garner bipartisan support."
Collins says she's "not a fan," of the latest public option compromise being discussed. Still, one Democratic aide said Collins' vote might even be more gettable than some of the recalcitrant conservative Democrats.
As always in Congress, the situation is very fluid. Momentum shifts directions very suddenly. But the very fact that so much focus is being placed on these two women should be writing on the wall to public option supporters.
CranialRectalLoopback
December 2, 2009 10:35 AM
Of course they're back in play. There will be a trigger, which means there will be no public option. Can someone, ANYONE, cite a trigger that was ever pulled except Cheney pulling the trigger on his lawyer friend?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NoVA Dem
December 2, 2009 10:36 AM
Not surprising though. This is just a long pre-planned dance playing out its time. Look at the numbers in support for Maine and Nebraska and you can see why Nelson will probably vote no and Snowe and Collins can find the space to fill the void.
Public option is weak and lame anyway, what's the point anymore? Every liberal in America should read Paul Starr's piece in the Times over the weekend on putting our efforts at getting this thing on a quicker timeline rather than supporting a meek public option. As a longtime supporter of the public plans, I'm done with it. Let's shoot for real reform instead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 11:30 AM in reply to NoVA Dem
Yeah, I'm also inclined to pull the plug on the brain-dead vegetable that is the "public option" currently before the Senate.
Nothing that is on the table is worth fighting tooth and nail over. Let's get the current round of reforms into law now, and move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minnesotan
December 2, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Exactly. I think one of the biggest problems we've had to HCR over the years has been that it's become a vicious cycle - we've put off reform for so long in this country that we want/need legislation that fixes all of the problems at once, which only places a bigger burden on reform as it creates a political environment that's almost impossible to pass anything that big and sweeping, which only lets reform slide even further away and the problems in our system compound, making the next round of talks even more cumbersome because there are even more problems to address. A lot of our biggest programs in government - such as Medicare and Social Security - have been revisited and tweaked over the years to improve upon them. It looks like healthcare, unfortunately, will have to go down the same path. Lay a foundation now and let the next Democratic President build on it.
I've said it before, but if we had passed just incremental reform in 1994, the public option would most likely been a reality in these talks. Alas, with everything else we're trying to accomplish (exchanges, no denial of coverage) public option will be left out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
December 2, 2009 1:31 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
I'm afraid I've been forced to conclude the same thing. The tattered corpse of Health Insurance reform, (almost no health CARE reform to be found in this compromised turd) has been beaten and bludgeoned until it is but a stain on the floor.
And before the first numb nut declares piously Don't let the prefect be the enemy of the good!, kindly take that phony, irritatingly banal straw man argument and shove it deep, where the sun don't shine! NOBODY has ever argued for any model which could be called "perfect". We are months past talking about anything which could honestly be labeled "good".
What we are fighting over now, is the chewed carcass of one of the most clear mandates the voting public has handed to any party or politician in many, many moons.
Compromise, the shabby, polymorphous illusion of progress has finally killed the beast beyond utility. If this increasingly compromised travesty is actually passed: and it compels all citizens to pay FOR-PROFIT corporations an onerous or intolerable financial burden or face stiff penalties, then it had better actually do some good!
What we are being "delivered" through the wonders of Congressional venality, is a counter-productive piece of work which will actually enable relatively few people who aren't insured through their employers and aren't within (I predict) twice the Federal poverty line, to qualify for assistance to acquire "affordable" insurance. The original Senate version of the bill, I believe, only added about 5% who could actually compete in the "Insurance Exchanges". Let's compromise some more!
30 million new people covered? Bull hockey! We are already whittling away at coverage, cost controls and if we actually have strong, useful regulations emerge from this process, I'll eat Karl Roves hat!
What we WILL get is an abomination which won't work, won't help and won't solve nearly any problems. The public will (rightly) blame the Democrats for squandering their crystalline clear mandate and the Republics will hammer craven Dems across the nation with this horse's head of a bill. Not only will this poison the process of GENUINE, HEALTHCARE reform for years, it will likely be the end of Democratic majorities for some time.
As hard as it may be to believe, even 123 people dying per day while we try to fix the system may be better than accepting such a flawed travesty. It enriches the Insurance parasites by hundreds of billions of new profits while making health care even more dysfunctional, yet still mandated upon pain of penalty. How many more will die while we attempt to fix or redo a toxic, industry-written "solution" which will lock us in for years and be a weapon against us?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allastair
December 2, 2009 10:38 AM
I keep asking this because I still don't understand. Why exactly is the "trigger" a helpful compromise? Snowe would clearly be just as happy without it and no one in the Democratic caucus, as far as I can tell, thinks the trigger is any kind of substantive reform. So whose vote is actually being bought with this nonsense? I mean, I know there are maybe one or two Senators that are dumb enough or cynical enough to play along with it, but are there as many as 10? Is there a single Public option advocate out there in the real world who will be at all placated by a trigger?
It seems to me that if you are going to give up on the public option, you might actually want to negotiate for some sort of real concession, like maybe better subsidies or stricter insurance regulations, but to give it up for something like a "trigger" which is everyone knows is basically imaginary, seems ill-advised. It isn't good policy and the political value completely escapes me?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 2, 2009 10:49 AM in reply to allastair
So whose vote is actually being bought with this nonsense?
Senate liberals who need some sort of fig leaf to hide behind when they vote for a bill that does not include a meaningful publi option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 2, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to Peter Principle
absolutely correct. It's theater at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allastair
December 2, 2009 10:57 AM in reply to Peter Principle
But the problem with this is that, as far as I can tell, no one is fooled by this. The "fig leaf" in other words, is transparent and everyone has made it pretty clear that they are aware of it. There is no constituency for a trigger. So really, why would they bother? This seems to be a compromise that gives no one anything they actually want which is, more than anything else, bizarre.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 11:38 AM in reply to allastair
I am a constituency for a trigger, if it gets us cloture on the current round of HCR -- which in any event isn't going to benefit all that much from the tattered remnant of a public option currently on the table.
A trigger could actually be helpful to the extent that it provides a mechanism for revisiting HCR in a few years, and to the extent that it puts pressure on insurance companies not to "go nuclear" with rates in the near term in order to undermine public support for HCR (and win repeal).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 2, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
revisiting HCR in a few years
hilarious! Is a few: two years? Three years? Four years? or more?
The dems get to own this piece of crap. Good luck!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The HCR legislation is not a piece of crap. I will proudly "own" it, and push for future improvements.
The public option that is currently on the table in the Senate bill is a piece of crap, I agree. I would actually prefer that it be eliminated or triggered so we don't have to "own" it.
Of course I would prefer to have my single payer and a shiny pony, but I would also rather get something done in the spirit of progress and incrementalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 2, 2009 1:26 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
my favorite part is gonna be progressives voting for it. How will their words ever seem like anything but hollow once they vote for:
the stupak amendment enshrined in the conference bill, denying illegal immigrants the ability to buy inurance with their own money in an exchange (leaving these millions to emergency room care), no repeal of the anti-trust exemption, and no mechanism to ensure that any savings brought on by this legialtion are actually delivered to mandated consumers, instead of the industry. Oh, and if the tax union insurance plans, that will be the cherry on top. Go Dems!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 2, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Here's a good one:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mr-president-explain-us-why-we-should
Mr. President, Explain To Us Why We Should Even Want This Crappy Healthcare Bill
which cites this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902425.html?sid=ST2009112903163
A 1996 federal law called HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, prohibited rescissions unless consumers defrauded the insurer or deliberately misrepresented their medical condition. But the federal agency responsible "has done nothing to enforce those rights or to ensure that states do so," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said in a hearing last year.
An official testifying for the agency, Abby L. Block, confirmed that it had taken no enforcement action. She said her hands were tied unless it appeared that a state was not "substantially enforcing" the federal requirements.
Despite the HIPAA standard, most states have allowed rescissions even if policyholders' misrepresentations were accidental, the staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported this year.
Now, Congress is trying to do something about it again. The Senate bill reaffirms that insurers cannot rescind coverage unless the policyholder made a fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation.
[second time's a charm! it just needed to be reaffirmed, not enforced]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 2, 2009 11:21 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Exactly.
It seems there are those who are for HCR who don't realize that ther is opposition to it.
Democracy is compromise -- and it has its enemies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allastair
December 2, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
I am a constituency for a trigger, if it gets us cloture on the current round of HCR
My whole point is that I don't see how it does. Why would it? A trigger doesn't buy any votes. Its Snowe throwing an invisible bone to the other side of the aisle but there is no real support for it. That is because no one creating any political pressure on this issue actually thinks a trigger is at all meaningful.
What I am saying is that congressmen who want a public option will either vote the bill down or not if it is not included but its hard to see how a trigger changes that equation. Certainly no one who will actually make a difference in the vote has suggested that it would.
A trigger could actually be helpful to the extent that it provides a mechanism for revisiting HCR in a few years, and to the extent that it puts pressure on insurance companies not to "go nuclear" with rates in the near term in order to undermine public support for HCR (and win repeal).
I don't consider myself overly cynical but in my mind it is almost entirely out of the realm of possibility that it will work this way at all. Of course we have no details yet but I am willing to bet anyone anything they like right now that when/if we do get details on this trigger, the benchmarks will be weak and that the insurance industry will expend far more energy and resources either trying to weaken the benchmarks further or gaming the system so that it appears they are meeting the benchmarks. They will do that because, like the current health care debate, they fully recognize that is far cheaper for them to lobby than it is to change their behavior.
Ultimately, what I believe is that if we can't win with the public option, we should at least try to wring some more significant concession before abandoning it. The trigger is worthless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to allastair
You're conveying the orthodox reaction to the trigger. You say it won't work. My question is, why can't we make it work? At least to some extent?
Why can't we set benchmarks and test whether or not they have been met? Independently, if necessary? Even if the mechanism isn't automatic, why can't we use it as a "trigger" for further congressional action, and as meaningful political cover for stronger action (i.e., we gave them a chance to improve, etc.). It's clear that we are going to have to revisit HCR one way or another, and having some kind of "trigger" timeframe built into current law would be helpful to that process.
It may not be pure gravy, but I think it does add something important.
I'm beginning to suspect that some of the reflexive opposition to a trigger stems from an unacknowledged concern among progressives that insurance companies will manage to hold their costs (or cost growth) down sufficiently (i.e., "game the system") to meet the benchmarks. We should want that outcome. We should be seriously concerned that under the HCR bill as currently structured, we won't get that outcome.
If a trigger is even marginally helpful in holding costs down for millions of Americans, then we should employ it. And I say this as someone who would prefer single-payer. But perhaps I don't have sufficient hatred for the corporate profiteers to be blinded to the fact that they've already won this round.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allastair
December 2, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Why can't we set benchmarks and test whether or not they have been met? Independently, if necessary?
For the same reason that we can't construct a decent public option. Because, if you have been paying attention, it will be pretty clear that the Senate hasn't shown any willingness to force that kind of result. We can do all sorts of things to put pressure on insurance companies. Of course it is possible to construct a trigger that would be strong enough to actually influence insurance company behavior just like it is possible to create the same result through a much more heavy handed type of regulation. But if there was any willingness in the Senate to do anything like that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I will say it again, I will bet you anything you like that whatever the trigger ends up being, it will be specifically constructed to be toothless and ineffective.
I'm beginning to suspect that some of the reflexive opposition to a trigger stems from an unacknowledged concern among progressives that insurance companies will manage to hold their costs (or cost growth) down sufficiently (i.e., "game the system") to meet the benchmarks.
First, if you think that "manage to hold their costs (or cost growth) down sufficiently" and "gaming the system" are the same thing, then this is basically a pointless conversation.
Second, your bit about reflexive anti-corporatism relative to your own clear vision is a wonderfully persuasive piece of mind reading but somehow I remain skeptical of our congress's willingness to construct the trigger as any sort of meaningful policy. Again, I say forget about it altogether and try to get some better concessions on subsidies or stricter regulations.
Actually as I was writing I came across this from Ezra Klein which basically mirrors what I think on the matter: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/if_you_give_away_the_public_op.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 2, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to allastair
I'd trade it for overturning McCarren-Ferguson and an automatic ERISA waiver for states that pass single payer legislation. I think Ezra Klein's idea of more in subsidies is awful: it's throwing money at companies that aren't rendering a service.
Really, insurance companies should be regulated like utilities, and the government should take over negotiating rates with providers/drug companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 4:54 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Agreed -- far better to concentrate on such measures as opening up the exchange, working to increase competition on all fronts, and increasing the amount of regulation and enforcement. Turn health insurance into an industry that for-profit investors are begging to get out of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to allastair
I will say it again, I will bet you anything you like that whatever the trigger ends up being, it will be specifically constructed to be toothless and ineffective.
The point I'm trying to make is that a trigger doesn't have to have the ironclad force of law to be useful. Even if you are right, and it's just a matter of setting benchmarks (e.g., "Less than X% growth in out of pocket costs over N years," or "Medical loss ratios within X range"), if we explicitly lay them out as conditions for revisiting HCR, it will have an effect in the interim period, and it will lay the groundwork for the next round of legislation. Anyone can run the numbers after 5 years. The CBO. The Brookings Institution. The practical result is the same.
First, if you think that "manage to hold their costs (or cost growth) down sufficiently" and "gaming the system" are the same thing, then this is basically a pointless conversation.
I do not think this; I was suggesting that some others do. That some of us aren't comfortable with the possibility that the private sector will survive a test of this sort. That it's the ideological mirror image of the Right chafing at the very existence of Social Security as an example of a successful and efficient government-administered program. But I'll stop with the "mind reading."
In sum, I think we should not be dismissing a "trigger" out of hand. Even if it's a weak trigger. Even if we were going to get the public option straight up, and no one were asking for a trigger. In that imaginary scenario, I would point to the potential benefits of adding in a new "trigger" (not for the public option, but layered over it) that would allow us to better push for single-payer after a few years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allastair
December 2, 2009 5:18 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
The point I'm trying to make is that a trigger doesn't have to have the ironclad force of law to be useful. Even if you are right, and it's just a matter of setting benchmarks (e.g., "Less than X% growth in out of pocket costs over N years," or "Medical loss ratios within X range"), if we explicitly lay them out as conditions for revisiting HCR, it will have an effect in the interim period,
Ok. Fair enough. My point is that, in the context of the current debate, the trigger is being offered as a trade-off and I am saying that its value as such is pretty much zero. The trigger is not a reasonable substitute for the public option and aside from the congresspersons who would be just as happy to not have any reference to a public option at all, no one at the bargaining table really believes it is. So why treat it that way? Thats my question.
The purpose of a compromise is that everybody gives up something to get something of value that they want. But who really wants a trigger? Your own optimism about it aside, whose political constituency will really feel that they are getting anything substantial out of this deal? Really, as far as I can tell, the answer is, basically, no one. So why not push for something better? Some real concession?
Look, if you really believe that the trigger will have some nominally positive effect, then I don't agree, but mostly I don't really care. If the Senate wants to include something called a "trigger" in the bill so that they can pretend for a little while that they have any intention of holding insurance companies to some sort of serious accountability, then more power to them. I sometimes imagine myself as a tough guy too. But holding it out as a "kind of public option" fools no one and, from a negotiating point of view, I see no value in pretending that it does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
December 2, 2009 10:39 AM
They should just dump the public option this time around and instead go for some serious insurance regulation and abolition of the anti-trust exemption. Nelson's vote is practically lost anyway, so let him brown-nose the insurance companies; and the public option has already turned into a dumping ground for the expensive-to-insure, so let it go; and actually make the Maine senators useful to the project.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
December 2, 2009 2:43 PM in reply to decisivemoment
Or, they should pass it through reconciliation.
The introduced bill will pass reconciliation no problem. Any weakening of it at all should result in a progressive campaign to oust Reid in favor of Durbin or Schumer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minnesotan
December 2, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to Miles
Reconciliation is problematic. First off, if the Parliamentarian doesn't sign off on it it's dead, and that's way too big of a risk to run. Even if it were signed off on it would have to be limited in nature. Second, reconciliation would almost certainly require sunset provisions, and if the GOP were to retake power down the line, they could let the public option die.
Personally, I think if we can get strong concessions out of the caucus, such as repealing the antitrust exemptions and requiring that savings be passed on to consumers, in exchange for taking the public option off the table than we will have won a big victory still. Anyone who thinks the entire bill should fix all of the ails in our healthcare industry in one fell swoop is delusional.
Remember, FDR's original Social Security Act included single-payer healthcare. It had to be taken off the final legislation, but in the process FDR got Republicans to essentially codify the single most entitlement program in our nation's history. He did that with lots of his New Deal programs. If we followed the logic of some of the folks in the blogosphere, he should have passed nothing if he didn't get everything he wanted. I think we can agree his approach worked out in the end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 2, 2009 10:42 AM
why quibble over crumbs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OldenGoldenDecoy
December 2, 2009 10:44 AM
Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah . . .
Too bad the writing presently on the wall is in the archaic Sumerian cuneiform wedge-writing.
~OGD~
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
December 2, 2009 12:34 PM in reply to OldenGoldenDecoy
Nah, it's Pre Classic Mayan script or maybe Epi-Olmec. Not really sure, though, since the codex is a bit muddled....
(keeping up with the 2012 meme, of course!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
December 2, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to matyra
Oh yeah, Me haz website too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_script
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
December 2, 2009 10:46 AM
In the hours and days afterward, it became clear that a clean sweep would be difficult, if not impossible.
It was quite clear long before to those who did the arithmetic, including the administration. What bloggers once referred to as pushback by the administration was skepticism due to the realities these bloggers now seem to have suddenly grasped.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
December 2, 2009 10:47 AM
The "all or nothing" crowd is baying again......
I'll support any legitimate changes that provides jolts us forward on a more sensible healtcare path. If these two gals get us there, bravo to them. But I'll wait until I see their votes--as well as that of our own Nebraska waverer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 2, 2009 10:52 AM
It seems pretty clear that a real public option is something that will have to be done using budget reconcilation rules in a future Democratic administration -- that is, if the next Republican administration doesn't completely destroy the country first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
December 2, 2009 10:56 AM
The photo on the TPM home page makes them look like two coy college girls who keep saying "maybe" when you ask them out to the frat party Saturday night. Make up your mind she-devils!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
December 2, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to traitorjoe
lol, nice imagery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to matyra
Even better if you picture Schumer and Rahm cajoling them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 2, 2009 10:57 AM
What's really a pisser is the thought that Obama could have gotten it all if not for the stimulus and the Wall Street bailout, which used up most of his first year mojo.
Just goes to show: In a capitalist system, the capitalists win even when they lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 2, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to Peter Principle
Healthcare would have been a breeze if not for the stimulus? Wait. Let me stop laughing and get off the floor!
FYI, Bush did the bank bailouts, not Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 2, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yes, Bush did the Wall Street bailout -- and Obama and the Dems paid the political price. Who said life was fair?
And yes, the stimulus helped wreck health care reform. Presidents typically get one big initiative in their first year, not two. Laugh if you want (the ignorant frequently do) but I don't think there's anything funny about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 2, 2009 3:57 PM in reply to Peter Principle
Well, since the stimulus was signed in 2009 and healthcare will be signed in 2010, I guess it's no big deal.
But 'splain please: Did the "stimulus" keep FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter and Clinton from passing comprehensive healthcare reform? You know. Since it's so "easy" to do--unless you pass a stimulus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
December 2, 2009 10:57 AM
Paul Starr's op-ed in Saturday's New York Times provides an interesting perspective on this question and has certainly caused me to rethink this question a bit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29starr.html?scp=3&sq=paul%20starr&st=cse
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 2, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to Moose49
The counter argument to Starr is that having even a puny, symbolic public option in the new system at the start would be an effective deterrent, since private insurers would know that it could be incrementally expanded later, using budget reconcilation procedures.
That said, I think he's probably right: At this point the costs outweight the benefits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to Peter Principle
This is particularly true if a trigger could be structured in such a way as to have similar deterrent effect. It's not as if the half-baked public option would even come into existence any time soon, much less have a helpful impact on the insurance market in the foreseeable future.
A trigger that has the potential to lead to another round of HCR and a public option "with teeth" would actually provide a real deterrent effect from the day HCR is signed -- whereas a hamstrung dumping ground of a public option gone-awry would set us back for years or decades. It seems to me that it's certainly not worth fighting for at this stage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 2, 2009 10:58 AM
The handwriting is on the wall with regard to the public option. As I have posted before, please make the health care exchange open to everyone (to give it as much buying power as possible), and have it go into effect before 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sanssouci0
December 2, 2009 10:59 AM
I am not so sure, that centrists are wielding all negotiating chips here. A substantial number of progressive senators have compromised so much now, that they have little to lose by opposing the health bill. The carper option, actually doesn't look that bad. It seems to be windowdressing to allow the centrists to save face and get on board. An opt in, opt out and trigger all together are fine with me. The essential part is to allow 20 or so solid blue states to launch a respectable public option as soon as possible. Once it has become a daily reality like Medicare/Medicaid, removed from the political fever of congress, it will not be controversial for other states to opt in. The next health care battle will focus on health care cost controls and intense regulation of insurance companies. I think the dem's may finally realize that they have 10 months to motivate the base. Snowe and Collins know that given their moderate electorate they cannot afford to have their vote to kill health care reform hang over their heads like a political albatross once the economy has recovered and other issues take on a more prominent position in voters' priorities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NoVA Dem
December 2, 2009 11:18 AM
If progressives will bend on the public option to get something more timely and with a closer deadline to '10 and '12 elections, I think you could see some political movement. The moderates on both sides, well the two (maybe three with Voinovich) from the GOP, could probably sign onto that as well. This is most certainly the art of the possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sanssouci0
December 2, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to NoVA Dem
I absolutely agree. Although I would like to see a public option just to lay the groundwork for future reform, I think that the corporate-centrists by stonewalling such a weak public option, are overplaying their hand by overestimating the value on the left of a very weak public option and actually giving progressives some strong leverage here: antitrust exemption revocation, some stronger Wyden type language opening up the exchanging, cost control measures, and why not a symbolic trigger, if not just to ensure that more health care reform is to come in the next four years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 2, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to NoVA Dem
"The moderates on both sides, well the two (maybe three with Voinovich) from the GOP"
This reminds me of John Podesta's quote about what he always said when he was Clinton's Chief of Staff whenever anyone approached him with a legislative plan that relied on picking off a few alleged GOP moderates: "Get me a better plan."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
December 2, 2009 11:29 AM
You can bet your bottom dollar that MOST encumbents will NOT be getting the votes they want come election time. IF they do then we'll have nobody to blame BUT OURSELVES. They are ALL worthless and do nothing for the people. They spew contempt for the general public at ever vote. They sell us out with every penny they accept from lobbyists. Do we really want to vote these clowns BACK INTO OFFICE?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
December 2, 2009 11:45 AM
Shouldn't the mandate be placed on the dissecting table as well?
Without a robust public option, it is draconian to require every citizen to pump profits into private insurance corporations. No doubt a portion of those government-coerced gains would be used to campaign against future reforms.
If incrementalism is the name of the game, wouldn't it be better to do a little good rather than hand ammo to anti-reformers.
Regulate, don't mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to Watt Childress
It's only draconian if that insurance industry isn't sufficiently regulated. If private companies can't engage in abusive practices and set rates to capture greater profits, the mandate does not become as problematic.
In other words, regulate and mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
December 2, 2009 12:12 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Perhaps it would be less draconian IF the insurance industry were sufficiently regulated. That's a big if, however, and it would still be draconian (merely less so).
Again, why not just nix the mandate and tighten regulations on one of the corporate sectors that has helped to make healthcare less accessible and affordable for many Americans?
Perhaps we could come back later and support a mandate alongside a robust public option. For now, it would be a step forward to merely regulate and get our foot in the door for future reforms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 2, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to Watt Childress
Because if you require insurance companies to provide coverage to anyone who wants it, you have to require people to buy it or premiums will sky rocket as some people just wait until they get sick to buy insurance. In fact, if that were how the system would work, millions of employers would probably stop offering health insurance since (a) it would be more expensive and (b) it would be pointless if you could buy insurance after you get sick.
With that said, the mandate is about as overhyped as the public option. It's basically just an income tax hike of 2.5% that you get credited for if you provide proof of insurance or financial hardship when filing your taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
December 2, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to Stroszek
Stroszek,
You know I'm a huge fan of yours as you are one of the few people on the blogosphere who can see the forest for the trees in this health care reform bill.
I just wanted to clarify the statement you made on the individual mandate and the public option. Unlike the public option, it's not the need for the individual mandate that's being overhyped -- the penalty for not purchasing private insurance, unlike the public option, is absolutely essential for the prohibition of pre-existing condition clauses, guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewability, and community rating to work. It's the burden of the penalty that's being overhyped almost as much as the need for a public option. As you point out, the penalty merely amounts to a higher tax liability for not showing proof of insurance or proof of financial financial hardship on your tax form. That's not a big deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 2, 2009 1:28 PM in reply to jimbomoron
Wait, you mean grandma isn't going to be jailed for refusing to submit to a death panel for her taxpayer-financed abortion?
I feel lost -- as if my political moorings have come undone. Must...find...next...sensationalist........claim.............. http://drudgereport.com/
Aaah, now that's better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 2, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to jimbomoron
As you point out, the penalty merely amounts to a higher tax liability for not showing proof of insurance or proof of financial financial hardship on your tax form. That's not a big deal.
Well it is if you don't have the money to pay the tax bill. In any case, it's something that will be awfully damned easy to demagogue and distort in 30-second campaign ads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
December 2, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to Stroszek
I assume all legislators who are negotiating in good faith would acknowledge downsides to delaying a robust public option and/or a mandate. Note "and/or." All those who are genuinely at the table support one or both of these provisions.
Fact is, Americans won't know the full extent of those downsides until after new regulations are passed. At that point, we will see the degree to which both insurance companies and consumers seek to game the system.
Why not pass regulations now in conjunction with a strong trigger for both a mandate AND a robust public option? If the trigger includes both, I assume the chance of follow-through would be much greater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 2, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to Watt Childress
All this talk of regulation presupposes that there'll be enforcement of those regulations. What government agency regulates financial institutions (and haven't they been doing a bang up job with those banks, aye)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
December 2, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to Schmed
Good point. Are we really prepared to trust the giant insurers (who are not even subject to anti-trust laws) any more than we trust AIG?
If we were to begin with regulation, we could see how far enforcement goes before requiring citizens to pump profits into insurance corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 2, 2009 2:14 PM in reply to Schmed
exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 2, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to Schmed
Regulations are meant to be evaded, amended and repealed. Without the structural change that comes with a public option it just business as usual. Oh, except that the health insurance companies will have millions more customers. Reform, my ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
December 2, 2009 11:49 AM
Shouldn't the mandate be placed on the dissecting table as well?
Without a robust public option, it is draconian to require every citizen to pump profits into private insurance corporations. No doubt a portion of those government-coerced gains would be used to campaign against future reforms.
If incrementalism is the name of the game, wouldn't it be better to do a little good rather than hand ammo to anti-reformers.
Regulate, don't mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
December 2, 2009 12:43 PM
For fuck's sake... we're back to fluffing President Snowe again.
The Democratic Party: Incompetents In Action
The Bush Administration got the Patriot Act, a series Bush Tax Cuts, Medicare Plan D, FISA "Reform", Dick's Giveaway To Big Energy, Bankruptcy "Reform", Two Wingnuts On The SCORUSA, Telecom Immunity, the Military Commissions Act, creation of the Department Of Homeland Security... and leading us into Two Viet Nams For The Price Of One.
The Obama Admin can't even get the *easy* one done: Healthcare which was a central element of the 2008 election that the entire party ran on in that cycle.
We're the Keystone Kops of politics. It's an embarassment to vote for them, and the notion that the Enthusiasm Gap that's going to be dead in 2010 is going to magically reappear in the run up 2012 is seriously hitting the crack pipe. If we get our asses kicked in 2010, watch the GOP dig in deeper with the Dem margin in the House and Senate reduced to the point that not a thing will get done without far worse concessions than we've seen in Healthcare and the Stim.
"We're All Californians Now"
-John from SoCal knowing where up fucked up Federal Gov is heading
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 2, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to tosh
"The Obama Admin can't even get the *easy* one done: Healthcare..."
So easy that it's taken sixty years since it was initially proposed to get as close as we are today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
December 2, 2009 1:21 PM in reply to brewmn61
Compared to Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
Compared to Global Warming?
Compared to Financial Reform?
Compared to cutting Defense Spending in a meaningful fashion?
Compared to Immigration Reform?
All of those have major *Democratic* stumbling blocks. Helpful Senators like Byrd and Rocky suddenly flip to being D-Coal. Even if Rocky feels something needs to be done, he will also feel the need to throw something at WV Big Coal because Coal *is* WV.
Defense Spending? It won't happen. In fact to avoid being portrayed as a soft pussy on defense, we had to "increase" the budget this year.
Immigration? You think Blue Dogs run scared of being run against on Healthcare and the Stim? Inject a little race into their elections and they'll run for the hills.
And we all know why the Admin is kicking the DADT can down the road almost certainly to 2017: they don't have the votes because far too many dems are afraid of is on their voting records.
Healthcare actually had extremely wide support after the election, even within the party. We can talk about GOP foot dragging and stalling, but the Admin and Congressional Leadership were slow in not teeing this up as a 100 Days initiative by laying the key ground work for it back in Novemeber and December 2008 when pretty much all of the leadership team in Congress was known.
As far as the past:
Kennedy: I'm sorry, but I hope folks aren't trying to offer him up as an effective President relative to getting things out of Congress?
Nixon: never had control of *either* house in congress, and frankly offered a plan that the Dems thought was a sellout to Big Health
Carter: Again, this isn't someone that we're trying to argue was an effective President... right? We were hoping the Obama Admin would take it's lead from how that turned out?
Clinton: Same thing. The Clinton admin screwed up healthcare. Granted, they had a lot of help. But they didn't handle it effectively.
I think we were looking for FDR & SS and LBJ & Medicare here, folks. Did you all vote last year for Obama thinking we'd be at this stage looking at watering down and already watered down Health Care reform bill that hasn't even removed the Donnut entirely?
Again, Halth Care was the "easy" one relative to everything else on their plate. It's why they went after it first, and have moved Global Warming into the #2 spot, and everything else off into next year... if ever.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
December 2, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to tosh
I am seesawing back and forth between the extremes of your hyperbole.
Best example: Health care reform is the "easy one" to get passed.
Blind. Blinded by ideological must-have-itness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 2, 2009 2:44 PM in reply to tosh
I agree. I am embarrassed by the Democrats. The Republicans get things done but everything they do is wrong. Democrats can't get ANYTHING done, period. Which is worse? I don't know but it is certainly more motivating to support a party that works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 2, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to wbgonne
"Democrats can't get ANYTHING done, period."
Stimulus, budget, healthcare, saving the economy from another Great Depression. Those don't count.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 2, 2009 12:56 PM
"The Obama Admin can't even get the *easy* one done: Healthcare which was a central element of the 2008 election that the entire party ran on in that cycle."
Getting healthcare done is "easy"? Who knew? You shoulda told Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Clinton that healthcare was a cake walk!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 2, 2009 2:00 PM
Complete and utter sell-out by a party in full control of the government negotiating against itself (and badly at that). Disgraceful. Total Bag Job from the beginning. That's why Obama never stood up and tried to lead the country on health care. He just sat there like a potted plant while the health care bill was gutted. He didn't say or do anything because he knew how this would end. No Health Insurance Company Left Behind. Democrats should be ashamed but, like the Republicans, they have no shame. They just want money and power for themselves. Good luck pretending this piece of crap is real health care reform. The Republicans might pull that kind of thing off but the Dems are far too inept. For god's sake, they are getting whipped by MORONS.
Am I bitter? You betcha.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 2:52 PM
wbgonne, you pat yourself too hard on the back. You could get whiplash.
Obama didn't dictate healthcare reform because Clinton did and it failed miserably. Change is incremental and takes time. Sad to see how few people understand that. Like Obama could just demand that Congress pass universal healthcare right now. It wouldn't do anything. But whatever is passed will be much better than the status quo. And in the future will be easier to improve (like Social Security was).
But I guess you, like George W. Bush and mostly everyone, don't do nuance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 2, 2009 3:07 PM in reply to ilovebacon
We don't have time for nuance and incrementalism. And I don't even agree that this legislation is better than nothing. I hope we do nothing and let the system collapse. Then do it right.
Clinton was president 20 years ago and has nothing to do with it except that Rahm Emmanuel was determined to win the last war by having Obama stay silent as the sphinx so he wouldn't squander his precious political capital. Mission accomplished. No presidential leadership. No real reform.
BTW: I was under the impression that Obama would be a transformational president. Maybe I was wrong but I damn sure wasn't alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 2, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to wbgonne
Sure. There's no time for incrementalism, according to you. But there's plenty of time for rejecting the bill because it's not perfect and starting again in 20 years.
Fuck you irrational couldn't get elected pooper-scooper, couldn't legislate your own goddamn haircut know-nothing assholes!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 2, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to FreeRider
Please take some of your medicine now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 3:17 PM
We do have time for incrementalism. It's the only thing that ever works. Social security left out 2/3 of all blacks. But it was amended later. Without some bill, future remedy is all but impossible.
Obama has been president for ten months! He's planting the seeds for transformation. Results will start to be seen next year. Major change takes major time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 2, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to ilovebacon
No. The public option is a structural component of real health care reform. If the Democrats can't get a public option now they simply can't do it. Worse, as a PARTY it is evident that they don't WANT do it. The Democrats are in the tank for the insurance companies; not 100% like the Republicans but enough to neuter the party. Bottom line: Failure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 2, 2009 4:17 PM
its a piece of crap !!! all citizens should have healthcare. and politicians shouldn't have better then us. we are turning into a oligarchy, not a republic. as for illegal immigrants, screw 'em, as a matter of law if they are here illegally they are felons. there, i said it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 2, 2009 11:22 PM in reply to jjdjjd
I agree. I think every last illegal immigrant should be grabbed by the scruff of the nexk and thrown out.
Beginning with the Pilgrims.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 3, 2009 7:09 PM in reply to JNagarya
looking for a fight i see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 3, 2009 9:03 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Show me the deed of ownership possessed by the kings of England which made it legal for them to give away land on this continent that actually belonged to this continent's original inhabitants.
Those facts are only "fighting words" to those who want to bury the negative and worse in order to pretend the US and its founders, and their progeny, have never done wrong, and are never wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 3, 2009 7:09 PM in reply to JNagarya
looking for a fight i see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
December 3, 2009 9:28 PM in reply to JNagarya
I love it when people bring out that Strawman. You know what the difference is? Back when the Pilgrims came over, there were no laws, no economy for illegals to drain, no jobs for them to steal all that inconvenient stuff. Back then, it wasn't a deal at all. The Pilgrims don't apply. They started the country.
Now, we have laws, we have our own citizens to worry about, all those afore-mentioned inconveniences. And the illegals are exactly that. Illegal. Why is that so hard to understand?
That said, I feel extremely dirty for agreeing with the likes of jjdjjd. I'm going to go shower now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 3, 2009 10:09 PM in reply to Kuyleh
This continent was not vacant when the Pilgrims arrived. The Pilgrims (as only one example) were granted "their" allotment of land by the King of England -- who didn't own the land he gave to the Pilgrims.
From there the Pilgrims (as only one example) engaged in various frauds by means of which they stole additional lands from the original inhabitants.
Then they (along with Puritans, etc.) committed genocide against the original inhabitants from east coast to west. Those of the original inhabitants who survived were herded onto "reservations" because, well, "illegal immigrants" when amid white society. . .
I've seen no pursuasive "argument" for the idea that the King of England could legally give away land not his in such a way that those who trespassed on it weren't illegal immigrants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 4, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to JNagarya
mao said power comes with the barrel of a gun. the king had guns, the indians didn't. we win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 4, 2009 10:38 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Mao was a communist -- and you subscribe to his politics:
"the king had guns, the indians didn't."
If the Indians didn't have guns, then why did New-Plimoth colony enact gun control legislation prohibited the sale of "shot & powder" to the Indians?
As is typical of the racist anti-immigrant ignorant, you don't have a clue of the actual history.
"we win."
Ends and means are irrelevant -- therefore your view is of superior morality?
It is so transparent as to be unavoidable: all the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric is simply white supremacism attempting to deny the citizenship of those not sufficiently white. So we only hear about "Mexicans".
He never hear them rant and rave against illegal immigrants from such as Ireland and Britain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 5, 2009 4:59 AM in reply to JNagarya
well idiot, the irish were certainly persecuted, its you that don't know history. i didn't inject morality in , just stated facts. the indians did have some guns that the whites gave them, but they were always outgunned. most died from disease, as you well know. smallpox. as for mao, yeah he was a commie, but he was right on this issue, power does indeed come from the barrel of a gun. as for you, must you always be contrary? you are,as we discussed earlier on another thread, a lawyer, and as such take whichever side you can to annoy others. you are worse then a troll, you are a lawyer, a ubertroll, always looking for an arguement, with no values or character of your own. all you do is argue, i told you before get a wife. leave the site to serious people, we don't want somone who looks to argue every single little point. we did win. you don't like it, but darwin's theory prevailed. the strong survived. now ubertroll, begone, get that wife, argue with her, and come back when you don't want to argue every single little point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 5, 2009 11:06 AM in reply to jjdjjd
"well idiot, the irish were certainly persecuted, its you that don't know history."
I know the history. I'm talking about the many illegal immigrants TODAY -- including the Irish -- who are WHITE, therefore not on your racist anti-immigrant list.
"i didn't inject morality in , just stated facts. the indians did have some guns that the whites gave them, but they were always outgunned."
You claim to know history, but it's always the FOX version of amnesia. They were not always outguned; they were winning King Philip's War until "Christianized" betrayed their fellow Indians, slapped the tresspassers upside the head, and taught them to fight as counter-pseudo-insurgents.
"most died from disease, as you well know."
The Pequots were mass-murdered by the Massachusetts-Bay bible-thumping Puritans. Even though the Pequots weren't at war. It was a scandal at the time -- but it didn't bring back the Pequots from extinction by means of genocide.
"smallpox."
Died of disease? You shouldn't remind us of the smallpox blanket biological warfare.
"as for mao, yeah he was a commie, but he was right on this issue, power does indeed come from the barrel of a gun."
That's the NRA's anti-Constitutional stance -- which is also adopted by other criminals:
"The man with the gun has the power."
"as for you, must you always be contrary?"
It isn't I who is contrary. It is the facts that are contrary to your racism and anti-Americanism.
"you . . . take whichever side you can to annoy others."
The law is the law. I'm not the issue.
"you are worse then a troll, you are a lawyer, a ubertroll, always looking for an arguement, with no values or character of your own."
I'm an ethicist, both by choice and professional requirement. Those are values.
"all you do is argue,"
I simply put the law and facts in your face, and you take it as hell.
"leave the site to serious people,"
You aren't exactly the best judge of "serious people" if you intend to imply those who are concerned with truth.
"we"
What you mean "we," troll?
"don't want somone who looks to argue every single little point."
Not everyone hates "argument" becasue it blows their horseshit out of the water.
"we did win."
Genocide is "winning"?
"you don't like it, but darwin's theory prevailed. the strong survived."
It wasn't about strength. It was about deceit. By bible-thumping racist "Cristians".
"now ubertroll, begone, get that wife, argue with her, and come back when you don't want to argue every single little point."
I'll continue to shove reality into your face until you learn the basics of logic, or go back the the freerepublic cesspool which vomited you out in order to recover its self-respect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 5, 2009 3:16 PM in reply to JNagarya
omg, i wish we could meet. your reality is a delusion. here you are, with our country falling apart and you are arguing about 400 years ago. is there nothing you won't be contrary about? anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist. they must be. what a narrow mind you have. no one knows for sure what happened 400 yrs. ago, we know the result. its HIS STORY, you speak as if you were there. you wern't. you accept one version, it fits your narrow little mind, and then you try to belittle anyone who believes another version. what a stupid, unhappy, man you must be. i fought in vietnam, if you asked me what happened in a battle i would tell you, but the guy right next to me would tell you something else, both would be true, its our story about what we saw. to bring it to your level as an ambulance chaser, 2 people will have different stories about a car accident. you believe the one paying you. who's right? the trouble with you is you are a jerk, stay off my computer. you have no character, no integrity, no boundries, and no sense. all you do is troll and look to be contrary. no wonder no one likes you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 6, 2009 2:45 AM in reply to jjdjjd
omg, i wish we could meet. your reality is a delusion. here you are, with our country falling apart and you are arguing about 400 years ago. is there nothing you won't be contrary about?
_____
Your the one who asserted that "the" ALLEGED "illegal immigrants" should be thrown out of the country.
I pointed to the fact that by YOUR terms -- that thing called "law," donchaknow: see that word "illegal"? -- that would mean everyone here illegally is an illegal immigrant. And that goes all the way back to the Pilgrims (as example).
You "countered" with the might-makes-right irrationality that "We won" against the Indians, and that was all that mattered. Fuck whether it was legal or not.
I've studied that LEGAL history -- the LAWS on the issue, donchaknow -- and it is not that you assert; it was "law-abiding" bible-thumpers engaging in fraud, breech of contract, and mass murder of innocents.
So, your history- and law-illiteracy rears its huff-an'-puff defense that, because I consistently expose your horseshit as being horseshit, and refute your horseshit, you accuse me of being "contrary".
Yeah: the "liberal bias" of reality is CONTRARY to your afactual FOXism.
I next point out that there are illegal immigrants in the US TODAY -- Irish an example -- and you respond with a sob story about how the Irish were persecuted, which is apparently your defense of their being illegal immigrants. The underlying principle being clear: it's okay to be an illegal immigrant if sufficiently white. All others are to be thrown out of the ccountry.
Obviously another instance of your racism/history-illiteracy: the insufficiently white ALLEGED "illegal immigrants" you rant against have ALSO been persecuted. And a whole lot more than the Irish. But let's look at a peritnent fact on the issue:
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, an California were originally part of Mexico. And as such were occupied by Mexicans. When the US stole those lands from Mexico, the populations of Mexicans occupying them remained. One could say that, with the exchange of ownership of the deed, those Mexicans became US citizens.
Yet today, racist ignorants in such as Texas routinely challenge the insufficiently white citizens of Texas/the US as being "illegal immigrants". Even though in many instances those insufficiently white citizens have been ctiziens of Texas for longer than some of those who challenge them.
This is your simpleton's principle:
"How does one determine that a person is an illegal immigrant? By the color of their skin."
So, facts is facts, and they are contrary to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 6, 2009 5:39 AM in reply to JNagarya
you are sick.get help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 6, 2009 5:51 AM in reply to jjdjjd
Lack of response/personal attack noted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 6, 2009 5:42 AM in reply to JNagarya
you need help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 4, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to Kuyleh
it will be the 1st shower for you in a long time, i'm sure your friends and family will be sending me thank you cards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 4, 2009 3:45 PM
here we go a 3 way fight, a 'mo, a anarchist, and a good citizen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 5, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to jjdjjd
"a anarchist"
You can't even get your own language straight, punk.
"an" before a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes h.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 5, 2009 3:21 PM in reply to JNagarya
ohoh, not only a lawyer, AN anarchist, a historian, an a all around know it all, now he corrects grammar. i really wish i could meet you, punk, how close to jersey are you? what a loser.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 6, 2009 2:52 AM in reply to jjdjjd
1. It is not possible for a law-abiding citizen to be an anarchist.
2. Studying LEGAL history imparts much history because law is at the center of human society.
3. You want ALLEGED "illegal immigrants" thrown out of the country, and you are illitereate in your own language -- the purity of which language you are endeavoring to protect.
4. Are you the same irrational gun-nut who, on Amazon, stalked me until I stiff-armed him with some direct and stiff reasoning he couldn't ignore? He too claimed to be from New Jersey. He too believed himself a tough guy. And he too threatened violence as means to overcome the fact that he consistently lost every verbal argument he started.
It's said that violence is a failure of imagination. It's also said that violence is the failure of reason. In your case threats of violence are substitute for intellect itself.
Go help Clowny Bullshit lick his wounds. Perhaps he'll respond in kind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 6, 2009 5:46 AM in reply to JNagarya
its said that you need help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 6, 2009 5:53 AM in reply to jjdjjd
"its" should be "it's," which is a contraction of "it is".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 5, 2009 5:57 PM in reply to JNagarya
you sound like joe stalin who stated that anyone who disagreed with him 'was an enemy of the people'. he was a know it all too. but he had the guns. in the end, he died, which i wish you would do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 6, 2009 3:00 AM
"you sound like joe stalin who stated that anyone who disagreed with him 'was an enemy of the people'."
1. Substantiate that Stalin said that.
2. You are not "the people". You are an individual who aligns himself with far-right lunatic fringe America-hating.
3. Explain why you keep qouting actual or fictional statements by Commies with which you agree, while pretending you aren't a Commie.
"he was a know it all too."
Like you, of course; isn't that why you quote him (and Mao) approvingly?
"but he had the guns. in the end, he died,"
Appears to me there's a lesson in there waving frantically in effort to get your attention.
"which i wish you would do."
Ah, a Christian gun-nut!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 6, 2009 5:40 AM in reply to JNagarya
get help. soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 6, 2009 5:55 AM in reply to jjdjjd
Go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 7, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to JNagarya
i am convinced you are already in some mental home and this is what you do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 7, 2009 5:44 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Impress us: show us that you know how to go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 8, 2009 3:33 AM in reply to JNagarya
take your meds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 8, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Go fuck yourself, irrelevancy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
December 9, 2009 5:02 AM in reply to JNagarya
ohoh, typical response. i have struck a nerve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?