TPMDC
Poll: Loss Of Public Option Causes Big Increase In Opposition To Health Care Bill
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll coming out later today will show opposition to the health care bill growing -- mainly from disappointed liberals, who are very much disappointed to see the public option getting thrown out.
The poll has 47% saying the Obama health care plan is a bad idea, to only 32% who say it's a good idea.
Chuck Todd writes on Twitter: "Most of the movement on the 'bad idea' comes from some of the president's core support groups, folks upset about lost public option." He also writes: "Still, large majorities of the president's core support groups believe his plan is a 'good idea,' but the margins have shrunk."
In addition, 44% now say it's better to not pass this bill -- seemingly a large bloc of conservatives, plus some liberals -- to 41% who say it's better that something pass: "First time NBC-WSJ poll had that upside down."
Comments (227) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:37 PM
Not among the insurance companies and their toadies in the Democratic Party. And as we now know: they are all who matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to wbgonne
Demonization is fun and easy. It allows you to automatically be on the side of goodness and right and allows you to reduce those you oppose to two dimensional cardboard cutout villians. No need to consider complexity, no need to face choices between lesser and greater evils because there's really only all black and evil and all good and white and no troubling shades of grey.
Thus, it is completely impossible that there are people who genuinely believe it would be a good thing for more people to have access to, and help paying for, health insurance, even if that means, horror of horrors, somewhere an insurance company makes a buck.
Yep, Krugman, Bowers, Benen, Yglysias, Ezra Klein, Obama, Rockefeller, Schumer, Sherrod Brown--each and every one of them simply a corrupt cartoon villian venally sucking at the insurance industry's teat.
And just ignore that striking resemblance to the simplistic black and white absolutism of the hard right. You'll sleep better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dizzy Izzy
December 16, 2009 5:33 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Isn't demonization exactly what you are doing to opponents of this legislation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to Dizzy Izzy
Not at all. I acknowledge and respect the goodwill of the poster. I'm not assuming he(?)'s acting from bad or venal motives. I'm just pointing out the self-evident reductionism and the corrosiveness of attacking people's motives rather than arguing their positions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
December 16, 2009 10:32 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
what bull.
even if you are not aware of it there is such a thing as truth.
and there are no invisable badges that give halos to people who think they make a clever argument that proves their morality;
if children are starving you feed them.
you dont barter to make sure the provider is earning profits first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 8:17 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I suggest reading Kos' "20 Answers" at dailykos.com. It's a reasoned - and ultimately winning - argument in favor of killing this bill as it stands. It doesn't start out 50 yards in front of you if you like this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
December 16, 2009 6:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I'm supporting the health care legislation, albeit reluctantly, and with the very big caveat that I firmly believe that progressive opponents have a very real and valid point to make here on what's amounted to a classic Beltway bait-and-switch.
I have a pretty good idea that you haven't read the draft bill, and therefore you should take a good, long look in the mirror before you accuse those progressives opposing the bill of demonizing its proponents, rather than cheelead for a piece of legislation about which you truly know very little.
As I said, I'll support the measure, but I'll further state that I'll also support any Democrat who chooses to offer a primary challenge to congressional incumbents like Bart Stupak, Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus and Ben Nelson. With "Democrats" like those, who needs the GOP?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
Actually, we're all talking about a bill none of us have read, given that Reid has yet to put out a new manager's bill pending CBO scoring. I'm not sure which bills you've read. You have no idea which ones I've looked at.
What I do know is that the increasing tendency of both the left and the right to attack strawmen to whom they've ascribed the worst possible motices rather than argue policy is corrosive and dangerous to democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Official A
December 16, 2009 8:17 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Steve, I think a lot of us are very angry because the Dems continue to bring luffas to a knife fight. Maybe this bill is better than nothing, but how close to nothing are we willing to settle for? I voted for change I could believe in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 8:44 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The more I hear about this bill, the closer I am to Dean's position. The mandate is in. Rescission is still an option for insurance companies. This looks like it's going to end up making health care insurance more expensive for middle class Americans who are struggling.
I'm not shooting it down, but there's no way I can advocate moving forward with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
December 16, 2009 7:38 PM in reply to wbgonne
The president who brings Public Option will be credited with healthcare reform no matter how merger that option will be. The Obama Admin is caught up in the details of the current bill to bring down cost and cover, but sometimes its the IDEA that is most important. Having the PO language in the bill was crucial, it is the PR stump on the bill for this admin, and thats what history remembers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 16, 2009 3:38 PM
bullturd numbers. after the thing passes, people will say it's great. which is why the GOP is stalling the inevitable. it WILL pass. they just don't want to mope on xmas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 16, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to ilovebacon
"People will say it's great." Yep. And lemmings going over a cliff say, "So far so good!" right up until they go splat.
It isn't great. It's a sellout. There's no public option; there's no new regulation; and uninsured people must buy the most worthless, junk-bondesque policies - at rates set by the insurance companies - or face prosecution. These are the "30 million uninsured people" being touted by the Democrats.
"Opposition to the health care bill [is] growing -- mainly from disappointed liberals...." Ya think?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to EastWest
In defense of lemmings: lemmings don't commit mass suicide. In fact, humans commit suicide far more often than lemmings. And lemmings don't even vote....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to Schmed
Do they donate money? Big money? Because if so, I'm sure we could make HCR lemming-friendly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 16, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to Schmed
Sorry, you're right. I was stereotyping.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 16, 2009 4:50 PM in reply to Schmed
Republican lemmings vote. There are 40 of them in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 16, 2009 5:09 PM in reply to Schmed
ROFLMAO!!! Good one. The only lemmings I know are republicans
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
December 16, 2009 6:07 PM in reply to Schmed
Well, there are lemmings, and then there are the weasels that prey upon them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
December 16, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to EastWest
"there's no new regulation" Huh?
I wanted the public option, favor single payer, but this statement just isn't true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to howie
EastWest is what you might call a tad "unhinged." Concern for the truth rattled out of his little mind a long time ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
December 16, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to howie
Sure, there's regulation. There's just not any important, meaningful regulation. Annual limits still there, lifetime limits still there, no anti trust, etc.
It's a bad bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 5:14 PM in reply to DA in LA
There's quite a bit more to the bill, actually, but it's obvious that the kososphere has descended into Palin-land.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 8:21 AM in reply to Stroszek
Kos' arguments in favor of killing the bill as it stands are pretty well reasoned at "20 Answers"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 19, 2009 10:11 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
You're expecting Stroszek to respond to reason?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
December 16, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to EastWest
Progressives need to start blogging, commenting, and answering polls in ways that prioritize achieving actual change over achieving political catharsis.
Progressives wonder why Obama didn't bend arms on the public option. He didn't because he knows that no matter what he does, he can't please his entire base. And his base is not loyal -- it's a sunshine base, shown here in the polls.
Congress would never listen to his threats because they know that he won't have the clout to save their asses in 2010. Because his poll numbers were always destined to go down. Because, we, the progressives, like to whine, storm out the door, and leave our politicians vulnerable.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Obama, but too many progressives do it without affirming their support. And without progressives' support, Obama truly is powerless.
Blah. These poll numbers are more depressing than anything Congress will be passing in the next three years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:29 PM in reply to dudeguy
Wow! Talk about blaming the victim. Is anything NOT the fault of progressives?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
December 16, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to wbgonne
Swine flu.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
December 16, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to wbgonne
Seriously, though, wbegonne, your comment is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm tired of progressives doling out blame to Obama which should fall squarely on (1) the GOP, (2) the nuts in the tea party movement and their Fox overlords, (3) Joe Lieberman, who needs a slap, and finally (4) ourselves, for not out-shouting the shouters at the town halls because we had deluded ourselves into believing that change had come.
We, progressives, went from yes-we-can to yes-we-did in a heartbeat. We grew complacent, and the more I hear now about how disappointed people are in Obama, the more I feel like we're handing the GOP some fresh talking points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to dudeguy
And Obama's role in all this was what precisely?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 16, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to AJM
Omg! Deaf!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 16, 2009 5:06 PM in reply to wbgonne
Will Progressives EVER look at what they are doing wrong? you constantly complain that you are always getting screwed over? If a friend came to me and said that every guy she goes out with treats her like shit, I'd turn to her and say, "Why do YOU keep picking guys who treat you like shit?"
People who do not analyze or take responsibility in a situation gone wrong - will keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Example: While blasting Obama for being all talk, the Left latched on to other "heros" like Sherrod brown, weiner, schumer, and even harry reid just for SAYING what they were feeling, like Obama did during the campaign. At the end of the day, however, these guys voted to move the bill forward, they compromised, they caved (as you would put it) and what followed? more moaning that you were once again screwed and unofficial removal of their "true" Progressive status.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Don't worry: quite a lot of people are not going to be going out to vote for him again unless he gets his act together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 16, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to AJM
Well, conventional wisdom is that if Obama wants something bad enough he can get it. So if that's true, he will get re-elected if he really wants a second term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to Viva!America!
He worked for his election. Doesn't appear to have worked for public option. Hasn't had much success in explaining why this is a great bill without it or why accepting this mess is a better idea than working his tail off to elect real Democrats and trying again post 2010. Ought to be a lot of primary challenges.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to AJM
And this time voters will judge him on what he had done rather than on his promises.
Note I said on what he personally has done -- whether he has fought for the positions he claimed to support.
And, Viva, get over this idea that you can simply order people to think your way. You have to persuade them.
Take mandates, Obama campaigned against Hillary by claiming to be against them. So he's already one strike down with the independents because he dropped something they cared about. So who has been out there explaining why mandates are necessary as was clear from the moment universal coverage was proposed (and which I believe Obama understood but chose to lie about it because they are not popular.) The reason they are necessary is because if they don't exist, a significant number of individuals will free-load betting they are not the ones who are going to get ill and not paying into the kitty because they feel that would only help others. Of course, this type of person who does not care about other people doesn't hesitate to sign back up the moment they become ill if allowed and spend the money the other folks have been contributing. And from the insurance companies point of view, they don't know how to price their produce unless they know who their consumers will be. If you are only insuring middle aged ladies, it makes quite a jolt if you are suddenly paying the costs of a motor cycle accident from some 26 year old who signed up after the accident.
So who is making the case that mandates are a good thing? And explaining, if true, that in the absence of the public option, that they can be imposed without turning the American public into captive consumers of pricey insurance?
Your turn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 16, 2009 6:20 PM in reply to dudeguy
So, according to you, Obama is justified in not even trying to toss his base a few crumbs because he has somehow decided that they will never be satisfied with anything he does, but he is also justified in pretty well gutting the health care bill of any meaningful reform in order to please people who will never vote for him and whose leaders have demonstrated amply that they will oppose him vigorously no matter how many concessions he makes?
I guess in some alternate universe, that makes sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
December 16, 2009 6:43 PM in reply to slb
Nope. Obama is justified in not coming out strongly in favor of the public option because there's no real indication that doing so would make a lick of difference. If he could count on progressive loyalty, then it just might have made a difference. But he can't, so it wouldn't, it would just make passing the bill harder.
Obama is not gutting the bill. The GOP is. The tea partiers are. Joe Lieberman is. And every progressive that has declared Obama to be "Bush light" gives the GOP an assist.
Now some of the dimmer progressives are calling for a third party. Because that Nader experiment worked out so well. No thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 6:57 PM in reply to dudeguy
Loyalty is earned. Please tell me what Obama has done to earn that loyalty?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
December 16, 2009 9:12 PM in reply to AJM
Seriously, if you can't see why Obama is 100 times better than the best Republican candidate out there, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. Even if this BS about him "doing nothing" were true, it would be so much better than the damage caused by a conservative.
No, he hasn't done everything I'd like. But I can accept that doing what I and most progressives would like would be political suicide. And I feel a lot better with him in the White House than I have for eight long, ridiculous years.
So, yeah, I'm pretty happy with Obama. With progressive support, we can make some slow progress with him as our leader. If the whole base abadons him, we will never have progress in this country. Just people who are proud of their useless ideological purity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 17, 2009 3:42 AM in reply to dudeguy
Obama is justified in not coming out strongly in favor of the public option because there's no real indication that doing so would make a lick of difference.
It would have made a difference to me. I can respect someone who fights for what they believe, even if the fight is ultimately unsuccessful. I cannot respect someone who just says, "Oh, well."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 16, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to ilovebacon
Absolutely correct. The whiners need something to whine about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 16, 2009 3:39 PM
I don't get the sense that Democratic senators and the WH really get how this is seriously angering many who will be inclined to sit home come the election.
I really don't. Who votes in midterm elections? Those who are interested and knowledgable about what's going on in the government. And a not insignificant chunk of Democrats aren't going to vote.
But hey, Joe Lieberman is happy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 16, 2009 3:46 PM in reply to CT Voter
And then there are people like us...who will go to the polls, be pissed off at who we are being forced to vote for, but consider it the lesser of 2 evils.
How do we break the cycle?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:50 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Third Party. Only way. The two parties are just monstrous corporations who have made so many "strategic alliances" with Big Business that they are indistinguishable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 3:55 PM in reply to wbgonne
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 16, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to wbgonne
Multiple parties would be great. I'd love to have instant run-off voting. But really, we should be focused on taking over the Democratic party on a local level and then ork our way up. I know that sounds difficult, but it's no worse that building a new party. The point is that we can't speak of change passively. We all have to get involved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to whitesauce
I don't think so. The Democratic Party is simply too entrenched with Big Business now. I thought Obama might be able to pull it off but no. And if he can't do it after the Bush Dark Age, the Dems just can't get it done. Time to look elsewhere. It won't be easy but it is possible. For god's sake, look at what the TeBaggers have done!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 16, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to wbgonne
I agree. It's just not going to happen at the Senate level. House maybe, but the House is fairly progressive already and we've seen how well that's worked out for us...
Obama turned an about face on major issues when he took office. Here's a great article from Rolling Stone a few days ago on his financial team:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Matt Taibbi is the best political writer today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtr
December 16, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to wbgonne
Did you see the modest shout-down Yglesias received today after Y. swore if one more...if if...then he'd give them (the Dems) the "Taibbi treatment." The commentators saw right through him the poor thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 16, 2009 4:23 PM in reply to wbgonne
The Left does not have guts like the Right. You are all sitting here typing waiting on someone to "lead" you when you can do that for yourselves. you know what you want - go get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:31 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Um, isn't that guy in your picture supposed to do . . . something? You know, the guy we got elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Wow! I didn't realize that. Thanks for telling me!
Back in the real world, phone calls and letters to Sens. Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln fail to persuade them. I suppose I could quit my job and go hang out near their offices in DC. Maybe I could get their attention that way. Maybe I could get them to listen to me for ten minutes or so. Or, maybe I could get arrested just for the attempt. And then there's Lieberman. There's nothing that anyone can do about him. Anyone.
I and many many others put a lot of time and effort into helping to get Obama elected. I worked hard to help Al Franken get elected. But, the reality of it is that I'm not going to get the attention of these people who have blocked the public option, no matter how compelling the argument, when I'm not a corporation or an industry that can shovel truckloads of cash into their campaign coffers. There's a time and a place for that "Little Engine That Could" narrative. This ain't it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
December 16, 2009 4:43 PM in reply to chimpale
Have you thought about faking your death on the Capital steps... I hear that's all the rage, these days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 16, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to chimpale
My point chimp is that the Left thumps its chest and talks a lot of trash, but they don't back it up with action. It was in response to a poster who was once again grandstanding.
You say no one could have moved Joe Lieberman? I agree. Does that apply to Obama also?
You say the ones who are against the PO could not have been moved by anyone. After reading Nate Silver's post, I agree. Does that apply to Obama also?
And it's good on you that you worked hard for Obama and Franken. If you did all that then my post should not have offended you. In addition, the hard work doesn't start until after the election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 8:57 PM in reply to Viva!America!
I wasn't offended. But, hard work, harder work, super-hard work--none of it matters when a Lieberman can single-handedly kill a meaningful bill and force us to choose between a gift to the insurance companies and nothing.
We have no role in this, and wishing or imagining we did won't change that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 16, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to wbgonne
With rare exception, third parties in the US are usually either extremely weak (on message and also on financial wherewithal) , or beholden to the same interest groups, but unable to wrangle a nomination from a major party.
I have been somewhat optimistic that we may splinter soon enough, if the Conservatives and the Progressives can establish their own popular leadership, there might be a chance to break the cycle.
Conservatives - Republicans - Democrats - Progressives
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:08 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Progressive Party. Howard Dean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Yeah, more fragmentation into hardened ideological blocks, that's what we need in this country.
Third party vaporing is just typical grass is greener on the other side of the sense bullshit by people who can't reconcile themself to the imperfection of democracy and human nature. Things deemed sacred principles have to be compromised in order to create a governing majority in a democracy no matter how many damn parties there are in the system. When no one does it, you have chaos and paralysis, like in Italy back in the days when they used to change governments every three days.
In a multiparty system, you get to feel more pure on election day than you do in a two party system. That's the only real difference. The day after the election in a multiparty system, a government has to be formed, deals have to be cut, compromises get made, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the disillusioned purehearts who bear none of the responsibility of governing or of failing to govern begins. Same tune, different key.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 6:15 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
i think we see the plan is to get a big conservative industry giveaway, and then try to sell it as progressive
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 6:20 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I think maybe you meant to reply to a different comment of mine ????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 6:27 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I think you are correct. I hate it when it gets so thick in a thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 16, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Point taken. But the current system is far too entrenched and should be uprooted.
Alliances would be made--along the same lines they're made today in most cases. However with delineated parties, you're essentially opening the door for (hopefully) stronger leaders in all parties. The 'Progressive' and 'Conservative' leaders can have their own time in leadership positions. Sure you have a lot of squabbling, but how is that different from today? The difference is that the progressives wouldn't have to lay down their hands and fold to Reid and Baucus on every issue just to have party unity. It also makes polling their constituents a lot easier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jeff Wegerson
December 16, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to wbgonne
We already have FOUR parties in the Senate!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
diamondjoe
December 16, 2009 5:41 PM in reply to Jeff Wegerson
Hmm...
Progressives (East/West Coast Liberals - Sanders, Wyden)
Democrats (Blue Dogs - Webb, Nelson)
Republicans (Pro-Business Corporates - Snowe, McCain)
Conservatives (Religious Right - Grassley, Enzi, Inhofe, etc.)
...or something like that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
December 16, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to wbgonne
Find a suitable progressive candidate and 5crew the Democratic party. Maybe Howard Dean can get the ball rolling. It's that or stay at home on election night because this liberal has had enough
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 16, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Well, if Democrats get handed their hats in the next two elections, perhaps they'll be forced to reconsider their strategy of concession and conciliation with Lieberman et al.
But I wouldn't count on that. I think what will happen is that the progressive left will get blamed, there will be media masturbation about how Dems moved to far left, and it will be business as usual for Dems: back in the minority, and complaining.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:55 PM in reply to CT Voter
And it will remain that way until our leaders -- and most especially our president -- get out and start changing the national dialogue. When Democrats play on the Republicans field, the Dems will lose every time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
December 16, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to CT Voter
It didn't happen the last time they got their asses handed to them, I don't see why it would happen now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 16, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
"Us"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Speak for yourself. If you want to reward this sellout, go right ahead. At least you won't have long lines to stand in, come election day. On second thought, maybe you will. There'll be a LOT of teabaggers there. Should be fun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 16, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to EastWest
Us = CT Voter and myself. And I don't think I spoke out of turn with that comment. CT can correct me if I did (and I apologize if I did).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 16, 2009 4:34 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
No problem. I interpreted it the way you meant it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
December 16, 2009 6:09 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
That's what Democratic primaries are for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 16, 2009 7:16 PM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
And it's looking similar for Republican primaries now too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 16, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to CT Voter
What are they supposed to do about it? A bunch of upset bloggers is nothing compared to the massive collapses they face if they don't pass a bill at all.
The only thing the democrats can really do about the left is get some bill passed as quickly as possible and move on to some other priority the left cares about more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to mcc
now that's leadership. hilarious
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to mcc
why you think anything else is gonna be more progressive is beyond me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to mcc
Yes, no one will notice. Not like when Jumpin' Joe detected happiness in the voices of Wiener and Dean and sprung into action to smite the object of their pleasure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 7:02 PM in reply to mcc
Current poll numbers suggest they will have a massive collapse if they do pass it in its current form. Including pissing off a significant portion of the liberal portion of Obama's base. So you can quit mumbling about it's just you bloggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 17, 2009 3:49 AM in reply to mcc
This was the issue I cared most about. And I think there are a lot of people for whom that is true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 8:32 AM in reply to slb
Me too. And I don't think anyone's going to like the mandate when they get a load of what they get in return...if they get seriously ill, bankruptcy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to CT Voter
On the flip side, I don't think people around here get that there are few if any viable alternatives. I also don't think the bill will get a fair hearing so long as the public option is gone.
Why this whole "Better to make Lieberman happy than do good policy that a majority of the public supports" notion is the operative presumption of the day is beyond me. If they didn't need to hold Lieberman's vote, than he wouldn't matter. It sucks, but what's left to do?
Nope. Not reconciliation. And definitely nope: don't just kill the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 16, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to fbacon2
Right now, there's nothing left to do. The Dems are going to be screwed either way, thanks to how this was handled. Starting out by declaring the single-payer system off the table is not how you go about getting a meaningful piece of legislation.
I understand why the WH took such a hands-off approach to this because otherwise, Congresscritters would have their panties in a twist, but in retrospect, it was a mistake.
The apparent continued belief that Max Baucus was going to get bipartisanship from the Finance Committee was bizarre. Obama isn't LBJ, but couldn't there have been just a little arm twisting? Maybe there was, and we won't know until years.
And Obama's ratings started dropping right at that time. Excellent strategery, WH.
We have a bill that is going to impose mandates. It will do other things that are good, but the bottom line (and public story) will be about mandates, mandates, mandates. And those will be mandates that people have to pay. So the reform is going to appear like a big chunk just got removed from an individual family's budget. That's some reform!
Add to the fact that this won't take place for quite some time, and it makes me wonder if Dems and the WH were deliberately trying to give the insurance industry a great big kiss.
I don't really think that, but days like this do kind of make me wonder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to CT Voter
I think you're making a common error that buys into the notion that the WH was simultaneously AWOL from the debate and yet pulling all the strings to create the exact outcome we're seeing.
Yes, we'll get a better sense of what happened behind the scenes when the history is written, but our understanding of the contemporary debate was fatally wounded by incessant conspiratorial ideation. The deference to Baucus was a mistake, but I've yet to see what the other options were when the Senate Finance chair made promises that were within his sphere of influence. Baucus set us back at least three months, but that was his fault. One could blame the WH for "letting" Baucus drag things out, but stepping all over his turf while he had more clout brings on other problems for Congressional strategy.
I get why mandates are now a rallying cry in the absence of the public option, and Obama's primary campaign bears some responsibility for that, but I find the general argument to be a convenient proxy to take out our frustrations on the loss of the PO. If this were 1993, opposing the mandate would be the line in the sand to draw accusations of traitor from the progressive base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to fbacon2
Exactly. The mandates are just a convenient foil for public option supporters who want to make absurd comparisons to slavery. If a 2.5% income tax hike coupled with a tax incentive for buying insurance is such an unbearable atrocity, why the hell did we all unanimously oppose the Bush tax cuts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 16, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to fbacon2
"...the notion that the WH was simultaneously AWOL from the debate and yet pulling all the strings to create the exact outcome we're seeing."
These things are not mutually exclusive. Actually they are parts of the same process. Publicly he wasn't pushing much. His last public speech on health care was in Sept. where he put the $900 billion cap on it.
You may be right that we will never know what went on behind the scenes but we've always heard that he's playing 11 demensional chess while everyone is playing checkers. So is a guy who's that sharp NOT working behind the scenes? Or is the Chess stuff a bunch of bullshit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 5:30 PM in reply to henk
The straw man of 11-dimensional chess is what's BS.
I didn't say we'll never know the whole story, but I did guess that when more history is written, we're going to learn that the contemporary reporting and hyperventilating was wildly off the mark.
What I've argued is that the demand for more public pronouncements, "lines in the sand," veto threats, etc. from the progressive base (ignoring the national town halls, televised press conferences, speech to Join Session of Congress in Sept., and generally staking the presidency on health care) were more out of a desire for emotional satisfaction than achieving real legislative results.
The WH was actively involved in the process and generally acted as rational players trying to get the best bill possible through the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to fbacon2
here's an active admin:
The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 6:02 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Ok. We've seen this counterargument, and I take it seriously.
Here's a rebuttal. People can disagree, but it's a legitimate point that doesn't lead to obvious conclusions about motives and intent that Greenwald likes to make at the drop of a hat.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/the-bill-he-wanted.html
"Greenwald then cites the White House threatening to not help House freshmen with re-election if they voted against the supplemental war spending bill to prove what the "White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want." This is false equivalency. The White House denies that they pressured freshmen on this issue, which is to be expected, but assuming that the Obama Administration did pressure freshmen congressmen in this manner, it doesn't prove that the Obama administration could have forced the Liebermans and Nelsons of the world to bend to its will. Freshman congressmen need to stay in the good graces of the White House and DNC much more than multi-term centrist senators. The White House might have calculated from the start that "this was the best bill they could get," but a large part of that calculation hinged upon how much they could strong arm centrist senators."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
December 16, 2009 6:16 PM in reply to fbacon2
You know, if you were a cheerleader at a game, I've no doubt that you'd chant, "You don't have to be ahead - you just have to BEAT THE SPREAD!!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
I guess this is an insult directed at me. But if we're sticking to sports analogies, the Kill the Bill crowd must the team that says, "Screw you guys," and takes their ball home. That'll sure show them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 6:55 PM in reply to fbacon2
The accusation is more serious -- looks like the insurance companies bet on the game, and I can sure see the insurance company campaign contributions and if I don't see some real fighting spirit on the field don't expect me to sit in the stands and cheer. And, oh yeah, don't expect me to buy a ticker next time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 6:58 PM in reply to AJM
We can mix the metaphor a bit more. Insurance companies are betting on the game, and the netroots are the spectators more interested in the fights than running up the score and executing a game plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to fbacon2
how about that today the administration is attacking Dean, but they haven't attacked Nelson, Lieberman, etc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Because they need their votes to get the danged bill through the Senate, and they don't need Howard Dean's. What they want from Dean is for him to STFU before he helps collapse support in the Congress by making claims that may not actually be right (e.g. reconciliation). What Dean realistically hopes to accomplish is a mystery to me, but achieving ends has ceased to be part of the discussion with a large segment of his fan base.
Publicly calling out, slamming, breaking, or standing up to Nelson and Lieberman (whichever phrasing we have in absence of a strategy) would be gratifying to spectators but not really helpful in passing this bill or the next one on the agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to fbacon2
Actually it might. Authoritarians trample all over those they perceive as weak and grovel to those they perceive as strong. So a good swift kick might lead to improvement.
Or look at them as rational economic actors -- what has it cost them for opposing the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 7:31 PM in reply to AJM
Might. My point is that the netroots have made a lot of demands and invested a lot of anger in a big "might" that they pretend is a surefire route to success. Funny thing is that the answer to every ill seems to be public floggings of Rogue Politician X.
Note that I said "publicly" calling out these guys, which is what the demand really is. In the blogs, it seems if people can't link to it or embed it, then it never happened. This leaves us doing silly things like parsing repeated affirmations of support for the public option because it wasn't given with feeling.
Plus, I don't think Lieberman's an authoritarian. I think he's a sociopath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 6:30 PM in reply to CT Voter
Here's my problem with all that handwringing. How many people in Massachusetts are expressing their outrage over the horror of mandates? Folks there are pretty satisfied, I hear.
Mandates are critical to holding down the cost of insurance. Without mandates, healthy young people are more likely to bug out. With them, they subsidize the sick people, just like working people subsidize Social Security recipients (albeit with a hated intermediary taking some of it for themselves).
Lots of Hillarites were screaming about this during the primaries and, yeah, they were right. Obama's people made a bad call and once they made it on the trail, they were stuck with it because the political consequences of admitting error were too high. But he did the right thing and flip flopped off a bad idea after he won.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 8:57 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
No...there's universal coverage in MA. But we also have the most expensive health care in the world. And it keeps getting more expensive as the quality goes down. And, from what I understand about the legislation under consideration is that its regulation is much weaker (more regressive) than that in MA. It would also effectively gut state regulations, allowing insurers to form interstate compacts and apply regulations in states with almost no regulation to customers in states where regulations are strong. That's just one example of how proposed legislation allows insurers to game the system. And once it's in place, it will be very difficult to overturn. Who will decouple our resulting dependence upon and fealty to private insurers? Progressives? Not with the backing they've received from this President. No, the legislation as it stands either needs to be improved or shitcanned. And if you think it will be improved...well, fine, but their latest move was to throw out a proposed exceedingly watery public option (open to very few people, tied to a level playing field negotiating status, unable to form synergies with existing federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid and VA, and perhaps [if it had gotten that far]tied to triggers and looking very much like coops) and the Medicare buy in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 8:43 AM in reply to CT Voter
There's only one really good argument to explain why this bill was handled so poorly: it was handled masterfully, by Obama and his team, to get exactly what he/they wanted - painless 'don't rock the boat' health care 'reform' (because that's what they're calling it, right?) by the time he makes his State of the Union address. What we know about the Senate bill so far is that its regulation is weak and riddled with loopholes and that it would enshrine in law a new corporate entitlement that would be nearly impossible to turn around later. Only a Democrat could pass such a bill. If it were a Republican, posters at this site would be all over it. This is not reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 16, 2009 3:40 PM
Good thing for Obama that he doesn't read or follow the polls. I think he's really misreading things on this one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Arrogance and stupidity. Or stupidity and arrogance. You pick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 16, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Obama isn't mis-reading the politics at all.
If no bill passes the entire Democratic Party will be viewed as impotent to everyone, not just you guys saying that he should kill the bill. Moreover, you guys who are complaining about the bill will still stay at home. Furthermore, your cries to politicians will fall on deaf ears for the rest of you life because all politicians will expect you to turn on them if they are unable to get it passed.
The only people reading this wrong are the people who think they can get HCR later if they kill this bill now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to Darrius
Kill. The. Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 16, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to wbgonne
...and then use reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Woo-Hoo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 16, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
You can pass the bill, AND STILL USE RECONCILLIATION.
Killing the bill will eliminate all political will to change health care and it will takes any power Democrats have to make health care the topic. Once Republicans have power they won't even bring it up for debate; Democrats won't either if the left crucifies them for failing after an honest try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to Darrius
Let's examine that clause, shall we?
First, is it "the left"? Or is it the millions of Americans who actually want a public option?
Second, "failing after an honest try"? Honest try? Nice try. Obama the Sphinx did NOTHING to help HCR. There was no try, honest or otherwise. Just why do you think people are so pissed off?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 16, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to wbgonne
It was an honest try.
First of all, Obama did not have to make this the topic. Republicans NEVER address health care reform.
Second, Obama was trying to court Olympia Snowe early in the process. In exchange for her vote she wanted a triggered public option. But the left cried out that they wanted a public option with no triggers. Now what do we have???? No public option at all, that's what we have.
Third, if Obama doesn't force the hand now the bill won't pass, Dems will take critical damage, and HCR will be dead for another 60 years.
People are pissed because they are emotional, irrational, and panicking. We can still use reconciliation and other options if we keep power but only if we keep power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 4:36 PM in reply to Darrius
looks like labor ain't by the BS:
"Though there’s no official word yet, early indications based on talks with various officials are that the groups will either formally oppose the legislation or, less dramatically, just not fight very hard to ensure its passage"
-S Stein reporting
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 4:44 PM in reply to Indie Pro
not only does it look like labor is done, but it looks like many dems are ready to throw the president under the bus for this as well:
"The president keeps listening to Rahm Emanuel," said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). "No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God!" he exclaimed about the Senate health care bill to Roll Call. "The insurance lobby is taking over."
Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), told Politico of Senate delays, "It's ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That's nonsense."*
more here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/democrats-lash-out-at-oba_n_394424.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 3:57 PM in reply to Darrius
I can hear the DLC and conservative democrats singing now:
I did it all for the election! Election! Election! So you can take your healthcare reform and stick it up your...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to Darrius
And how is that different from our cries falling on deaf ears now? These senators are beholden to corporations. That won't change until public financing of campaigns is passed. And, since that would mean an end to the gravy train, it ain't gonna pass.
I thank Obama for letting us believe, for a little while at least, that we could really change things and that voters could have more power than the entrenched special interests. It was fun while it lasted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to chimpale
I thank Obama for letting us believe, for a little while at least, that we could really change things and that voters could have more power than the entrenched special interests. It was fun while it lasted.
Yes, it was fun going to an inauguration with some actual optimism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
December 16, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to Schmed
Hope is a fun drug, but the hangover is a bitch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
December 16, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to chimpale
"That won't change until public financing of campaigns is passed."
That's true, but how do we get public financing? I really don't expect the majority of bought and paid for politicians to vote for it - it's not in their interest. This way they get ooldles of money, free vacations as long as they pretend to do a little work, well-paying jobs for family members (jobs which require little or no real work) and all kinds of other perks. Since they have made it clear over and over again that they will always put their own interests over that of their constituents and their country, I ask again, 'how do we get public financing?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to Powkat
Like I said: "And, since that would mean an end to the gravy train, it ain't gonna pass."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 16, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to chimpale
And how is that different from our cries falling on deaf ears now? These senators are beholden to corporations. That won't change until public financing of campaigns is passed. And, since that would mean an end to the gravy train, it ain't gonna pass.
Your cries are not falling on deaf ears now. Your ideas just didn't have enough votes to pass. Your cries falling on deaf ears is what happens when Republicans control the government. There is a difference.
With a Republican government you cry and cry for health care change and the government only talks about starting new wars and tax cuts. When Democrats control the government Harry Reid tries to pass the public option even when everyone knows he doesn't have the votes.
Kill the Bill people on the left want to punish Democrats for actually listening to them and trying to give them what they want even though they don't have enough votes to pass it. They are emotional and suicidal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 16, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to Darrius
The first paragraph is supposed to be in quotes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to Darrius
Some of the behavior of the Senate Dems has been self-defeating. They defied common sense and the advice of people across the spectrum who told them not to waste their time trying to get the Republicans on board. Weeks, if not months, went by while the Republicans made clear that there was no way they'd support a bill no matter what was in it.
So, no, they weren't listening to us. Do you think Nelson was listening? Did it seem to you like Landrieu was listening, much less comprehending, what we were trying to tell her?
You can't get through to these people. I don't know why they wanted to be senators in the first place, but clearly it wasn't to help give a voice to all those millions of people out there who can't afford to buy one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 16, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
You really think he doesn't read the polls?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 3:43 PM
Poll following has its place. You don't nuke a good policy because it is unpopular but you do weigh the benefits of that policy against the hazards of passing it. If passing HCR without public option costs you your majority in both houses, was it worth it versus waiting until after 2010 to see if you could get it done right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to AJM
The other estimation is that not passing it will both have a more dire impact and make any kind of improvement impossible after 2010.
The reality is that if you pass this, there's a strong foundation for further reform, though you piss off some on the left. If you don't, Congress isn't going to try comprehensive health care reform for at least another decade and you also piss off the remaining 41% who want this passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 3:45 PM
Given the popularity of the PO vs the popularity of the senate bill in prior polls, this shouldn't be a shock.
I'm sure leadership is hoping with a few frilly words in a well read speech they can get the progressives and liberals counting ceiling tiles again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, said it would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise. Feingold said that responsibility ultimately rests with President Barack Obama and he could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.
“This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth,” said Russ Feingold
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I don't expect that the WH will be issuing any strenuous denials.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 16, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro
From the mouth of Feingold. Must be gospel. Maybe he can work it into his groundbreaking hearing on the proliferation of WH czars?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 16, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to Indie Pro
And the apologists fall in line. Brown, Feingold....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
December 16, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Well, before you sing the praises of Russ Feingold too loudly, you best also be aware that he was adamantly opposed using the reconciliation process to break the Senate's 41+-vote logjam and push it through to conference with a public option legislatively encumbered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:48 PM
Yes, the public option remains overwhelmingly popular despite its 500 deaths and incessant undermining by the Power Dems. But you know what? Popular opinion don't butter the bread: the Oligarchists do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 3:51 PM
Are you following this, ConservaDems? Have you started to figure it out, yet? You keep blowing off the progressives (or "leftists" as you would call them) and you're not just screwing them, you're screwing the rest of the party AND yourselves. Try listening for a change, assholes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
December 16, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to chimpale
Most of the Conservadems (Lincoln being the notable exception) basically have lifetime sinecures. And being the minority is probably a lot less work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 3:54 PM
Yeah, remember that recent poll showing only 55% of Democrats certain to vote next year? Turning the HRC bill over to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson will REALLY help that figure, I'm sure. Granted, that number will surely climb as we approach the actual elections, but look at the huge head start the GOP has when it comes to base voters. I don't think the Obama administration gets it either; I believe they are taking the progressives for granted way too much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Turning the HRC bill over to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson will REALLY help that figure, I'm sure.
Don't forget to credit Baucus for delivering a bill that was pretty much DOA. Lieberman and Friends just pulled the plug on an already dead patient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
debbiedoesnothing
December 16, 2009 3:55 PM
Bingo. People want a public option, they're not getting it and they're pissed. If even loyal, committed, lifelong Democrats like myself feel like giving up on the party, how do they expect to hold on to the rest? The health care crisis in this country has turned a lot of people into single-issue voters. HCR is the only issue - every other domestic issue flows from that. Jobs, the economy, housing, education - you name it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to debbiedoesnothing
Not to mention they have spent ONE FULL YEAR working on the damn thing. At least they could come close to getting it right. Incompetent boobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 16, 2009 4:10 PM
Why can't you guys see the obvious--that passing health care reform will be a HUGE victory for liberalism! GOP knows this. Which is why they're scared sh*tless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
December 16, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to ilovebacon
Probably because it's not obvious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
December 16, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to ilovebacon
Because this isn't real health care reform. Rather, it's one small step from become a full-blown Joe Lieberman Insurance and Pharmaceutical Company Windfall Giveaway Act of 2009.
While I realize that what I'm about to say probably sounds terribly naive and unrealistic to a totally sophisticated political urbanite such as yourself, but there are actually Democratic hicks out here in the sticks who do try to read and understand the legislation, and hold very dear to themselves some real, honest-to-goodness political tenets by which they try to abide.
You see, for such principled people, it's not simply a matter of winning and losing on a given issue per se, but rather about actual, bona fide progressive accomplishment that betters the lives of others. And frankly, if you can't respect that, I feel very sorry for you, because you're really no better informed than the too-cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs teabaggers on the loopy right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 16, 2009 9:11 PM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
I feel sorry for all the bleeding hearts demanding ultra liberal healthcare reform. Sorry, but what we are getting is what we deserve. America is not that progressive--obviously. Any improvement on healthcare is better than none. I'm not naive. It's you reform bashers who are naive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 9:07 AM in reply to ilovebacon
What was so ultra liberal about a public option? You could choose it or not. States could even opt out under Reid's proposal. You're enabling a drift to the right that started under Reagan. The weak proposed 'level playing field' version even made it more expensive than most private plans. That seems pretty modest to me. That's what's pissing people off. They're coming up with creative ways around not having been offered single payer and those ideas keep getting shot down and given up for dead by progressives, who, in turn, are rolling over and being rolled by the Administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Memekiller
December 16, 2009 4:13 PM
This is, indeed, good news.
Dems fates are inextricably bound to passing good HCR, no amount of Big Pharma $$ can save them if they don't. The worse of a HCR package, the worse their popularity, which means the public side of things still works.
The fact that Obama, etc. are so motivated to move in the opposite direction of public opinion shows our politics is still horribly broken. They seem to think it's more important to please the village and insurance companies than pass something that benefits us -- and they should pay in the polls every time they do that. That's the only counter to K street available to pressure things in the right direction, and the only hope of imprinting the needs of voters on this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 4:13 PM
Why SHOULD anybody but insurance executives and their lackeys support LieberCare? For the mandates that will piss off exactly the same voters Obama won over in 2008? For the pretend "regulations" riddled with loopholes? For the subsidies that may be politically dead long before they kick in in 2014, and in any case will be quickly eaten up by premium increases? At this point I consider all supporters of this bill to be either hopelessly ignorant, or ratfuckers actually working for the Republicans (who get policies friendly to their corporate masters and electorally toxic to Democrats without having to brave the teabaggers to support them- how nice of the Democrats to make their lives so easy.)
Take this turkey out back and shoot it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 4:32 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
LieberCare. I like it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 4:14 PM
My God, can anybody refute the points made in this Firedoglake write-up on the current bill?
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/the-senate-bill-is-designed-to-make-your-health-insurance-worse/
...true about the massive loopholes for annual and lifetime caps?
Unbelievable. The ONLY chance for this bill to win progressives back is to get a hell of a lot better in conference...and I really don't see that happening. Unless the White House gets their head out of the sand and realizes what a political meltdown they're looking at. The way forward is to push this bill hard to the left in conference and strongarm any wavering centrist Dems into supporting the final product. They've maxed out their credit with the progressives in the House and Senate and then some. Get rid of the loopholes, go with the House tax and not the Senate, and do whatever else you can to make this bill more palatable--not to mention effective! I'd argue for stripping out the mandate as well, if there's no public option or Medicare buy-in. How the hell has THAT survived, when so many good things have been ripped out?
If it remains as is (and if the Firedoglake rundown of it is correct), then it's become a heinous gift to the insurance industry and I can't support it, politics be damned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 16, 2009 4:14 PM
Now I see why I supported Kerry over Deaniac in '04. I thought I was liberal until I started listening to some of these lefty loons and Deaniac over the past few days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 9:14 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Right, Kerry has his priorities in order: #1: Appropriate scads of money to blow up brown people in Afghanistan; #2: Gut Romneycare regulation in Massachusetts with unregulated interstate insurer compacts from proposed Liebercare bill.
Yikes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 17, 2009 10:19 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
It's not to blow up brown people. It's to protect Afghans from the most anti-liberal groups on Earth--the Taliban and al qaeda. Killing those groups aids liberalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to ilovebacon
Using drones to bomb villages and masking civilian casualties: funny way to go about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 17, 2009 8:37 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Better than letting the Taliban and al-qaeda grow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 4:19 PM
Another good point in a front-page diary just posted at Kos, re: subsidies:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/16/815267/-The-political-vulnerability-of-subsidies
BTW, where is the plan for cost containment in this HRC bill? Yes, the New Yorker has a good article in the current issue about pilot programs, but really, can any defenders of the bill in its current state point me to its strategy for cost containment, with no public option? And that's another reason why the Kos diary hits home. Given the spiraling costs of health-care, and centrist Dems' demands for an entitlement commission, does anybody envision these subsidies holding up well even in a Democratic-controlled Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psmdsfc
December 16, 2009 4:23 PM
I just unsubscribe from the info@barackobama.com. Since the public option has been removed. I will no longer donate, since this administration is not interested by the will of the people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to psmdsfc
I unsubscribed from OFA Monday night. I just can't take their e-mails right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 4:23 PM
Then there's the Dorgan Amendment going down to defeat (and the Obama administration wanted it defeated):
http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/dorgan-drug-importation-health-amendment-defeated/
I mean, what the hell? I was on the fence about the bill before, pretty much leaning towards supporting it, but the more I read and the more that gets taken out (or kept out), the worse it becomes. And I don't have much faith that it will improve noticeably in conference...unless progressives raise such hell that the administration realizes they HAVE to improve and change it, this time from the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Yes, right: that's another reason they'd like to pass this now, and why it's being negotiated behind closed doors (rather than on C-SPAN). People won't have time to digest it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 16, 2009 4:25 PM
I am so tired of being jerked around on this issue, but I really want to see what shakes out. I need details. It's hard to be against something that is still in flux.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
username1234
December 16, 2009 4:28 PM
Seeing how no one can get one the same page isn't Obama showing us he is not a good leader? Seems as though he should have brought a plan to the House and Senate and said make this happen, but all we get is him sitting in the white house repeating the same thing pass a bill, pass a bill. Maybe show some leadership and lay out a bill to pass. Atleast Bush had most the repubs following in line...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DanielFBoone
December 16, 2009 4:39 PM
This bill is the equivalent of forcing motorists to buy auto insurance that doesn't cover major accidents and is nothing more than a handout to the insurance companies. This is as offensive as the GOP will make it out to be and is going to cause major losses in 2010 and beyond. I'd much prefer defending no bill than this bastardized gift to the Insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ikoinos
December 16, 2009 4:43 PM
Let's see, the current bill allows me to choose which for-profit-coverage-denying entity will get to charge me 3x for having the pre-existing condition of being over 50. That or pay a fine for the non-coverage that I already have.
What a great accomplishment for Obama and the donkey party! I used to be one. But should this pass, I'll be writing in Dean for every politician up for election, next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to Ikoinos
Yes, that's something else that needs to be changed as well--the whole "can't be denied because of pre-existing" is a joke if they're allowed to charge 3X the amount simply because you're over 50.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
December 16, 2009 5:49 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
I understand the anger here, but I think these types of arguments get at the core of the problem with our entire healthcare system: the profit motive and the "providing care" motive are in direct conflict. I don't blame the insurance companies for pushing for age-related premium adjustments - that's how insurance WORKS. If you are more likely to use the insurance, the company is going to want to charge you more to balance the risk. (Note that the reverse is true in auto insurance - teenagers cost much more than adults, for similar coverage.)
This is why single-payer should have been on the table from the start. I'm talking full-on, tax base-funded government healthcare, perhaps with private providers. Medicare-for-all is close enough. Then, the compromise possibly looks something like catastrophic health insurance through traditional insurance providers, plus preventive or "required maintenance" care (tying back to the auto ins. analogy) through some sort of single-payer plan.
The entire insurance industry is based on spreading risk around, and simply doesn't work for things (i.e. checkups, flu shots, pregnancy, dental, vision) that are inevitable expenditures on the part of the insured. Try buying insurance for oil changes and tuneups - you can't, because it's guaranteed that you're going to need them. Just like everybody needs checkups and flu shots and dental visits, etc.
So under my plan you can buy insurance for catastrophic health events (cancer, broken leg, teabagger syndrome), and insurance companies work just like they're meant to: they spread risk around and you end up paying a little to them to cover for the (hopefully very small) chance that you suffer a catastrophic event.
Then, for your day-to-day healthcare needs, there is a national single-payer plan with a sliding scale of fees (not "premiums", because this isn't "insurance" - it's just healthcare) and subsidies based on income. People at the top of the income chain pay 100% of their own health maintenance bills, plus a little more in the form of taxes that go towards...
...subsidies for those at the lowest end of the scale, which gradually scale back as income increases. These subsidies cover not only the cost of health maintenance, but also premiums for the catastrophic insurance (possibly a public option is available? Not sure about that...)
Everybody gets basic health care plus true insurance for those unfortunate events that would otherwise cause bankruptcy or just death from lack of care.
Remember, all of that IMO is the compromise. Full single-payer, for both maintenance and catastrophic care, is the ideal, and the starting point for discussion.
Oh, and we all get ponies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
December 16, 2009 4:43 PM
Anybody who assumes that Dems angry about this are all far-left loonies is thoroughly and completely out of touch with normal, average, common-sense Democrats. I guarantee that once the reality of mandates coupled with no cost-controls on insurance companies hits home, the anger you see now will pale in comparison to the volcanic outrage that will develop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to bluestatedon
I'm old enough to remember the same kind of complacency from the dinosaurs in the runup to the 1994 election. In 2010 just as back then, reality is going to give them a hell of a smack in the kisser. (But they still won't learn, any more than they did back then.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 16, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
They did learn. This time they're actually passing a bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to mcc
That will end up being even more unpopular than the status quo. That's learning??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 5:08 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Who will it be unpopular among? The millions of people receiving subsidies? The millions of people who now qualify for Medicare? The millions of people enjoying new regulatory protection both through HHS and OPM? Or the tiny fraction of people having about a quarter of their Bush tax cut rolled back because they chose to not buy insurance and don't qualify for a financial hardship exemption?
The reality is that, as Krugman pointed out weeks ago, the more conservative Massachusetts reform is overwhelmingly popular in one of the most liberal states of the country. These reforms will be very well received, internet commenters will find a new topic to freak out about in two weeks, and the White House and virtually every Democratic congressperson knows it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 16, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to Stroszek
I don't know who you think you are spinning to Joe Lieberman and the DLC choir?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to bluebell
Well, stupid lines like that are a good indication of how desperately you guys are scraping to barrel to justify continuing denying health care to millions of people. bluebell, unlike you, I actually work for anti-poverty efforts, and I know how this bill will affect those most in need. So your self-righteous comment section "activism" rings particularly hollow to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 16, 2009 9:13 PM in reply to Stroszek
A lot of the anti-healthcare people are confused liberals (and GOP trolls) who want Obama to fail so they can vote for losing libs and cry when they lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 16, 2009 5:18 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Pretty unlikely. The criticisms of the bill leading to these numbers largely have to do with hyperbolic, dire predictions of government takeovers or insurance companies somehow finding new powers to destroy our lives, all of which has very little to do with how the bill will effect actual people once it's in effect. The people who actually wind up having negative personal interactions with the "mandate" (i.e. people who don't make quite enough to afford the mandate penalty on top of their other expenses, but who somehow evade qualifying for the subsidies and exemptions-- and the white house has power under the bill to expand those exemptions pretty much at will) will be embittered horribly, but this will also be an extremely tiny group of people, not enough to actually effect electoral results. On the other hand the set of people who receive government subsidies under the bill and thus spend less of their income on insurance will be sizable. Practically everyone will either see no change under the health care bill or will receive some sort of concrete benefit. The bloggy left may still be angry in a few years about the bill over their hurt feelings at losing to Joe Lieberman again, but people aren't going to actually consider their lives worse once it passes.
Now, I suppose it is possible the health care bill may be a bit of a drag on Democrats in the 2010 election, before most of the provisions go into effect and thus when it's still possible to make wild claims about the horrible things that it will do that aren't yet contradicted by actual experience. But the negative numbers for the health care plan are mostly the result of sustained PR campaigns, and this implies the Democrats can alter this with PR campaigns of their own once the 2010 campaign machines start up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 5:22 PM in reply to mcc
after the mandates, democrats will be on the hook for all premium increases.
the polls belie your Hope(tm) that it is only bloggers and commenters who wanted the PO, and are moving against the senate bill as it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
That would be the case anyway because the public option, robust or not, is not going to stop the growth in medical costs. The mandate is such a marginal provision that's going to effect so few people, it's not going to be much of an issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 6:22 PM in reply to Stroszek
yes, I see you are arguing about the PO that was watered down, which I've never supported, and even argued with people about.
I argue for a Public Option as presented by Obama the candidate, opposed to Obama the Corporate Conservative. A PO that would be competition to the insurance industry, reduce the deficit, and drive down premiums, as cited by the CBO.
Now, all I'm saying is get rid of the Mandate. Keep the subidies and exchanges. I've been consistant.
I feel sorry for you constantly having to come up with new ways to cheerlead a constantly degrading piece of crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 9:49 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Precisely. Fatalists ("this is the best we can do; single payer just wasn't meant to be") stopped calling for the robust public option - a patently modest proposal - when it became clear it might not pass; now they've given up on any public option. We've been negotiating with ourselves since 1980.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 16, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to bluestatedon
I guarantee that once the reality of mandates coupled with no cost-controls on insurance companies hits home, the anger you see now will pale in comparison to the volcanic outrage that will develop.
Though for the thousandth time, oddly enough, nobody cared about this fact BEFORE the public option* got taken away. Apparently forcing voters to give money to insurance companies enrages them, but forcing voters to give money to the government they just love.
* Which remember, in the form present in the HELP and House bills, functioned only as an "insurer of last resort", was projected to be more expensive than a private plan, and did not control costs to consumers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
December 16, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to mcc
Before the demise of the PO, there was a certain logic to the idea that the government was going to mandate that you purchase coverage, but you could buy into publicly operated, not-for-profit insurance if you wanted to.
Obviously that logic was somewhat flawed, except under the maximally-defined public option, which never had a chance of passing.
I kind of agree that a lot of this sudden attention toward the mandate is more a question of liberals needing some kind of catharsis in the face of the inevitable and yet somehow unexpected kick in the kidneys that we were given. And some of the portrayals of the impact of that mandate are surely exaggerated (taken right out of Boehner's rhetoric about how this bill will force you to pay for insurance or else go to prison). The reality will more likley be: if you don't buy insurance you won't get as much of a tax break as someone who does.
I think there are other things that are much more wrong with this bill than the mandate. Like, the lack of any meaningful way of enforcing insurance industry regulations (no rescissions, no lifetime limits, etc.) that look so good on paper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to agio
The whole "the regulations won't work" argument is such asinine BS that was obviously just contrived recently to justify disingenuous fanaticism over the public option. First of all, DOJ, HHS, and the profession of lawyering isn't going to vanish in 2014. Second, effective regulation is necessary for the viability of the public option itself. If the regulation won't work, the public option will either have to behave like any other private insurer to stay afloat or go bankrupt as "uninsurables" drive its premiums into the stratosphere.
This argument is just a perfect encapsulation of the bullheaded irrationalism bubbling up on the far left right now. It's really disappointing to see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
December 16, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to Stroszek
Well I won't dispute that we'll still have lawyers, no matter what.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to Stroszek
They WOULD have worked- before they were gutted by Reid to please Joementum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 16, 2009 7:07 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
What regulations do you refer to which Reid gutted for Lieberman's sake?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to mcc
Huge, gaping loopholes introduced into both the rescission "ban" and the lifetime caps. For the details go do your own homework, this isn't USENET and we're not in 1994..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 16, 2009 7:34 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
So you are referring to the changes in rescission and annual limit language between the Finance/HELP bills and Reid's version of the bill?
What does this have to do with Joe Lieberman? Those changes were present in the November 18 version of the bill, well before Lieberman began making hard demands concerning the bill. Are you suggesting that when Reid's office prepared the bill, Lieberman was working over his shoulder like an invisible puppeteer?
Given that these particular changes would be present only in the Senate version of the bill, are (unlike, say, the public option) not a specific point of contention with conservative Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, and are of grave concern to patients' rights lobbying groups, wouldn't this be a prime example of a case where the problem could be fixed in conference? I mean, it seems like if you were actually interested in fixing these problems, these are fixable. But you seem to be going out of your way to allow anyone to even learn about the problems, they seem to be only important to you as excuses to bash a bill you oppose for other reasons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 9:54 AM in reply to mcc
It looks like this bill has the Administration's full support. He isn't going to go to the wall for any progressive improvements to this for fear of losing one or two votes - he needs every one. And he has to have something - anything - to talk about for the State of the Union speech. If there's any way to get around negotiating with the House (and that's likely), he'll use it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 4:56 PM in reply to bluestatedon
The problem is that the "reality" of mandates being pushed by the far left is just the product of Palin-esque fear mongering. A marginal tax increase for the 1 or 2% of people who choose not to buy insurance and don't qualify for a financial hardship or faith exemption is going to go unnoticed by the vast majority of voters.
The "reality" is that an even less progressive plan with a more forceful mandate is overwhelmingly popular in one of the most liberal states in the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 10:07 AM in reply to Stroszek
Popular and totally unsustainable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 10:09 AM in reply to Stroszek
Also, Romneycare as it works in MA is more highly regulated than this bill.
There are ways to fix this bill, but if you think they're going to be addressed you're dreaming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 4:46 PM
Yep. For starters, they need to:
(1) Eliminate the mandate if there's no PO.
(2) Get rid of the loopholes re: annual and lifetime caps.
(3) Go with the House tax rather than the Senate excise tax.
That's, from my POV, a bare minimum to make this bill even worth considering after it leaves conference. If that doesn't happen, it's a huge sop to the insurance industry and a disaster for average Americans, given that there's no hard-and-fast cost-containment strategy and that the subsidies aren't even protected from being messed with down the road. God, what an abysmal thing to be going out in the name of "reform!" If it's not changed in conference, there's no way I can support it anymore. I can't believe that I'm going to be calling my senator's office and urging him to vote "no," but that's pretty much where I am right now unless they do all of the above. Ridiculous!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maynard
December 16, 2009 4:50 PM
Good. Kill this abortion of a bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ion
December 16, 2009 5:11 PM
Again - are the people who pointed out some months ago that Obama's cabinet choices indicated a unwillingness to fight for real reform still merely "concern trolls"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 5:18 PM in reply to Ion
Nah, you're just conspiracy theorists who assume a lack of magical powers is evidence of malevolent intent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JesusQuintana
December 16, 2009 5:15 PM
After reading a few of these posts it is kind of embarrassing to consider myself a liberal. One thing this long debate showed is who is working for reform and who is standing in the way. The Republican Party is clearly in the way. They care more about trying to play games than they do about making policy. And a few Democratic and independent senators are blocking things as well.
Instead of whining shouldn't any real progressives think about how to remove the roadblocks? If there were just two more progressive senators the bill would have looked a lot different.
So many people here seem to be like a former 99 lb weakling who got sand thrown into his face by the bullies at the beach. After a hard-core workout program he grew some muscles. He then goes back to the beach thinking he can get back at the bullies who tormented him. But then someone threws a little sand into his eyes and he cries again and runs back to mommy. Grow up people. No one said change would be easy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 16, 2009 5:16 PM
Has anybody succeeded in getting through on the White House comments line? I've been trying to call since late Monday afternoon but have gotten a busy signal every time; I assume they're getting more calls than usual right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
December 16, 2009 5:49 PM
The Democrats will be very dead if they don't honor the millions of 'little people' who supported their election.
The Republicans are far worse, but more open about their support for the corporations. They lie to the people (gullible) who think they will lower their taxes, when Republicans only want to transfer the little people's tax money to the wealthy. (I believe they are taught that the basic premise of capitalism is the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.)
No one now seems to be on the side of the people. Except maybe Howard Dean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anasazi
December 16, 2009 5:49 PM
The American public takes the cake!
After we've finished with Health Care Reform, we should work over that Bill of Rights and discover why workers think an 8-hour day is so good. I'm sure supporters of HCR can be found hiding in that legal wood pile, and workers need to feel the full bite of laissez-faire economics.
We've a way to go, but with continued dedication to our natural nativist way of thinking, we can achieve Palin's shining city on a pile.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 16, 2009 6:08 PM
I don't think they get it. This is an issue that many of us have cared passionately about for decades. It's not any issue. It's a huge deal. You can't screw people on something like this and think they'll kiss and make up by election day. This one had to be done right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 16, 2009 6:16 PM
There is no rationale imaginable where i can see myself supporting the current bill in the senate. Democrats have allowed a few obstructionist to make what was an already weakened bill even more weak. The fact is once a bill reaches President Barack "Can't We All Get Along" Obama's desk, there's still the issue of competition and choice. The bill will do nothing to help poor and working families or cut cost. The fact is once the bill is signed into law country's like Canada, France, Germany, Israel, United Kingdom, Sweden and Cuba will have a far more superior national health care system than the United States. Furthermore, this white house has gone to (i believe) great lengths to demoralize the same people who rode them into power. I've never seen a democratic white house so hostile to the very same people who they claim to represent. It's truly, truly amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 16, 2009 6:19 PM in reply to ru4862
Sure... if you don't care about people living near the poverty line.
You mean the African-American and Hispanic communities that are going to be the chief beneficiaries of this bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 6:25 PM in reply to Stroszek
those things can be achieved without the mandate
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
am4
December 16, 2009 6:33 PM in reply to Stroszek
I love it! The Whitehouse went out of its way to cater to the every whim of Lieberman and mock and screw over the "left of the left" progressives who organized and donated time and money to get Obama elected. Did the Whitehouse think they could curry favor for pharma and FIRE, while punching the DFHs in the face and the DFHs would just stand and take it? I'm undecided about this very disappointing bill, but one thing I'm sure about, Obama has gone out of his way to mock and patronize the progressive who helped him to win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 10:22 AM in reply to Stroszek
So they're passing this to help the working poor now? Couldn't they just increase eligibility for Medicaid to 200% of the federal poverty line? Or allow people to buy in to Medicaid? Offer a means tested public option? No...this isn't about poor people, this is about using poor people to cement private industry into our health care delivery system. The subsidies included in this can be negotiated away later. Much more difficult to get us out of mandated coverage later, given the power of the insurance industry and bigPharma.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
December 16, 2009 6:36 PM
I can't read all of these comments. You all sound like you're fighting among yourselves. I wanted someone to talk me down off the ledge. Damn!! I'm so pissed about those in charge that I worked to get elected. DAMN. IT. Tell me I'm wrong & that I shouldn't move to an English speaking European country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
December 16, 2009 6:45 PM
We are Rome and Rome is burning
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
December 16, 2009 7:20 PM in reply to randomname
Rosin up your bow...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 16, 2009 6:56 PM
Strozeck,
Are you kidding me? I mean, where do i begin? How are you so sure this bill help black and latino communities? asian, black and latinos are disproportionately effected by health care. Excuse me, but as a social worker in NY, i deal with black and latino members of the community daily and some of them come to me for Medicaid assistance because they cannot afford a private health insurance plan. And the public option and medicare buy-in which according you they will benefit from is now gone. Don't you dare tell me about members of the community i represent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 7:00 PM in reply to ru4862
Actually it might, authoritarians trample all over people they consider weak and grovel to those they consider strong. So a good swift kick might lead to improvement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 7:04 PM in reply to AJM
Sorry Ru4862 this was meant to be elsewhere. And in response to your name -- yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ1
December 16, 2009 7:33 PM
If Democrats think they may take a hit from Progressives not voting in 2010, wait until they learn that the voters who had to write the big checks to the insurance companies for coverage this bill "gives" them, are going to vote.
These voters never bothered to vote before. Now they'll have a personal reason to do so - and I don't believe the Democrats are going to like the look of that crowd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Paul-no not that one
December 16, 2009 7:36 PM
Bad policy+terrible politics. The only reason to pass this now is to give BHO a "win".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 16, 2009 8:04 PM
From reading this thread it appears that these are the top 10 priorities of the Left:
1. Themselves and their image
2. Their personal vendetta with the Right
3. Their personal vendetta with Rahm
4. Their personal recently renewed vendetta with Joe L.
5. Punishing Dems - who will go on to make millions from lobbying and have cheap health insurance
6. Punishing big business
7. Themselves and their image
8. Going up against the man - just because (that means you Obama)
9. Themselves
9. The American people - and I'm being generous
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 16, 2009 9:15 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Your powers of perception underwhelm me.
Who are "the Left" that you refer to and what does that make you by comparison? For a point of reference, I consider myself a moderate and I have for decades.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
December 16, 2009 10:07 PM in reply to Viva!America!
I can't believe you put the american people on the list.
"Moderate" means a dem who wants to appear objective, yet is still a leftist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 17, 2009 9:20 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Sorry, but no: this is bad policy, which does more harm than good. We can do this better. And people should hold their elected representatives accountable. If they aren't mad about the proposed changes to the way health care is paid for and delivered in this bill, they're not paying attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JerseyCurmudgeon
December 16, 2009 8:16 PM
Although I think that sausage-making can't be as ugly as this mess, I still believe in the principle of least harm. Anything that gives the Republicans a victory would be far worse for all of us than passing this wholly inadequate bill. Assuming the bans on discrimination for pre-existing conditions survive, I think most Democratic voters will grudgingly decide that it is a lot better than nothing.
Having said that, I think we need to learn some valuable lessons about not projecting wish fulfillment onto Presidential candidates, and about the value of believable threats to the careers of legislators. The Republicans have mastered that, and we need to catch up fast.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 16, 2009 8:55 PM in reply to JerseyCurmudgeon
Passage of this bill will be a Republican victory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 16, 2009 8:17 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html
Health care costs in Mass. rose much faster after that state's (similar) reform. In response they've tried to increase penalties on the employer violating mandate and reduce costs from providers. How do you think the federal government's response might differ from a far more progressive state governments'?
60 senate votes to add new regulations... or 51 votes to reduce subsidies. (It would count as reconciliation) The latter would require a different political environment, but that could be the case in the future. Certainly the former requires a degree of control for progressives that doesn't even exist now. So how do you prevent a future government from just cutting subsidies and leaving the poor high and dry when rising costs follow the Mass. example?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 16, 2009 8:47 PM
I never thought I'd be as disgusted by the tone of many liberals as I am of rightwingers. Both are selfish ideologues. Neither will get change. They only want to "express" their emotions, as if they had some inherent value. I'm disgusted with both extremists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 16, 2009 8:53 PM in reply to ilovebacon
You think you are disgusted with us now, wait till 2010 an 12!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 16, 2009 9:08 PM in reply to bluebell
Because Republicans are so great. Well, naturally Republicans like you and the others I see here are ticked off at Obama. We progressives won. NOW LIVE WITH IT! Hahaha.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
December 16, 2009 9:22 PM
Oh, the winds of change. One year ago, the majority chose Obama for president. This year, they say He's full of crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
praedor
December 17, 2009 8:54 AM in reply to ShawninMo
The system is generally self-correcting. Obama is a one-termer and because of him and his lackeys in Congress, 2010 is going to be a disaster for the Democraps and Obama. They EARNED it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
December 16, 2009 10:53 PM
A familiar pattern has re-emerged. The Republicans in Congress are ruthless, and the Congressional Democrats are gutless.
Our system of creating legislation is a double-edged sword. All too often, in order to accommodate enough people to support a bill, it becomes bloated with amendments and neutered by the need to compromise.
This can also impact the leaders of the cause -- the danger in trying to be all things to all people is that, more often than not, you end up being nothing to no one.
No public option? No single-payer proposal? No expanded Medicare plan? Big mistake.
Since single-payer appears to be off the table, with respect to calling this health care REFORM, without the public option there's no there there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
praedor
December 17, 2009 8:51 AM
Piss off Obama. The bill in its present form is 100% unacceptable. No public option (non-profit alternative to criminal syndicate insurance companies) but with an illegal mandate. The mandate needs to go or the bill is DOA. A mandate under the current bill is government-enforced profits for insurance companies, intended to help CEOs hand themselves guaranteed bonuses and pass out huge dividends to shareholders.
This bill is the same as "fighting hunger" by forcing the poor and hungry to BUY food, or "fighting homelessness" by forcing the homeless to BUY houses.
Kill the mandate and the bill becomes a reasonably decent, incremental regulatory improvement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
S Green
December 17, 2009 11:42 AM
When you are going to the poll, either you vote for or against. There is no middle. And it is voting time.
Either you are liberal or conservative (appeasing) liberal. Either you are for Insurance Company / Pharma or you are against it. Either you are for the Real Reform or you raise the banner Mission Accomplished without reform achievement. That's what you do when you go to the poll.
Let's recall Josh Marshall had dinner with Obama, not long ago, so he became a Rahm's recruit. This tells us where he and TPM stands, unsurprisingly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gene Savory
December 18, 2009 3:22 PM
(Sent to President Obama 0n 9 Dec 09)
The news today is that the health care "reform" process will insure the health of medical industry profits. That's actually not news. There is so much corrupting influence in DC that Congress has decided that the health of campaign coffers is more important than the health of the population of the US.
Your lack of leadership on this issue is frightening. You once claimed to be in favor of a single payer system. HR 676 and its brethren were immediately trashed when you decided that you were not in favor of single payer because we weren't "starting from scratch." That's completely wrong. We don't have a health care system; we ARE starting from scratch. If the health "industry" wins this time, it will be another generation before anybody pretends to be in favor of democracy on this issue. How many people have to die or become bankrupt because of the current "system?"
Our health care dollars have been spent on bloated profits, insanely out of control executive compensation, and lobbying; COMPLETELY AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
This proves the conflict of interest that exists when the majority of Americans want to be represented, but are shunted aside in favor of money. You know the numbers, and it is clear that the numbers that this government is interested in are campaign dollars.
Seeing this process unfold and become a guarantee of profit for the health care "industry" has been disgusting and disheartening. I am sad that I am not surprised by these events. The only people represented in our government are those who can buy the most influence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 5:32 PM
Let's examine that clause, shall we?
First, is it "the left"? Or is it the millions of Americans who actually want a public option?
Second, "failing after an honest try"? Honest try? Nice try. Obama the Sphinx did NOTHING to help HCR. There was no try, honest or otherwise. Just why do you think people are so pissed off?
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?