TPMDC
Rahm To Reid: Give Lieberman What He Wants
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Share
Send to a friend!
Obama administration officials were not pleased when word leaked out earlier today that the White House was leaning on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Lieberman on a public option alternative--and they gave their counterparts on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. an earful about it. But in the end, sources are unanimous: The White House wants Reid to hand Joe Lieberman the farm.
An aide briefed on discussions with the White House says that there would be no story if Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel hadn't interceded. The aide confirmed an account, reported by Huffington Post, that Emanuel visited Reid personally, telling him to cut a deal with Lieberman.
Then the aide provided more detail.
Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers.
"It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman--not twisting his arm.
This is the second Senate aide to provide nearly identical accounts of the White House's intervention. It seems very much as if officials there desperately want the Senate to pass a bill, at all costs.
At this point, the Medicare buy-in isn't in exactly what you'd call "good health." But the fact that it hasn't been officially nixed by Reid suggest there's some remaining tension between Reid and the White House over this issue. We'll know soon who wins.
Comments (333) | 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.
bluebell
December 14, 2009 8:08 PM
Why stop with the farm? Give him Illinois.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vavasseur
December 14, 2009 8:32 PM in reply to bluebell
We folks from the Illinois territory wouldn't appreciate this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 8:40 PM in reply to Vavasseur
Maybe Harkin will thrown in Iowa and Brown will contribute Ohio.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baba2nde
December 14, 2009 8:48 PM in reply to bluebell
Dems already gave him the whole USofA by way of Homeland Security Chairmanship. He wants more. He wants Mr Reid's job. Heck, why stop there? He may want Mr Obama's job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 14, 2009 9:35 PM in reply to bluebell
Shocking that a weasel like Rahm would stop at nothing to get a bill passed no matter how bad. He's one of the worst strategists of all time. He'll go down in history as the man whose advice sank mighty America and turned it into a third world disaster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 14, 2009 10:58 PM in reply to oleeb
America was a disaster way before Rahm. You know that, but choose hyperbole. It's tiring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 14, 2009 11:22 PM in reply to Dorn76
It's not hyperbole. He's an amoral, totally unethical person. None of this means anything to him in terms of the human costs of his lying and double dealing.
For you though, being a true believer and an Obama can do no wronger, I'm sure that thinking this is hyperbole sooths you and allows you to continue to comfortably deny reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 14, 2009 11:01 PM in reply to oleeb
'He'll go down in history as the man whose advice sank mighty America and turned it into a third world disaster."
Really. This comment could only come from a complete moron or someone who was deep in a coma for the last nine years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 14, 2009 11:26 PM in reply to brewmn61
Have some more kool aid. It'll keep ya feeling like you have a clue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
December 15, 2009 4:51 AM in reply to oleeb
This is not just a failing Rahm, Obama, Reid or even LIEberman strategy — this includes the "good guys" like Harkin and Sherrod Brown.
There is a single strategy already on the table, a parliamentary trick that would only require 50 senators and whoever is acting president of the senate, and it's a trigger that can be pulled at any time the senate is in session.
If there were senators actually interested in stopping this runaway train of filibusters (139 in the last senate, a number absolutely guaranteed to be broken in this one), that parliamentary trick of the so-called "nuclear option" (it's explained relatively well @ Wiki) could be played.
If there were enough senators that actually want this nightmare to stop.
However, secretly in their heart of hearts, I think every senator kind of likes the idea that they can pony up and leverage such single-senator power. Because once the "nuclear option" special handshake language is uttered and ruled upon by the president of the senate, the filibuster dies, not just on this issue but for all time.
Dead. And gone. Forever. Why they call it nuclear. Why nobody's really talking about it.
And it needs to happen. Now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 14, 2009 10:59 PM in reply to bluebell
Talk to Connecticut. We like Schakowsky, Durbin and (yes, even) Burris just fine, thank you very much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 14, 2009 8:08 PM
Will cost Reid his senate seat, along with Dodd and Lincoln. It's really going to hurt Obama as well as he has his pitbull threatening 59 Senators to appease one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 8:10 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
threatening them with what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 14, 2009 8:12 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Who knows, maybe just a mean look. I mean Reid is famous for his sternly worded letters.
Reid has to lose in 2010. Addition by subtraction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 15, 2009 12:04 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Maybe with the disaster America faces if there is no health care bill passed? Because of all the actions that might return the Republicans to power in 2010 / 2012, that is the most likely.
HCR, even the rump form that will meet Lieberman's sick egotistical requirements, is so far above what we have right now as to be in a different universe. And it's just the first bite at the apple. Pass something now and then improve on it because the Republicans will not be able to reverse whatever is passed.
Don't pass anything right now and the Republicans have won and America has lost for a decade or more - again. The President's choice and that of Rahm Emmanuel is to lose big time with honor and flags flying or they can win part of the battle and come back again later to continue the battle. It's decision time, and it looks like the White House has decided to take whatever can be won right now and try again later.
If that's a correct analysis of what Rahm is doing then we are all going to look back later and agree that it was the right decision. America, Obama and the Democrats simply cannot accept the defeat that Clinton took on health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ched
December 15, 2009 12:16 AM in reply to Richardxx
Spoken like a true Rahm/Lieberman apologist. You guys are all over the place tonight. Gotta hand it to Rahm & Ari - nobody can mobilize a hoard of media and blogospheric spinners and damage control artists like the Emmanuel brothers. Keep up the good work. America may lose the war, but you guys will almost certainly win the battle of the news cycle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
60th Street
December 15, 2009 12:53 AM in reply to ched
"nobody can mobilize a hoard of media and blogospheric spinners and damage control artists like the Emmanuel brothers"
nice tin-foil dome yer sportin' there chad!
Teh eeevil Emanuels rule the world!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 15, 2009 9:43 AM in reply to ched
I suppose that you think the Democrats should fully participate in the testosterone battle over health care. That means killing what remains of the hcr that exists right now after half a year of battle just to get back at Lieberman. Grow up. Getting revenge does not mean hitting yourself.
I'm no defender of Lieberman. I'm also no fan of the continued existence of the Senate. The Senate itself has no value to America. It is simply a useless left-over relic of aristocracy that is a dagger at the heart of our country and at the America people. Joe Lieberman has just proven why the Senate should be removed from any position where it and individual egoistic Senators can continue to damage America.
I am angry at Joe Lieberman (May he and his family rot in Hell forever), at the murderous insurance companies and at the conservatives generally. I am as angry as I was at the shooter who killed JFK that Fall Tuesday afternoon in 1963. I also blamed and still blame the city of Dallas and conservatives for JFK's assassination. That was a level of anger I had never again had. Until now. That level of anger is back.
But I also remember when Medicare was passed, and I have watched as it saved lives ever since. I also know about the still existing provisions in the Senate bill that will cram reforms down the throats of the insurance company gutterslime. Kill that now in a fit of self-destructive anger and we won't get those reforms back. Lieberman and the Insurance companies will win again.
The remaining reforms still cover almost everyone in America and they still prevent the insurance companies from skimming a lot of the money from the healthy while shoving off the sick to the government or to no one but god. I refuse to sacrifice that just to feel a sense of sanctification because sanctimonious Joe and the insurance companies he serves want that to happen.
This is time to remember the old saying: Revenge is a dish best served cold. Lieberman is the new Benedict Arnold. It's time to salvage what can be saved from the last six months and then to target Lieberman, the insurance companies and the conservatives. It's time to support FireDogLake if you haven't already.
We also need a new organization entitled something like "Give Lieberman was he deserves!" (or "Get Joe!") as a pressure group to focus political pressure on getting him and focusing public opprobrium on him every time he leaves his home or office. The organization should make sure that Lieberman is not forgotten and that he is not allowed to get away scot-free. It can be done. People still remember Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard and make sure he does not get forgotten. But the way to get Joe is NOT to kill what is left of hcr right now. That will just make his current win even bigger.
The Democrats also need to focus this anger at Lieberman towards the GOTV effort for 2010 and 2012. I'm not the only one this angry, and I still to this day blame the City of Dallas and Texas Conservatives for killing JFK. Anger like that needs to be harnessed politically - because it will be, one way or another. Lieberman and the Party of "No!" are good and appropriate targets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 15, 2009 3:12 AM in reply to Richardxx
The President's choice and that of Rahm Emmanuel is to lose big time with honor and flags flying or they can win part of the battle and come back again later to continue the battle. It's decision time, and it looks like the White House has decided to take whatever can be won right now and try again later.
I realize that actual policy is, y'know, too nerdy 'n' stuff, but the above-quoted reasoning is a crock, as explained by Tanjaouli a while back:
Those other ways (e.g. pass the regulatory reform in regular order, then a PO by reconciliation) have been discussed here and elsewhere. There are available to the Dems in Congress, the POTUS, and his pit bull, should they choose to use them. The fact that they are not so choosing speaks volumes. But the apologies for this failure from the TPM commentariat grow awfully tiresome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prefabfan
December 15, 2009 8:41 AM in reply to Richardxx
Close. Rahm is playing a brilliant game of poker, at Obama's behest. Pass this half hearted bill to get insurance industry under control, THEN pass the expansion of Medicare for those over 55 option with 51 votes, as a budgetary measure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
December 15, 2009 9:16 AM in reply to Richardxx
I agree with Richard. It appears that the Dems are going to jettison the proposals to insure the uninsured (other than through Medicaid eligibility adjustments) and move forward with the insurance reforms. If necessary, they can take care of the uninsured or under insured through reconciliation. I don't understand the vitriol against either Reid or Rahm. There is a total of 60 senators who caucus with the Dems, and every single one of them has veto power because not a single Repub will vote for anything. They can't play this game forever; something has to get passed.
I don't agree that Lieberman walks. At some point, there will be a price to pay; obviously, Lieberman has thought about this and doesn't care since the Ct insurance companies have likely promised to make his position worth his while. It's nice to be idealistic, but sometimes pragmatism is necessary to get things done.
Finally, I note everyone railing about how Bush got things done when he had 60. The difference is he was able to rely on Dems who cared more about getting some kind of legislation through. Obama doesn't have the luxury of working with R's who think the same way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ben_nelsons_hair
December 14, 2009 8:29 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Reid is gone and I am not disappointed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 8:42 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Will save Reid's seat, if it can be saved at all. The alternative you propose (no bill at all) would cost Reid and other Democrat's their seats. Same goes for Obama. Also, Rahm is not threatening anyone. You're just lying again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
December 14, 2009 8:46 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
you people are funny.
you dont have a clue.
everything you see happening has the complete support of obama.
lol..and to think people come to this site thinking they are helping to influence change and reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 8:48 PM in reply to JadeZ
And here come the PUMAs with their conspiracy theories. Keep hunting that Whitey Tape, Jade. I'm sure it'll turn up one of these days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 8:51 PM in reply to JadeZ
And Hillary and the whole pack of neo-neo-cons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
December 14, 2009 8:13 PM
Why don't we bypass Traitor Joe and give Olympia Snowe what she wants, including the chair of the Homeland Security Committee? It will probably be less expensive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
December 14, 2009 8:19 PM in reply to traitorjoe
She doesn't want a bill until next year, so if you want to pass a bill now and get this over it, you go with Lieberman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 14, 2009 8:31 PM in reply to dtOZONE
WTF pass a bill any bill. Who really gives a shit if its does any good, it could just as well make things worse, but it is done! Hooray!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 8:51 PM in reply to henk
"Who really gives a shit if its does any good, it could just as well make things worse, but it is done!"
Not you obviously, which is why you lie about the contents of "any bill." No need to mention the ending of bans on people with pre-existing conditions, nor the ending of dropping coverage on people who get sick, nor giving 30 million extra people insurance coverage, or Rockerfeller's amendment forcing insurance companies to spend 90% of premiums on actual health care coverage. Nope, just lie about that and continue you on your insane rant. Those tactics have worked so well at passing the public option haven't they?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 8:54 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
Hey, that 90% deal is the next thing to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 9:05 PM in reply to bluebell
Believe that. I wouldn't want to stop your hysterical crying because you're not getting everything you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 9:28 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
I'll have to file that comment away. It will be useful on a November Wednesday come 2010 and 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 15, 2009 2:41 PM in reply to bluebell
Do so. Vote for Nader and Donald Duck for the rest of your life. I wipe my you know what with your one vote. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ched
December 15, 2009 12:23 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
Rahm? Is that you? what are you doing here? It couldn't be that you suspect you've finally crossed the line, could it?
You guys remember when Obama cut loose Rev. Wright, or Samantha Powers? At the time, I thought it demonstrated a surprisingly mercenary lack of loyalty on Obama's part. Now, I hope Obama rediscovers his ability to cut off the cancerous limb, and quick. With any luck, Emanuel's toast, and he'll have to go back to Goldman (or Citi, or wherever the hell he came from).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 15, 2009 2:39 PM in reply to ched
Yeah, I'm Rahm, pscyho. You figured it out. Now go back to your bitching about him...I mean me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AllanCook
December 14, 2009 8:15 PM
I was so hoping to read, "Rahm to Reid: Tell Lieberman to Pound Sand." So they give Lieberman what he wants and the next Democrat gets in line to issue his/her demands? Health-care reform is doomed, and the country with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 14, 2009 8:34 PM in reply to AllanCook
You must not have been paying attention to our friend Mr. Emanuel. He and Joe are fellow travelers. He was telling Reid to give Joe what he wants. He being Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
December 14, 2009 10:44 PM in reply to AllanCook
That's just for neocons. If it was Bernie Sanders pulling a 3 yr old tantrum trick, Rahm the Asshole would tell Sanders to pound sand. Sanders wouldn't be making Rahmbo and his richie rich Bob Rubin buddies even richer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
YesAnd
December 15, 2009 8:10 AM in reply to AllanCook
I'm trying to get my head around this development and to make sense of it. I'm supremely disappointed and I do believe that if the final bill turns out to be nothing more than a mandate for the uninsured to pony up for our bloated system, then we will not have true reform. However, the status quo may not be sufficiently painful for vast swaths of people who choose to remain uninsured and burden the system, and ultimately, the rest of us who do pay for health insurance. I'm reminded that the system already provides overpriced and inefficient care to the uninsured, so I wonder how much of a windfall this will actually be for insurers. From that perspective, odious though it may be, the bill being considered will do quite a bit to alter the political landscape and create a small army of people who are A) unhappy about being forced to participate, and B) unhappy that the only option available is private insurance. (Note to Republicans: be careful what you wish for) This -may- create a (necessary?) critical mass of tension that will ultimately yield true reform. It also provides the Dems with an opportunity to say that they tried mightily for a public option but couldn't overcome the Republicans monolithic opposition to the idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 8:16 PM
Now we have another faux progressive, Brown, on Keith's show telling us how much he wanted the public option. Why do I care what he wanted, past tense? I care what he delivers!
I can't stand these blathering hypocrites. I can at least give Lieberman credit for his sheer determination to be totally evil.
What possible good are these pretend progressives! They tell you one thing and pose as liberals on the tube until they get their 15 minutes of fame and then the next week they SELL YOU OUT!
Sorry Senator Brown you are no different from Joe Lieberman because you are going to DELIVER JOE LIEBERMAN's BILL and smile doing it.
You get no points for capitulation, Senator Brown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 8:24 PM in reply to bluebell
And so it begins.........
I'm happy to see that your scorn is fairly distributed.
I mean that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 14, 2009 8:29 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Well, no surprise there. Those are the same people who said and believed Gore was no different from Bush. Everyone else but themselves is the same. That's the mentality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 8:43 PM in reply to geofu54
Every time I hear that I remember Lieberman was on the ticket with Gore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sanssouci0
December 14, 2009 9:22 PM in reply to geofu54
The DCC and Obama must be really worried about 2010, now that they have all these shills on TPM posting garbage. This is amazing. Who the f- do they think we are? Comments like those above just reinforce my utter contempt for the democratic party. I have been consulting TPM on a regular basis, and the flood of new posters here are totally artificial trolls trying to create artificial dissent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 9:26 PM in reply to sanssouci0
What are talking about? are you calling me a plant?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 14, 2009 8:19 PM
Rahm Emanuel has to go. He really needs to go now.
We should start a campaign to have him resign.
I will not vote for another Democrat while Rahm Emanuel is in the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
December 14, 2009 8:20 PM in reply to rbeats
Or we let Harkin introduce a bill to end the filibuster so we would only need 51 votes, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 8:27 PM in reply to rbeats
Oy vey!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
December 15, 2009 12:00 AM in reply to rbeats
Time to send him a dead fish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 15, 2009 1:01 AM in reply to rbeats
Don't kid yourself, Rahm is doing exactly what Obama wants him to do. So is Lieberman. Thats why he still has his powerful committee seat. He is a beard for the real agenda.
The WH shouldn't be involved with telling shiftless Harry what to do, there are 3 branches for a good reason.
Reid should be lining up a lobbying position. He wont be in the senate next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 14, 2009 8:20 PM
Our only hope is Burris?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
December 14, 2009 8:24 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Well.The.Hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 8:29 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
And with that I quote Homer: Doh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 8:24 PM
Rahm looks so Seuss-like in this photo. He looks, oddly, like the Grinch.
I was really hoping that Rahm would be a bad-ass for proper Democratic goals.
Like real health care reform.
I don't understand this guy, and I don't understand why he was appointed to Chief of Staff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
December 14, 2009 8:46 PM in reply to again
Seriously, what happened to the behind the scenes butt-kicker? It seems he only delivers when it means bad policy outcomes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 14, 2009 9:41 PM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
What do you mean? He essentially kicked the ass of 59 Senate Dems in order to please one. That's a helluva feat. I mean isn't there one Senate Democrat that would get right in Rahms face and tell him to sit his useless ass down? Rahm will not be in the White House in four years time, so if a Senator was elected on '08 Rahm can't touch him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 8:26 PM
Message to Rahm Emanuel, from a longtime supporter of Senator/President Obama who pretty much no longer gives a crap: F*&% you.
I am so, so SICK of watching this administration bully progressives and beg, beg, beg Joe Lieberman and a handful of conservadems to please, please, PLEASE not join a GOP filibuster. They are weak, and they are not willing to fight, and they are no longer worthy of any financial support from me. At this point, I'm pretty much ready to join the "won't be voting" crowd next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 14, 2009 8:28 PM
I hope house liberals and progressives defeat the bill when it goes back to the house.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
December 14, 2009 8:48 PM in reply to ru4862
Word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 14, 2009 8:29 PM
Look on the bright side. The Goracle has proclaimed that the polar caps will be gone in 5 years, so you won't need health care anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 14, 2009 8:39 PM in reply to Silence
Fa Cough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ottis
December 14, 2009 8:31 PM
Now who is next to say no? I hope it is all the real Democrats in the house. We should just kill this thing. I received a letter from my health insurance company today. They are still trying to figure my rates for next year. They say they will let me know later. I hope Lieberman sends them the good news. They will be celebrating for a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pinson
December 14, 2009 8:32 PM
Awesome job democrats. Mandates for everyone to buy crappy overpriced insurance. Insurers keep their antitrust exemption, and their lifetime - oh I mean "annual" - limits. Meaning the bill will have zero effect on medical bankruptcies, and might just boost them some. This bill is going to be, rightly, hated by everyone not working for or owning stock in Aetna. Democrats will be playing defense on this for years. Unbelievable. Hey Rahm: Lieberman ran against your party in both of the last elections. He wants you to, you know, LOSE. Morons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 8:32 PM
I can't support this thing if all it has in it is "no rescissions" but with a mandate.
I've been fighting the "scrap everything and start over" argument, but that is the only option left to me at this point.
What is the relationship between Rahm and Lieberman?
Why is Rahm giving Lieberman such preferential treatment?
Why should we support an administration that allows the Chief of Staff to reward such prima donna behavior?
Do any of these guys have any balls to do what is good for the American people?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Middle Road
December 14, 2009 8:37 PM in reply to again
no
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 14, 2009 8:39 PM in reply to again
Rahm is trying to save the 2012 election for Obama.
Remember, it's not about you. It's about them.
Welcome to the TEA party!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Druthers
December 15, 2009 6:44 AM in reply to Silence
That is the palpitating heart of the matter - it is all about THEM and Obama and Rahm are like two peas in a pod.
The Senate never stop parting - do you hear the corks popping?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 8:49 AM in reply to Silence
I'm sorry -- I couldn't possibly be associated with any group of people who are so clueless as to let themselves be associated with the expression "teabagging." Y'all are too damn stupid for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 9:17 AM in reply to Signalman
It's difficult to see the truth through Wall Street issued blinders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 11:21 AM in reply to Silence
It's even more difficult to see when you have dozens of teabags dangling off the brim of your hat and when you have conservative bullshit smeared all over your face and eyes.
But more to the point, Wall Street's got no hold on or claim to me. *You're* supposed to be the badass bond trader, remember? That's what you said on Sunday.
Man, you're a pathetic troll. You can't even keep your lies straight from one day to the next.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ickyma
December 14, 2009 8:56 PM in reply to again
Scrap it.
I am beside myself right now.
I hope to Gawd that they have some fuggin' pictures of Joe Red on his knees in front of Tiger Woods or something...
That LIEberman SOB is an insufferable piece of shite.
The Dems are pussies.
And we are all collective FUBAR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ickyma
December 14, 2009 8:35 PM
I still don't know why Reconciliation isn't an option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 14, 2009 8:46 PM in reply to Ickyma
The way its been explained to me is that it can only be used for Budgetary measures not Policy. Creating the public option would be policy. Taxing Cadilac insurance plans would be budgetarty. They could split the bill up, but it looks like they want to do it as a whole so someone gets the "Got Health Care Done" knotch on his belt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 8:56 PM in reply to Ickyma
(1) You cannot do insurance reform with reconciliation. That means you cannot end the bans on people with pre-existing conditions, nor can you end the bans on people who get sick and then get dropped. Nor can you mandate that insurance companies spend 90% of their premiums on actual coverage.
(2) Reconciliation may be filibustered. Within the reconciliation vote, there are areas where the filibuster may be employed. Lawrence O'Donnell mentioned that reconciliation was never an option many months ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 14, 2009 9:35 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
No.
It can only be filibustered if you are trying to overturn the ruling of the presiding officer if he concludes that an item is not allowed through reconciliation. So no, you cannot actually filibuster an item in reconciliation unless it is an item that does not belong there. (Basically a non-budgetary item)
You would either have to drop some elements, or pass two seperate bills; but that's not at all undoable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 10:10 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Yes.
It can be filibustered if a provision being put through reconciliation is in violation of the Budget Act under the Byrd Amendment.
To quote Lawrence O'Donnell:
"Reconciliation requires 50 votes plus the Vice President for final passage only. During the process of reconciliation on the Senate floor there are countless votes that require 60 votes because it requires you to waive the rules of reconciliation - that's done constantly in every single reconciliation process that goes to the Senate floor. They can't think about going to the Senate floor without 60 votes whether they're doing it in reconciliation or outside of reconciliation."
- Lawrence O'Donnell
Former Democratic Chief of Staff of the Senate Committee on Finance and blogger at the Huffington Post
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32696599
Time Index on Video 3:30
-----------
I won't rule your dual track approach completely out of the picture, but simply saying that you can pass insurance reform through the normal procedure and the rest through reconciliation does not show enough sophistication or grounding in facts to be taken as a real alternative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 8:35 PM
No kidding re: the House. Shoot this mess down, afaic. I'm just really, truly furious right now. We have compromised and compromised and compromised...there has been NO compromising from the Blue Dogs or Lieberman/Nelson and crew. And mark my words, Ben Nelson will now get what he wants re: Stupak. I mean, why wouldn't he, after they capitulated to Lieberman? We have a 60-seat majority and we are being played for FOOLS. And yes, I surely blame President Obama for his spectacular lack of leadership on this issue...and for letting Rahm Emanuel pull stunts like this. I trust NOTHING that this White House says or does anymore. This is not what I worked, gave money and voted for...to let Joe Lieberman run the country. Man, some of the most INEPT political leadership I've ever seen in my life, from either party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 14, 2009 8:38 PM
Yep, that's change we can believe in. I'm finished with Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 8:38 PM
Will some truly progressive senator pull a Lieberman now, please?
Seriously. Bernie Sanders, anybody... just say hey, sorry, not gonna happen unless there's some tacking back to the left.
ANYBODY?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 8:42 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
I agree - this is Bernie's time to stand up. Or Rockefeller's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
December 14, 2009 8:38 PM
This is just disgusting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 14, 2009 8:42 PM
Where are the so called senate liberals like Burris, Franken, Feingold and Sanders? Kill this shitless worthless bill and send Obama a message that the base will not be taken advantage of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
precisioncontrol
December 14, 2009 8:43 PM
The one common denominator that I don't think enough people are tying to the Obama administration's continued misbegotten pragmatism during the last year is exactly the thing highlighted in this article: his chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Rahm is NOT a progressive, he just wants to WIN -- and that's why on the stimulus, on investigating Bush crimes, on healthcare, we see deals being cut with no regard to the policy consequences. I think Rahm is the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
am4
December 14, 2009 8:50 PM in reply to precisioncontrol
...fake financial reform, no investigation of Wall Street crime syndicate, renomination of Bernanke, PPIP. The problem is not Rahm, it's his boss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 8:55 PM in reply to am4
co-sign. let's be honest. the buck should stop at the top, not the penultimate point before the top.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
December 14, 2009 8:50 PM in reply to precisioncontrol
pathetic.
he is bought and owned by big business......
his only goal is to screw the average person to further enrich those busnesses.
why is that so hard to grasp?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LindaR
December 14, 2009 8:44 PM
Do you think Whitehouse would be willing to run for the Whitehouse in '12?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 14, 2009 8:48 PM in reply to LindaR
Right now it's impossible to imagine obama being re elected. He doesn't have an ounce of leadership in his body.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 9:10 PM in reply to ru4862
I don't think so. Real liberals I talk to in real life are nowhere near as crazed....pardon me, angry as the liberals I see posting on a lot of blogs. Polling data supports this. I think it's just the internet left who are the most angry with Obama. Not enough to actually have an affect on elections.
Obama will be in fine in 12 without you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 9:24 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
So funny and so true. Something I learned very quickly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
December 15, 2009 1:54 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
For that matter, almost nobody in the "real world", no matter how liberal, is even following these negotiations like TPM readers are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 15, 2009 2:44 PM in reply to midnight rambler
That's silly. Many other non-TPM readers are following the story as close as we are. TPM is just one blog on the internet. You seem to believe it's the only one. People who follow politics closely also post on forums and messages boards and on comments sections of online media. Then of course there's people who write in letters to the editor for newspapers. You couldn't be more wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 15, 2009 8:08 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
I totally agree and this story is from "aides" !! This is another bullshit story. Mark my words. There is no way Obama would send Rahm to tell Reid to give him what he wants.
Just use your heads for a second and stop jumping at every story you hear.
This cake is nowhere near being baked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 8:23 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Not bullshit. True. Ian Welsh describes current Dem strategy perfectly: go for the money. A lot of liberals are enabling this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BruceInAustin
December 14, 2009 8:46 PM
So what. JL is a jackass.
But JL is not the problem, he's just a symptom of the problem.
If RE is truly pressuring HR to give JL everything he wants, then RE is the real problem, not JL. RE has been against the public option from the beginning.
RE's smug grin is more offensive to me than JL's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 8:51 PM in reply to BruceInAustin
I have to agree. JL is an obviously demented person. Rahm's sociopathic tendencies are better disguised.
I'm over both of them. But this is Obama's loss, and I doubt he'll step up and accept any responsibility for not having pushed tougher legislation more actively in the beginning.
This administration has squandered its crisis opportunity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
December 14, 2009 8:48 PM
So, unless I'm missing something, "Give Lieberman what he wants" amounts to "Give the health insurance companies what they want," i.e. "the health insurance industry wins again."
I can't decide what's worse; that the White House took single-payer off the table right from the beginning; that the progressives get hosed yet again; that Lieberman still has a committee chairmanship; or that Obama is going to trumpet this piece of crap bill as a "major achievement" (because you know he will).
The insurance companies get millions of new customers, with no cost controls; folks who don't want or can't afford insurance will be forced to buy it, partially paid by "subsidies"; The Peepul get nothing. Again.
My rage is unlimited. How about y'all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 8:58 PM in reply to dougom
The medical loss ratio limits and non-profit options will effectively prevent price gouging on the insurer's end. Serious cost controls will have to go after providers, a concept that was out the window once the robust PO went down in flames.
The Peepul will get a Medicaid expansion, regulatory protection, and hundreds of billions of dollars in direct aid. This is the largest assistance package for the working poor and lower middle class (who will virtually every cent covered by this bill) in the country's history.
The mandate isn't forcing anyone to do anything. If the people who don't qualify for subsidies don't want to purchase insurance, no one is going to force them to do it. They will pay a marginally higher income tax rate (still significantly less than they did under Clinton) and they can apply for financial hardship exemptions if necessary.
I'm fucking pissed at Lieberman for making this bill more expensive for basically no reason, but Harkin is right that this is still a good bill. This is why Harkin, Brown, Bernie Sanders and all the other "traitors" will support it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 14, 2009 9:12 PM in reply to Stroszek
Good try, but people are not going to buy it. Without competition and a guranteed mandate along with a fucked up exchange and little of this taking affect for yesrs this is nothing but a protect the private for profit insurance corporation act. The Democratic Party just committed hari-kari today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:21 PM in reply to VictorLH
Right, I understand that this is like debating birth certificates with tea baggers, but as Krugman pointed out recently, the Massachusetts reforms currently enjoy overwhelming support... and they didn't provide nearly as much direct assistance or competition as this bill. The reality is that only a tiny, tiny minority of Democrats view the primary function of health care reform as retribution against the insurance companies. Moreover, the actual emerging Democratic base (i.e., African-Americans and Hispanics, not bloggers) are going to be receiving the bulk of benefits from this bill via the lower income subsidies. They'll view this as Obama delivering in a big way.
I completely agree that more cost controls are going to need to be implemented in the long term. That doesn't change the fact that the bill does a lot of good and much of the "progressive" fear-mongering is just Palin-esque BS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:30 PM in reply to Stroszek
But you know, just keep convincing yourself that Russ Feingold and others are only trying to protect private insurers when they support this bill and celebrate its passage. The fact that this process has been fraught with disappointment doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to help those most in need in whatever way we can. The bill is no wonk's dream, but Obama has a responsibility to deliver something for his largest constituencies (again, not bloggers) and this will do that, if in an unnecessarily expensive way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 14, 2009 9:36 PM in reply to Stroszek
Keep trying, but none of that will happen for years. In the meantime Health Care costs will continue to rise at a greater rate than inflation and the CEO's will be paying themselves bigeer bonuses.
Oh, the Demorats will not win elections with just the Hispanic and African-American vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:48 PM in reply to VictorLH
Okay, you also have upper middle class whites and union workers who already have decent insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
December 15, 2009 3:56 AM in reply to Stroszek
You are full of shit. The bill maxes out increases at around 8 percent annually with no fucking triggers thanks to your good friend Lieberprick. My single insurance went up from 350 to 450 and if you don't think the insurance cos. aren't going to give you the max. that they can get away with annually then I wanna smoke what you're smoking. There is no end of recissions. All there is is that you have to take preexisiting conditions but there's a ridiculous amount more you can charge for that so you end up with cherrypicking again. And,oh, you get subsidies if you're poor. If you're middle class you get fucked yet again by the tax on the "cadillac" plans and no subsidies. And BTW this tax is around $2,000 a year which will half the plans offered. Meanwhile Lloyd Blankfein can still take his money offshore and fuck American taxpayers. I am sick and tired of the Obama apologists on TPM. Are you paid to post here?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 8:36 AM in reply to aikbay
I've wondered about this, too. Why are people deliberately closing their eyes to Dem strategy? The evidence is all around them. We're being asked to take our cues from leadership: 'Trust us, we know what we're doing'. Sorry, but without people willing to stick it out in NH in February (for example), they lose. Obama gets a second term only because the Republicans are in disarray. More and more people are going to stop caring. Until the dollar finally plummets and they can't buy the latest gadget anymore (the Chinese will get them years before we do instead of the other way around) and their employers - if they are employed - drop or pare down their insurance to junk status. The Democrats are really taking a very risky gamble. They're assuming that they're going to be able to create 300,000+ jobs/month and reinflate the housing bubble. They're giving no thought to sustainability and a social safety net. Re're really rucked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 16, 2009 12:21 AM in reply to Stroszek
Right, I understand that this is like debating birth certificates with tea baggers,
Once again employing Propaganda Rule # 47: When you've got no rational arguments, pathologize the opposition. izzatxeaux notes directly downthread that the medical loss ratios are already gone, per Elmendorf's contortions with CBO numbers. Does Stroszek respond to that, either to deny it or to explain it? No: all you get is the sound of crickets. Which shows that Stroszek continues to talk out his ass as he grabs desperately for the next excuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 9:54 PM in reply to Stroszek
The medical loss ratio limit will be the next thing to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 10:01 PM in reply to bluebell
Not if we don't draw attention to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
December 14, 2009 10:56 PM in reply to Stroszek
The medical loss ratio is already gone - per Jon Walker, Elmendorf did some baffling contortions with CBO numbers and reduced it back to 80%
Medicaid expansion is already gone
now we have WH directing Reid to take away MediCare Buy In
and who in their right mind thinks these are the guys who are going to enforce anything wrt recission ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 14, 2009 10:31 PM in reply to Stroszek
You mean the way Blue Cross/Blue Shield provided competition?
And I can think of better ways to spend tax dollars than providing increased profits for insurance companies. Medicare comes to mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 9:04 PM in reply to dougom
Excuse me, Candidate Obama told everyone PRIOR to his election to office that single payer was not on the table. And the obvious reason for that is that there is no political will on the part of Congress to do it. The votes weren't there for single payer and they aren't there now. Obama didn't pull that statement out of his ass. He's worked with these guys.
And how much of the blame do the Progressives and Libs in Congress get for this? Almost everyday, TPM had a comment from one of them promising this or that and they didn't come through. Why didn't they stand up and hold firm to their threats?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:11 PM in reply to Viva!America!
For the White House to take single payer off the table, it had to be on the table to begin with. I understand the desire to hear the President talk about your pet policy idea, but if it's going to die a miserable, fiery death in committee anyway, what's the point?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 9:28 PM in reply to Stroszek
Huh? you talkin' to me or the other guy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
December 14, 2009 9:31 PM in reply to Stroszek
The point is that you start as high as you can, and negotiate down from there. How on Earth do you think Bush got so many of his nutty policies through Congress?
You folks remind me of my old housemate at a yard sale. "How much is that?" someone asked her. "Oh, I dunno, 5 or 10 dollars." "How about 5," he replied.
Saying, "Oh, no, don't you worry! We would never consider that nasty single-payer plan! No sir!" puts you in a tremendously weakened position from the outset.
And with regards to this being my "pet policy idea;" please. A fairly large percentage of the American people actually support it, and a majority of providers. It hardly deserves to be dismissed under the rubric of "Doug's Pet Policy Project."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:41 PM in reply to dougom
Bush didn't get many of his nutty policies through Congress. He got his tax cuts through reconciliation and exploited a national trauma to run off on a foreign policy venture, but in terms of constructive changes to our society, he was a miserable failure (and any Freeper will tell you as much). Social Security Reform was supposed to be his big domestic achievement and it went down the pooper.
In terms of starting high and working your way down... that is true in certain types of negotiations, it's not true when:
(a) high demands will alienate segments of public support needed to continue with the negotiations.
(b) the other side is perfectly happy with nothing
The most recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll on single-payer had support at 40%. In politics, starting from an unpopular position most definitely weakens your position.
I'm also skeptical of the fabled provider poll given that providers are consistently the chief obstacle to expanding Medicare. I believe the poll in question said national insurance, which could be interpreted as a lot of things. Tell doctors that the cost savings from single-payer mean a significant pay cut and I can guarantee they'll change their tune.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 9:44 PM in reply to dougom
You are not paying attention. The single payer suggestion is NOT NEW! It's been debated and discussed and not enough people in Congress want to touch it. It's like going to a yard sale that says CASH ONLY and you try to pass them a check.
And what really blows my mind is that despite NOT getting a half assed public option, some on the Left want to scrap the current HCR and go for single payer. What's that like? that's like asking the bank for a $20,000 loan when you were just denied a $10,000 loan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 6:47 AM in reply to Viva!America!
You're a voter, we are. We are the ones who should - need to - stand up for solutions. You refer to this as someone's 'pet issue'. I guess for some of us health care is a human right. You probably don't see it that way. This is like passing women's right to vote for all the brunettes in the crowd. It'll placate soft liberals, people who aren't paying attention. Single payer advocates are in the wilderness, but so were suffragettes, for generations, abolitionists, civil rights advocates. Without their conviction and fortitude, their causes - essentially one (human dignity and equality) would be lost. Now you might be willing to heed your master's voice, but some of us aren't. We see that as taking your cues from those in power. They need to hear from us down here now...and for as long as it takes. We want - right now - to have Sanders' single payer amendment brought to the floor of the Senate for a free, fair and open debate. We want the public to hear about this, and to begin a national discussion on a solution to a human problem. So don't stand up for what you believe, if you believe it's a human right. But please don't enable this country's slow drift to the right while calling the rest of us selfish or unrealistic. It's condescending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 8:50 PM
...and Rahm is an idiot appeaser if he thinks this will somehow be a "win." He just kissed any chance for the D's holding onto Congress next year goodbye.
You know, if I thought President Obama had truly fought for a progressive bill--if I thought he had put just as much pressure on the centrists, DINOs, etc. as he's put on the progressives--then I would be heartbroken about this, not in a rage. I'm in a rage because this admin is selling their soul for nothing save a hollow political "victory." Screw that. I'm no purist, I'm way pragmatic, but this is too many bridges too far for me. To read that Rahm Emanuel is telling Harry Reid to give Lieberman whatever he wants is just too much to stomach. I'm calling the DNC tomorrow and telling them to take me off their mailing lists, and I'm going to tell OFA the same. I don't want to hear from them anymore. Through with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 8:57 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
co-signed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lexicon
December 14, 2009 8:54 PM
Why is RE the problem and not Obama? Did he abdicate while I wasn't paying attention?
Enjoy the show. What you get will be what Obama wants, make no mistake. He could tell Reid to use reconciliation and have a real health bill. But that would p.o. his sponsors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 9:32 PM in reply to lexicon
So the argument that reconciliation will produce a crappy bill is of no concern?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 14, 2009 8:55 PM
this sucks and joe sucks. i take solace in the fact that one day, he'll die. i can only hope that by some twist of fate, he dies because he has fallen on bad times and was without insurance and any way to pay out of pocket for the care he needs. won't go down that way, but it'd be nice.
that said, i bet dollars to donuts that teddy would have done the same thing that administration is trying to do -- get something done. anything. just a start.
as for the people raging out that progressives got hosed, that's what you get when you sit at one end of the spectrum. there are teabaggers out there who want to drop nukes on north korea, iraq, iran and new england. they won't get their way, either. because they're not in the fat part of the bell curve. while on a theoretical level i am behind most of what so-called "progressives" are behind, i realize that reality is more than a theory. frictionless vacuums are useful in physics class, but they don't describe what really happens on the pool table in your basement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 14, 2009 9:03 PM in reply to nova voter
This is what we get from the establishment spin merchants. Progressives = teabaggers. That's supposed to make us feel bad and salute Rahm - or stay home in 2012 more like.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 14, 2009 9:11 PM in reply to bluebell
i knew the crazy cake you've been baking was missing something, but i couldn't put my finger on it. paranoia was definitely it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:13 PM in reply to bluebell
I have to agree - the more I'm told that I, a loyal Democrat, have "progressive" views that are somehow unreasonable, and that supporting those "progressive" aims like the public option and banking reform (aims which USED to be the province of the Democratic Party before Bill Clinton) makes me some kind of tea bagger, the more it convinces me that I'm right, and that my Democratic Party has been hijacked by some highly unintelligent 22-year-old interns.
The more you tell loyal Democrats that they should suck it up because the option is Palin or some other weak excuse, the more disaffected we become.
For the first time in my life today, I thought about voting for a third-party candidate.
I was the number one "don't vote for Nader" beeyatch in 1999-2000. But I'm thinking third-party at this point.
To me, that's shocking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 14, 2009 9:26 PM in reply to again
i'm not saying you're unreasonable. i'm saying you're not being pragmatic.
the FACT is that you aren't going to get a single payer past a filibuster. the FACT is that you aren't going to get a public option past a filibuster. the FACT, it appears, is that you aren't going to get a medicare expansion past a filibuster. so the question is, what CAN you get past a filibuster? whatever that is, get it.
i'm not saying it doesn't suck. it sucks. but it is what it is -- bitching about it and throwing tantrums doesn't make joe lieberman any less likely to be a fucking prick. the argument to be had is whether that "something" is (that can get past a filibuster) is any better or worse than the status quo. but that's not the argument that people like bluebell are having. they're having the "I'M NEVER VOTING AGAIN, EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET ME, AND FUCK RAHM" tantrum.
i'm quite sure that it didn't take 2000 pages to codify the public option and/or the mandates. so what about the other 1900 pages? better or worse than the status quo? THAT'S being pragmatic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 7:57 AM in reply to nova voter
They can use the nuclear option - or the threat of it - to pass a robust public option (prepopulated, tied to Medicare +5% rates, protected by a good risk adjuster mechanism, open to anyone who wants to buy in) once they're in reconciliation. In fact, they can pass anything (Medicare buy-in, Sanders' Medicare for All amendment, repeal McCarran-Ferguson, 90% medical loss ratio, 75, 85, and 95% actuarial values for plans in the exchange, 2:1 rather than 3:1 variance of premiums based on age, closing the loophole allowing insurers to form regional compacts thus circumventing state regulations). Why do progressives seem willing to let Democrats off the hook? They'll have to pass separate bill and use the nuclear option (or perhaps even the threat of the nuclear option since it eliminates Senators' individual power).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 9:15 PM in reply to bluebell
You're a "spin merchant", not an "establishment spin merchant" mind you, merely just a childish and unintelligent "spin merchant." I'll go with the sane "establishment spin merchant."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
December 14, 2009 8:55 PM
In the end, I don't blame Reid or Rahm. I blame Lieberman, and Lieberman alone. To say that you would threaten him with losing his chairmanship of homeland security is meaningless, I think at this point he does not care. He knows that his career is over, since he has no hope of getting reelected in 2012, when CT AG Blumenthal has already promised to run for his seat on the Democratic ticket. The sad truth is he would kill the public option even if he lost all of his committee assignments. The guy is slime, motivated only by spite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 14, 2009 9:12 PM in reply to El Puerco
Not the most compelling argument for giving in to him...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baba2nde
December 14, 2009 8:58 PM
Wait! Why avoid a filibuster in the first place? It could be great fun on C-SPAN and might actually pre-empty reality shows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
December 14, 2009 8:59 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Lieberman is up for reelection in '12, right? Doesn't he know that he will never be elected to anything ever again? I mean, srsly, who would ever want to vote for this punk aside from health insurance CEO's? The GOP won't take him- he'd get Teabagged in the primaries. Either he plans to retire, or has the foresight of a 2 year-old. What garbage...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
December 14, 2009 10:49 PM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
He doesn't give a shit. He and his pimp wife will be whoring him out to various insurance/pharma cos. where he'll make lots of money lobbying so that more Lieberpig children will have money to run in Conn. elections. Kinda like the Connecticut Jewish version of the Bushes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 14, 2009 9:03 PM
Obama gave himself a B+.
If this is true, I give him an F-.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 14, 2009 9:07 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Not an F. Please. If ANYTHING passes, it will be a success. Remember that nobody's ever gotten this far. I give Obama an A. Senate Dems a C. Republicans and Lieberman F.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 14, 2009 9:09 PM in reply to ilovebacon
He should have some spine and let them filibuster. Let the public see what's at stake 24/7 (because it will be on cable news all day and all night). Then cut a deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:13 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
You think cable news would negatively spin a Republican filibuster?
They'd have Lieberman (D) and DeMint (R) on hourly to "debate" who hates the bill more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 14, 2009 9:18 PM in reply to Stroszek
It's not about spin. It's about reality. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. They can spin it any way they want. The truth will out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 9:18 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Who the fuck cares about making a statement? Making statements is something losers do. I don't mean losers in the name-calling sense, I mean losers as in people who have lost elections and have no political power. People with power pass laws. Losers make political statements. I'm in favor of passing laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 14, 2009 9:31 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
Who the fuck is going to vote for people that pass a bad law because they were afraid to say "FUCK YOU" to Joe Lieberbitch?
Here's a hint: Not many progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 9:40 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
"Who the fuck is going to vote for people that pass a bad law because they were afraid to say "FUCK YOU" to Joe Lieberbitch?
Here's a hint: Not many progressives."
(1) It's not a bad law.
(2) The same Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 will be the ones to vote for him again in 2012. Maybe a few dozen or even a few hundred far left liberals on the Daily Kos and Fire Dog Lake won't show up, but that's not even a drop in the bucket in a national election.
Here's a question for you: who the fuck is going to vote for people who pass NO LAW when they were put in office to PASS LAWS but choose to say "fuck Joe Lieberbitch" instead?
Hint: Not anyone BUT progressives (20% of this country). Good luck electing a President with your 20% silent majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Acewrap
December 15, 2009 6:47 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
"(1) It's not a bad law."
[citation needed]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 15, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to Acewrap
"[citation needed]"
- Acewrap
[puberty needed]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 8:20 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
It's a question of opening up debate on the law (Sanders' Medicare for All amendment in the Senate, for example). It's true, we're going to lose elections, but only in proportion to the amount of compromise we allow those we elect to write industry-friendly law. Let's not enable. They can't win elections without a motivated base. Electoral victory isn't all in the numbers. You need people willing to stand out in the cold for hours in mid February in Iowa. Ian Welsh has an incisive read on Dem strategy now: go for the money. They'll get it. Let's try and at least put a little scare into them. We (and our reps) are rolling awfully easily now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 15, 2009 3:00 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Completely wrong. Not even liberals share your communist economic views. That's really how you come across: as a communist. You classify regulations on healthcare providers as "insurance-friendly law." What's not "insurance-friendly law?" Communism? Taking over the means of production?
You are so far to the left, you just don't understand that not even the Democratic Party is as far to the left as you are, let alone the rest of the American public.
No real need to discuss politics with you since you're just totally estranged from reality on the subject.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 9:33 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
Have to retract this statement. I see that you are actually trying to get something done and are not trying to just make statements. I didn't read the "then cut a deal part."
Personally, I think that time is running out for this whole process. Elections are coming up and soon people will start running for cover. We need to finish this process now. I think we could consider keeping the trigger and going for Snowe's vote and fuck Lieberman. Basically, we are back to the Senate Finance Committee legislation. It's the best we can do. Let's just take it and get out before the fucking door comes down on us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 14, 2009 9:44 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
2012 doesn't matter now. It's 2010 that's at issue. A Republican Congress would stop Obama's agenda in its tracks.
This bill will mandate that people buy lousy, expensive health insurance policies. That's why it's a bad bill.
I guess Rahm (read Obama) doesn't care about that. They only care about the signing ceremony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 10:23 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
That's exactly my point: it's a 2010 issue. Democrats will start to run for cover as we come closer to November 2010. That's why this has to end now and we don't have time for people to be reading the entire 2,000 bill on the floor of the Senate and debating every single sentence in it.
"This bill will mandate that people buy lousy, expensive health insurance policies. That's why it's a bad bill."
Wrong. Rockerfeller's amendment and the other insurance reforms would make the insurance not lousy and less expensive. It's not honest the way you keep leaving out all the good parts of the bill and only focusing on the parts that could be better.
"I guess Rahm (read Obama) doesn't care about that. They only care about the signing ceremony."
Neither do you. You are a Republican teabagger who is pretending to be a liberal so you can undermine the Democrats efforts.
Since we're wildly casting aspersions, I thought I'd try it out too. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 14, 2009 10:30 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
You are out of your fucking mind and naive as fucking hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 11:20 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
The fact that you have nothing to offer but an insult shows that you ARE just a whiney child who is throwing a tantrum on the street because he didn't get his toy. Go back to your craddle you little bitch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 15, 2009 12:01 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
You called me a teabagger, yet you are accusing me of being insulting? Pot meet kettle.
Which reminds me. Stop stalking me, you fatuous internet coward.
And btw, keep drinking that "Dissent is Unacceptable Kool-Aid."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 15, 2009 11:54 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
You've shown that you are just an angry child. If I ever meet you, I'm going to beat your ass, coward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 9:07 PM
Just unsubscribed from OFA and will be calling the White House comments line tomorrow when it opens at 9 a.m.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JennOfArk
December 14, 2009 9:08 PM
Give Lieberman What He Wants
Take the cannolli...leave the gun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
December 14, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to JennOfArk
I think you got it backwards, but kudos withal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
December 14, 2009 9:08 PM
Lieberman is up in 2012, and he knows he will lose. I've seen some polls showing that his public approval rating in CT is in the low 40s, and its only that high because a lot of Rethuglians support him. Moreover, the popular Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has already declined challenging Dodd in 2010 and wants to run for Lieberman's seat in 2012. He knows he's toast,and he wants to settle some scores before he goes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 14, 2009 9:10 PM
If Reid gives Lieberman all he wants, there will be no option of any sort other than over-priced private insurance. If the progressive caucus in the house is true to their word, that they will not vote for reform without a public option, health care reform is dead.
Wish it was Joe Lieberman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
December 14, 2009 9:11 PM
Lieberman right now is like a suicide bomber. He knows he will die, and he wants to kill as many other people as he can while he dies. And he will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 15, 2009 1:58 AM in reply to El Puerco
How odd you should say that: I was thinking the very same thing on my way home from work, and that would have been just about the time you were posting that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 14, 2009 9:13 PM
Note: In protest of the insurance companies, I will be dropping my insurance coverage this next year. I figured that since I pay $10,000 per year, if I have serious medical issues of exorbitant nature--say $80-90k, at some point, it will STILL be less than if I pay ten grand per year. And if my health ever deteriorates to such a point where it costs $80-90k per year, then life I've got far bigger problems than not paying the bills.
I'm giving the insurance companies a big fat middle finger. No premiums from me in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 14, 2009 9:14 PM
Of course, when all this is over we'll forget about it or explain it away right? Just like the FISA cave...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jake
December 14, 2009 9:15 PM
What is it they say about appeasing aggressors?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 9:15 PM
BTW, what exactly is the "deal" that's been cut with Lieberman? Where or how did he and the other centrists give us ANYTHING? There's no "deal" here, there's a legislative stick-up by a bitter a*&hole.
I'll say it again--I am not a firebreathing puritanical go-down-in-a-blaze-for-your-principles kind of guy by any means of the imagination. I truly understand the need for pragmatism, wheeling-dealing, etc. But we have gotten NOTHING on our end, nothing at all in terms of single-payer/public-option etc. NOTHING. And that's what I can't abide by.
This story just made something snap in me. Time after time after time, the Democratic base has gotten the shaft from this administration. They don't seem willing to fight for anything progressive, only for their political image. That's great, guys, but you know what? I'm no longer willing to fight for you...and I doubt after today that I'm alone. Are you looking at the polls? You are digging your own grave for 2010, and quite possibly for 2012. Hell, I don't know anymore...maybe the Obama admin WANTS an R majority come 2011, so that the swing voters will tack back in 2012 and re-elect him for balance. That sounds about as cynical as you can get, but I honestly don't know anymore with this administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
December 14, 2009 9:17 PM
If the WH and Reid cave to Lieberman, this is be the end of the Democratic Majority and the Obama Presidency will not pass another Bill for the rest of his single term Presidency. What Democrat will get off the couch and go to the polls for these guys if they sell us out to Lieberman? No one in my family.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrianInMKE
December 14, 2009 9:17 PM
If the Democrats support this bastardized health care bill they will not only make the system worse but the Republicans will blame them for it.
Better to dump the bill because it is no longer satisfying the 60+% of the public that wants a public option and blame the Republicans and CorporaDems; and have Howard Dean recruit Democrats from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to run against them in the primaries.
And fire Rahm NOW!! He and Obama are making a critical mistake if they think any bill is better than none! The last thing they need to do is make more mistakes than they already have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:21 PM in reply to BrianInMKE
thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
busdrivermike
December 14, 2009 9:19 PM
Lets face it, it is too costly to give a single payer healthcare plan to America, when we need the money to bribe the Taliban so the Army can be resupplied to fight the Taliban who are flush with cash from the US taxpayer.
See, it all makes sense in Rahm Emanuel's world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:28 PM in reply to busdrivermike
ouch
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 14, 2009 9:50 PM in reply to busdrivermike
When you think all roads lead to Rahm Emanuel, it's not his world that's filled with twisted logic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 9:26 PM
The spin in this article is stupid. No one is "giving away the farm" nor resorting to "appeasement."
The bill still contains significant reform, ending the insurance drops for people who have pre-existing conditions or are sick, extending coverage to 30 million people and the Rockerfeller amendment mandates that insurance companies spend 90% of their premiums on actual health care coverage (as opposed to profits or advertisements).
Even if you can only get half of what you want done, you still get it done. Otherwise, you're just being a whiney bitch.
No one here can propose a way to pass more significant reform (aka the public option or the Medicare opt-in). Reconciliation does not allow you to do insurance reform and reconciliation itself may be filibustered (Lawrence O'Donnell outlined the shortcomings of reconciliation months ago). So people can vent and bitch about Lieberman, but you're a stupid asshole if you can't realize that there is no other way than to drop the public option/Medicare opt-in and take some reform rather than no reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 14, 2009 9:37 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
Awww, my favorite lecture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 14, 2009 10:26 PM in reply to destor23
Better than your bitch-fit whining about Obama and Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 9:06 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz
You working for DNC or something? Because your complacency is astonishing. Right, the Republicans are in full flight now. But to the extent you pass corporate welfare (mandates, no cost controls - or fig-leaf controls) and take industry money, you're losing your base of people willing to work for you, and you're passing up an opportunity to create a strong social safety net at a time of great economic uncertainty.
Their are statutes prohibiting rescission on the books; they've never been enforced. The 90% medical loss ratio is gone. State regulations can be circumvented under Reid's bill. There's just too much wrong with this legislation. It's more than that we're not getting everything under the tree: this legislation represents a profoundly irresponsible use of taxpayer's money. Please stop enabling the political class' drift to the right; there's noone marching behind them except their patrons. They're only counting on the fact that people are ill-served by the mainstream media. To the extent that they recognize this, it's taking a big gamble with our future. Of course, they can cash out. And they're making sure health insurance and pharmaceutical industry execs, bankers and financial industry risk-takers can, too. Get rich quick, get out of the game. Reality will catch up to us. But they'll be safe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
December 15, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
No, I'm just not a child like you and a lot of the people posting on this thread. You just ooze BS. You don't get exactly what you want so you start lying about everything: the legislation itself, Obama, Rahm, and anyone who disagrees with you.
Provide proof of your claim that "The 90% medical loss ratio is gone."
Basically what you said is one big conspiracy theory. You believe that all the corporations have gotten together, written this bill and they're going to pass it, and then sell it like a Ponzi scheme. You're just talking madness. You're not a liberal, you're just a loon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 14, 2009 9:27 PM
The Democratic Party died today. This is a Clinton admin, remember Nafta and the Telecom bills - both sell outs to the plutocracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheOwl
December 14, 2009 9:29 PM
Poor Rahm, someone had bigger and tougher knuckles (and other things,too) than he did.
It seems to me that most of Obama's problems are coming from his aides whose arrogance is astonishing...
...and devastatingly stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 9:34 PM
Yeah, great, mandating/forcing people to buy overpriced insurance that will face no competition whatsoever, now that the antitrust measure has been stripped for Nelson, now that PO and Medicare opt-in have been stripped for Lieberman, now that God only knows will be removed since the WH has telegraphed that it will back down on any progressive part of the so-called "reform" bill that's left. That's not "whiney bitch" or "stupid asshole," that's the reality of what has become a very mediocre sop to the insurance industry.
If I thought the Obama administration had really fought for any of the above or tried to pressure Lieberman and the handful of others potentially blocking this, I wouldn't be so mad. But it's quite clear, from the above story and the myriad of others we've read like it in the past few months, that this adminstration constantly throws progressives under the bus and expects them to like it and live with it. Sorry, but I'm through with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 14, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Yeah the mandate was supposed to be a trade off. Yes, we'll accept a mandate if the government creates a public option. A mandate without a public option is just a subsidy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 14, 2009 9:45 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Don't forget, they still have the abortion issue to work on. Bet you women lose the right to choose along with thier insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 9:50 PM in reply to VictorLH
Well, exactly. I'll be astonished if Nelson doesn't get his way on a Stupak scenario...he'd be an utter fool not to pull a Lieberman, now that the WH has indicated it will bend over backwards to do whatever the centrists want, all the while demanding that the 50+ D's to the left give away the store and get nothing in return. Who's to say the 90% clause will remain? It's ironic, but the
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 9:52 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Rahm-like "hardheaded realpolitik" approach here is woefully oblivious to how STUPID this kind of behavior is in that very sense...telegraphing that you will give somebody whatever he wants, that you are that desperate and weak. That's the ultimate irony in all of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MP
December 14, 2009 9:37 PM
I used to take solace in the fact that the left was more well informed and more reasonable than the right. I'm seriously beginning to doubt that given the posters I've seen here and at other left-leaning blogs. Here's how this bill improves my life:
* My wife and I are in our late 30's/early 40's, we're very healthy and yet we pay $380 month for high deductible coverage. I just got a premium notice that there will be a 60% increase next year. And no, we've had no medical problems this year.
* I couldn't get coverage for my wife without a pre-existing conditions clause. It's nothing major, but it's broadly drawn which means that (a) we spend about $5,000 per year on something that should be covered. It doesn't count towards our deductible. All-told, that means about $6,000 in out of pocket costs to us.
Bottom line? Nearly $10,000 per year on healthcare for two people that are relatively young and healthy. You don't think there's a lot of folks this bill will help, and big time? I worked for the Dems this past election, and if this thing gets through I'll happily send them the money I save on healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 14, 2009 9:41 PM in reply to MP
Good for you but this bill doesn't create broad based benefits for the vast majority of people who get health insurance through work already. Premiums will continue to rise, there will still be no option other than what the boss offers and a private company will still be doings its best to charge as much as it can and pay out as little as possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:43 PM in reply to destor23
But neither would a similar bill with a robust public option. This has always been, first and foremost, a bill focused on achieving universal coverage. Providing benefits to people with employer based insurance means screwing around with the employer base insurance market and that is the third rail for a variety of reasons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 14, 2009 9:48 PM in reply to Stroszek
Well the obvious answer was always for a true public option where you could pick your work plan or the public one. Nowhere near on the table. But I just ask you to imagine how most people are going to feel about this 3-4 years from now. Most of them will have never raced rescission or refusal or coverage caps or any of that. To them it will be as if nothing changed. Costs will continue to rise as they have every year. Won't reflect well on our Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 9:57 PM in reply to destor23
Exactly--and once again, it shows that the whole Rahm "I'm dealing with gritty reality, you idealistic fools" schtick is utterly wrongheaded. Yeah, Rahm, I'm looking at the bare-knuckled way this plays out politically, and it ain't pretty. The gritty reality is that you have a very p**&ed-off, highly-disillusioned base that feels used and abused and an opposition that STILL hates your guts, no matter how much you tack to the center-right. That will work really well in an off-year mid-term, won't it?Unti
Show some guts. Twist a centrist's arm for a change. Until then, see ya.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 9:13 AM in reply to Stroszek
Consumer protections are porous as written. This will drive greater numbers into medical bankruptcy. Represents a further erosion of the middle class and continued drift to the right of political leadership and MSM. I guess it will take a huge crisis to turn that around. Pity. The lead actors will have cashed out, but not their enablers at the ground level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:44 PM in reply to destor23
Save your wrestler fingers - you're responding to MP, likely an industry shill.
Or a 23-year-old DNC intern.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to MP
The above message was brought to you by AHIP and PhRMA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:44 PM in reply to again
And that pretty much proves MP's point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MP
December 14, 2009 9:46 PM in reply to again
Said like a true Redstater. Can't rebut the argument, so you question the identity and motive of the poster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:52 PM in reply to MP
Fair enough criticism of my comment, which was made in admitted ill humor.
But let me make a suggestion. The denials I read from posters like yourselves of the legitimate disappointment in this administration among Democrats is actually having the opposite effect of what you think it will.
Denying that this administration is not off to, let's say, a flying start, does not actually buck up our confidence in the administration. It only sends us further to what you call "the left" and which I rightly call "where the Dem party's strenghts rest."
Calling my criticism of our failure to abide by some basic Democratic goals as so much "progressive" whining does little to inspire my motivation to get back out there to campaign in 2010 and 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
December 14, 2009 9:41 PM
I've got a fund raising letter from the Democratic party that arrived today. I think I will tear it up, stuff it in the postage-paid envelope, and send it back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beardsley
December 14, 2009 9:44 PM
Emanuel was a bad pick, and ought to have been dumped long ago. Obama does not appear to be in charge of his own White House, and if he is in charge we have a real problem. Old Joe, though, just needs to be sent to Coventry... permanently... no return ticket.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 14, 2009 9:47 PM
MP, how is this bill going to help you with the 60% increase in premiums? There is no competition factor left. And I talked with a progressive small-business owner last night who is in despair over this bill...he pays a huge amount for coverage of his employees, is looking at a similar spike in premiums for next year, and says the bill as is will do nothing good at all for him or his workers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:56 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
MP says he and his wife are in his late 30's/early 40's, which I believe puts them in the age group that is more likely not yet to understand on a first-hand basis that it's when you get sick that the insurance companies truly sabotage their clients.
I myself am before that demographic, but I have worked in health care, so I know exactly how the insurance companies will pound MP and his wife once they get a little older, or worse, some serious illness - or even something minor - occurs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:58 PM in reply to again
And if insurers were going to do that anyway, it would effectively make the PO pointless since it would become a dumping ground for the "uninsurable" and drive premiums through the roof.
This is another argument from the left that is completely incoherent. If you don't think the regulations will work, the public option wouldn't work either.
Everything hinges on the efficacy of the regulatory mechanisms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to Stroszek
I fully agree that regulation is essential - but that effects of regulation in our current environment would have been greatly improved by a strong public option with rates tied to Medicare.
I note that the closest and most practical model we have is Germany. That country has neither single payer nor a public option.
But their 200-300 insurance companies are STRICTLY regulated and STRICTLY non-profit.
That's a very different situation than ours. And that is one of many reasons why the public option in its original incarnation was so essential.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 9:56 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Competition is not going to drive down the cost of premiums in any circumstance. The underlying cost problem is rooted in waste and price gouging among providers. Insurance company profits constitute less than 5% of your premiums and the limits on medical-loss-ratio will basically make sure that remains the case for for-profit insurers. The problem with insurers is their grotesque practices of denying coverage. That can be dealt with via regulation.
Now, the original benefit of the public option was that it was tied to Medicare rates. Once this was discarded, it lost pretty much all of its utility as a cost cutter.
The national non-profits will provide competition and effectively circumvent McCarran-Ferguson, but CBO already said repealing McCarran-Ferguson translated to little in the way of cost savings... so it's unclear what that will be worth. There will be competition, but again, that's not really the major issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 9:59 PM in reply to Stroszek
Actually, Robert Reich and Uwe Reinhardt would disagree with you that competition wouldn't drive down premiums.
Actually, from what I've read by them, they would disagree strongly with every sentence of your first paragraph.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 10:09 PM in reply to again
Good for them, but I don't deal in arguments from authority (or economists who ditch serious analysis for political rhetoric), I look at the actual numbers. The reality is that insurance company profits aren't the driving force in the cost problem and they already have every incentive to lower reimbursement rates, even in a monopoly scenario.
As I said, we'll get competition via the national non-profits, for what that's worth. Probably a little in terms of cost but not enough to turn the tide. That will likely require some sort of Swiss-style price capping on providers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 10:21 PM in reply to Stroszek
Wait a second - is that your way of saying you haven't read Uwe Reinhardt? Or that you don't consider the insights of respected economists useful in any way because you know everything? And your understanding of the numbers alone makes your decision?
Not so sure about your certainty. Those of us who've worked in health care see room for cost-cutting and REFORM at just about every part of the pie.
I'm assuming your comments about "ditch" being about Reich, but you might learn something about the claims you make by reading Reinhardt.
As for this: "The reality is that insurance company profits aren't the driving force in the cost problem and they already have every incentive to lower reimbursement rates, even in a monopoly scenario."
Since they have every incentive to lower reimbursement rates, is that what they're doing, and what is the overall effect?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 16, 2009 12:50 AM in reply to Stroszek
So instead of arguments from authority (or so you purport), you offer conclusory assertions about "the numbers" which you have "looked at" and from which you've divined what "reality" is -- and then you demand that we Trust You, since you don't provide, link to, or discuss said numbers in any way. Which, of course, is the definition of an argument from authority. In other words, you do allow in one authority as legit, in terms of making arguments from authority -- and that "authority" is yourself. Trust Me, I've Looked At The Numbers! Allrighty then. I thought I'd seen jaw-dropping arrogance and hypocrisy before, but this might set a new record.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MP
December 14, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
I think the primary benefit will be in closing the pre-existing condition loophole. Right now, nothing that falls under the pre-existing condition counts towards our deductible, so we have to cover those costs as well as reach our deductible before insurance pays a dime (which hasn't happened yet). Furthermore, aside from out-of-pocket costs, the possibility of a serious illness falling under the preexisting clause - and with it the potential catastrophic financial loss - goes away.
As to premiums, if the bill keeps floors on medical loss rates, that should lower our premiums. My understanding is with individual policies, about 40% goes to things other than medical care. If Congress forces that percentage lower, I hope one area it could have an impact is in lower premiums. But honestly, I'm less certain about that. I'd like to think if the French and Dutch can achieve much lower costs with no private option but heavy regulation, we can do so as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 10:08 PM in reply to MP
"I'd like to think if the French and Dutch can achieve much lower costs with no private option but heavy regulation, we can do so as well."
I think you mean "public option" and not "private option"?
Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of insurers in Europe are non-profit. That is the distinction, not "public" vs. "private" but non-profit v. for-profit.
More to the point, medicine in and of itself in France (and I know, I lived there and have worked in health care) is not conducted as a profit-making industry, as it is here.
It is a practice. Of medicine.
Merci.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 14, 2009 10:10 PM in reply to again
And this bill will offer everyone on the exchange a choice among non-profit plans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 10:25 PM in reply to Stroszek
How many will be able to join the exchange? And when?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MP
December 14, 2009 10:15 PM in reply to again
Thank you, yep, meant "public option". Freudian slip on my part - ideally, I'd like a strong public option as well, and I wish there were a way to get it through this Congress but I don't know how you do that. Folks point to reconciliation, but Ezra Klein put up a posting today about how stripped down the bill would have to be to make it through that process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DurianJoe
December 14, 2009 9:52 PM
F*ck Rahm Emmanuel, and F*ck Barack "One Term" Obama. All they care about are their own careers and power. In that, they are no different from Republicans, and just as useless.
As for Lieberman: may he get the worst, most virulent virus on Earth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 14, 2009 9:54 PM
If Congress had any decency, they would have written a law to remove the pre-existing condition clause a long time ago. They could still vote on it separately and make it effective immediately. They packaged it with the rest of health care "reform" as a way to shove a lot of nonsense down our throat. For those of you who are willing to stand up for the few crumbs of health care reform left -- and are willing to criticize those who want more -- don't count your crumbs before they're swept away. Also, don't come back and whine when you have nothing. You've made your bed....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 14, 2009 10:00 PM in reply to whitesauce
These are the most costly crumbs in American history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
December 14, 2009 10:10 PM
Lieberman is not the problem. The Democrats, a party that Lieberman doesn't even belong to but that continues to needlessly grant him kingmaker status, are the problem.
The problem is the lack of leadership by Obama and Reid. Reid at least has the excuse that the rest of the Senate Democrats, knowing he reflected their own inate weakness, elected and support him as their leader. They could choose a new one if they wanted to.
Obama has no such excuse. He promised one thing to the voters and delivered another. Whether it's HCR or financial reform he hasn't delivered anything. He prefers phony, style only "reforms" that allow him and his party to claim accomplishing reform while delivering nothing.
The Democratic Party is the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bellesouth
December 14, 2009 10:33 PM in reply to tommyo
Can't argue with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
amber
December 14, 2009 10:34 PM in reply to tommyo
Rahm breaks my heart. Obama could solve that by firing the weasel.
Tommyo is right to a large degree. Reagan or W would not have folded (crumbled or melted) like Obama. Bill Maher made a stink a few months ago how Obama needed to become a bigger A-hole like Bush. Bush was a moron, but he got his evil plan through like a bulldozer.
Reagan, Bush, Bush II would not have put up with the likes of a Lieberman. Karl Rove would've been up his bottom. Someone needs to smack down Lieberman hard. He's a disgrace and doesn't care. The fact that nobody is really hitting him just shows what a good ol' boy network it is up there. He's been friend with all of these guys for a long time and even though he's f-ing them all over and the country, they're just not coming down hard enough.
I'm convinced that the recent news about Max Baucus's girlfriend U.S. attorney nomination news came out with a little help from a vindictive Democrat. I hope someone does worse to Lieberman.
I wish Lieberman had an opponent so I could donate money to him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Veritas78
December 14, 2009 10:16 PM
If the mandate stays, the Democrats lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
December 14, 2009 10:17 PM
Give Lieberman what he wants?
Well, I guess the Senate Dems could elect him President Pro Tem, then Obama, Biden and Nancy Pelosi could all resign and make him president. Then he could sign a treaty making Israel the 51st state, and the Senate could ratify it. Then he could declare war on Iran and nuke the shit out of it. Then the INS could deport Markos Moulitas and the DHS could round up the rest of the lefty bloggers and put them in concentration camps.
That would probably give Joe most of what he wants (and if the states would only amend the Constitution to allow him to be both President and Senator For Life, he'd have all of it).
But it wouldn't do much to pass health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bellesouth
December 14, 2009 10:31 PM
Hey, me to Rahm: STFU!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 14, 2009 10:40 PM
If we Rahm really wants Redi to give Lieberman what he wants, then Reid merely needs to table the bill. Lieberman WANTS NO BILL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 14, 2009 10:40 PM
If we Rahm really wants Redi to give Lieberman what he wants, then Reid merely needs to table the bill. Lieberman WANTS NO BILL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 14, 2009 10:44 PM
If I were Rahm I would tell Obama that if he wants to make a deal with Lieberman then he should say it publicly, and take the heat for it.
Look at this blog and look at how many people are piling on Harry Reid. And Obama wants to sit back safely in the shadows and have Reid compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
waltersobchak
December 14, 2009 10:45 PM
Well this sucks.
I can only wonder if Joementum was able to get any money for his long-suffering constituents like Mary Landrieu did. But considering his constituent work lately, I seriously doubt it.
Hopefully this pushes the party to take away his chairmanship, and to also send Dodd to a graceful retirement and send Dick Blumenthal to the Senate. Unlike Dodd, Joe and Dick really hate each other, Dick isn't afraid to say so, and he would also be a great thorn in Joe's side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 14, 2009 10:51 PM
NOW we can blame Obama. They didn't even ATTEMPT to twist his arm. They capitulated like the rats that they are. No excuses, no rationalizations. I am a full throated Obama supporter but if this bill, the one he signs into law, has no PO or Medicare buy in or ANYTHING that will TRULY reform the system, I am done with him and the entire Democratic Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 10:52 PM
What a spectacular failure!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 10:54 PM
We just have to assume that the incompetent way this was handled is a clear indication that the Obama Administration didn't want Healthcare reform themselves! It was just rhetoric to get elected! I will be staying home next November!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 14, 2009 10:55 PM
Of course the WH wants a deal. Did anyone think they would rather make an example of Lieberman than pass a bill? To make this all about the WH caving in, and Rahm the Grinch, is just manufactured drama a la HuffPo. If the leadership had any balls, the rules could be changed and we could pass a bill with 50+ or go nuclear to shut off debate. The rest is just whining.
The PO or a Medicare buy-in were always just parts of this. Passage of a bill here paves the way for more successes down the line. Failure here might make ideologues on both sides happy, but not me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 10:57 PM
We just have to assume that the incompetent way this was handled is a clear indication that the Obama Administration didn't want Healthcare reform themselves! It was just rhetoric to get elected! I will be staying home next November!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JesusQuintana
December 14, 2009 10:57 PM
Jesus, people. Some of you should move out of Whinerville and join the reality based community. There is only so much Obama can do when there are 40 Republican senators hell-bent against reform and a bitter little man out to extract revenge for losing a primary campaign.
If you are house-shopping and see a dream home that you cannot afford, what do you do? Do you go back to the tiny apartment or buy a house you can afford and hope to be able to upgrade sometime in the future? Seems like an easy call to me.
Once a bill gets past it will then be time to toss Joe aside. It should be rather amusing to watch Lierberman hang out with Coburn, Inhofe and the rest of the loonies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 14, 2009 11:04 PM in reply to JesusQuintana
Your comment might make sense if the legislation without the P.O. or Medicare buy-in weren't positioned to make the insurance industry even more powerful than it already is.
Which means we'll never get to that "bigger house."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BigDaddyRich
December 14, 2009 11:36 PM in reply to JesusQuintana
Jesus --
Thanks for pointing this out. Everybody around here is forgetting that this is just ROUND TWO of the process, the first being the HOUSE passing its version of the bill. (Please read/comment on my post comment below.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 14, 2009 10:58 PM
The slimiest and stupidest part of this is that the White House appears to have thought that their instructions to cave to Lieberman would not leak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
December 14, 2009 10:58 PM
Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory!
The Democrats weakness is nauseating. It looks like Reid and Obama will be getting out their knee pads if that's what Kingmaker Lieberman demands.
At least the fillibuster parlimentary rule hasn't been violated or changed in any way! Thank god for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
December 14, 2009 11:04 PM
Screw this bill and screw Obama. Rahm's atool, but just a tool. This is all Obama. Despite all his claims the only way we could've gotten here is that this is what he wanted. He's giving us Bush's third term. Unless we're one of the top 1% or better it looks like we can forget about getting anything turned around. Money flows from those on the bottom to those on the top. Merry Christmas Mr. Insurance Man, Mr. Banker, and Mr. Arms Military Industrial Complex.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 11:20 PM in reply to dick c
Bingo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 11:09 PM
I can hear the argument the Dems are going to use next September the try and convince their supporters to turn out and vote for them! The GOP would be worse!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
December 14, 2009 11:22 PM in reply to celldumceen
They would be worse, but this shows just how evil the "lesser of two evils" can be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 14, 2009 11:28 PM in reply to celldumceen
That's exactly right. They will say that because it will be the only thing they can say for their sorry asses. But by that time, people might begin to doubt whether the Republicans really would be worse. At least they are honest about fucking over the common people. The Democrats do it too, but lie to everyone as though they won't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 11:25 PM
For the first time I'm beginning to think the GOP may be right and that I might have made a mistake picking Obama over Hillary! This guy is turning into a black Jimmy Carter! A well meaning failure! Hillary would have shown more balls than this guy is showing! Barack to the drawing board!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 11:28 PM
It's official! Our political system simply doesn't function! If it did this one person wouldn't be able to bring down something 2/3 of the people in this want and something that is a financial imperative for this country!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
raiatean
December 14, 2009 11:33 PM
Having Served in your military for over 20 years and having been a Citizen born and raised in your country, I find myself wondering where in the hell common sense has gone in the Country of my birth. You don't want Socialized medicine...... Why would anyone want medicine like the French have? After all they only have the best rated medicine and medical personell and facilities in the world. I am now home here in Tahiti and I have FREE Med's, Doctors, Hospital Visits and Transportation and Lodging when I must travel to the Big City for Control and the really technical stuff like CT scans, Colonoscopies etc... I will have that as long as I live, and I can depend on getting only the very best care.... I don't have to eat dog food to be able to take my meds.... I will not ever be thrown out of my home or have my car taken from me to cover my medical expenses...
Yes, I will eat French Fries, French Toast and French Kiss my wife.. I for one am damn proud that I am French and that I have freedom not the shit that you think you have but real FREEDOM. I will never again swear allegiance to anything a country, a flag, or anything... Damn!!! Its wonderful to live with REAL Adults!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
XXXOOOXXX
December 15, 2009 2:14 AM in reply to raiatean
I love this guy!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 12:05 PM in reply to raiatean
Word up, my veteran brother! ^^^^^
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BigDaddyRich
December 14, 2009 11:33 PM
(I posted this comment/question over at Ezra Klein's WaPo blog:)
Okay, while everybody's throwing a coniption fit over the Senate Democrats kowtowing to Lieberman, everybody's also ignoring the fact that the HOUSE has passed a bill with a public option. So it could still come out of conference with either the public option OR a Medicare buy-in...if it does, it could still pass the Senate by a simple majority vote, could it not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
December 14, 2009 11:34 PM
Did any of you see that pathetic piece of theatre Obama put on for the masses on 60 Minutes Sunday night? Talk about half-azzed! He's taking the banks "to task" one night and the next day he's back to kissing their azzes! Lame!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
December 14, 2009 11:36 PM
Next Lieberman will say he can't vote for a bill that contains a "pre-existing" clause.
Then what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
December 14, 2009 11:41 PM
So, it looks like the Dems are on their way to passing mandated, legally REQUIRED health insurance with no real mechanisms for lowering costs.
That'll go over big with the voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
December 14, 2009 11:45 PM
Look, the plain truth is that Lieberman is doing precisely what Rahm wants. They dont want any bill that would benefit people. It's more important to provide more government welfare to corporations than it is to help the needy. Even if the Public Option somehow passed, look at the current composition of the Supreme Court. When the bill is challenged the court will vote 5-4 to throw out anything that benefits people but they will damn well make sure those mandates stay so that Bill Mc Guire and his fellow parasites can cry all the way to their Swiss bank accounts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kittylc
December 14, 2009 11:53 PM
give Lieberman what he wants now, give him what he wants later, give in on everything because apparently Lieberman's been elected President and Grand Poohbah of the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Justin
December 14, 2009 11:54 PM
This bill failed a long time ago. Ironically, it will be many of the so-called moderates, those democrats in red states that will reap the electoral whirlwind when healthcare costs fall only marginally and people are faced with mandated health insurance. Republicans are sure to repackage the still pricey health plans as a democratic tax on the middle class. It'd be nice if we could blame Rham or Lieberman or even Obama for this, but the truth is that the system and our political culture are broken beyond repair. The United States Senates senate is filled prostitutes and cowards, and our political arena is filled with lies and lazy reasoning. People are dying because of it. Change we can believe in, it seems, was always a cruel joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
raiatean
December 15, 2009 12:05 AM in reply to Justin
Justin I worked my ass off for 4 years for "Change we can believe in." I am not a happy camper, in fact I am really a pissed off puppy. I hadn't planned on coming home so soon, but after being diagnosed with 2 different cancers and glaucoma, I ran like a rabbit back here where I knew that I would be covered by good everything and not loose everything I own to the effing hospitals for profit/drug companies and insurance dirtbags... I really wanted to be an American, but no more.... Never will I ever travel or carry any American Identification. Too many really stupid things are happening in your country for me to want to help carry the load any longer.... It was really a cruel joke, and I for one am really unhappy... I will never help the United States in any way....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 9:21 AM in reply to raiatean
Stories like yours should be publicized. I'd love to see the American people taunted to their faces by people who live in places with a secure, cost-effective social safety net. It might wake them up to the shitty deal they're getting. I'm serious. No snark intended. We should be embarrassed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BigDaddyRich
December 15, 2009 12:09 AM
Can we PLEASE stop all this gnashing of teeth and rending of garments long enough for SOMEONE to tell me if we need 60 votes to pass a combined House-Senate health care bill???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 15, 2009 12:27 AM in reply to BigDaddyRich
Barring reconciliation, yes. I've noticed some few people seem to still think post conference votes can't be filibustered. They can be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CincyCapell
December 15, 2009 12:14 AM
Rahm doesn't want to offend a fellow Member Of The Tribe. He & LIEberman need to move to Isreal. For good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problematic
December 15, 2009 12:19 AM
That's it for me!
I'm done with the dems. At least the GOP will give me a big fat tax cut. The dems are all talk and no action. No reason to support them.
Forget my vote and money Obama. They're gone. Good luck with the teabaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lamonth
December 15, 2009 12:21 AM
rahm is no pit bull he is like chihuahua - all bark no bite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
December 15, 2009 3:59 AM in reply to lamonth
He's Lieberman's poodle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
December 15, 2009 12:24 AM
I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, but I'm not sure if it's possible- could President Obama sign an executive order expanding Medicare coverage? It's not like he'd be creating an entirely new gov agency, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problematic
December 15, 2009 12:30 AM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
He'd never do it even if he could. He's addicted to getting GOP votes. He's welcome to them if they're there for him. He'll never see mine again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ched
December 15, 2009 12:27 AM
Confidential to Harry: Don't take your political advice from Rahm Emanuel. He may be many things, but politically smart, he ain't. His M.O. is to get others to do his dirty work, and then, when they succeed, he takes credit for their success and, if possible, sends them on their way. Just ask Dr. Dean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 15, 2009 1:05 AM in reply to ched
Rahm's the guy who opposed the 50-state strategy for the '06 midterms. Again, it's that short-sighted, defeatist-concessionary stance. I'm fine with running moderate Democrats in red-leaning parts of the country, or electing D's who may not measure up to ideological purity tests (see Casey in PA, see Tester in MT, etc.). I'm NOT fine with making no attempt whatsoever to shift the ideological paradigm, with constantly "accepting" the notion that this is a center-right country or some such and working, campaigning and governing in constant fear of seeming too "liberal." Any good, smart and effective politician finds ways to strike balances and tries to advance the ball as much as possible--not just in the short-term, but in the ideological long-term as well. What's so disheartening and enraging about events like the above is how woefully out of balance this White House is. It's succeeding in deeply alienating its base (and yes, this is problematic...does George Bush win re-election in 2004 with a deeply alienated base? Not quite) and, if polls are to be believed (pace today's Gallup, which shows that the bleeding of independent voters might have stopped somewhat), he's nevertheless losing swing voters as well. The most damaging part, however, is the ongoing loss of morale at the base level. And that will indeed matter in the 2010 midterms, when base voters are even more important than they are in presidential years. November 2010 may still be a long way off, but the narrative frame for that election is being built right now. And letting Joe Lieberman dictate the final health bill is a sad chapter in it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
December 15, 2009 1:11 AM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
I like this phrase:
"defeatist-concessionary stance"
That was a lot of Dem politics in the 1990s, surrendering gains won by previous generations from a defeatist crouch.
As to Rahm, maybe we should take at him his word. He may actually be a conservative Democrat who happens to be ideologically close to Lieberman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
December 15, 2009 12:34 AM
Nancy Pelosi needs the memo on this one. We need Nancy badly to sign this legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
December 15, 2009 12:39 AM
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?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 15, 2009 12:52 AM
Via HuffPo:
>>Several senators said that a Medicaid expansion to up to 150 percent of the federal poverty line is still on the table, but will depend on the CBO.
And, of course, on Joe Lieberman.
The man who dictates legislation in the United States said he may have a few more things to object to in the bill before it's all said and done.
"I want to take a look at these proposals before I sign on," he said.
Let's make sure we give Joe Lieberman, a paid-for pawn of the health-care industry, everything he wants--or everything that he wants OUT of this bill. My God, what's it going to look like when he and Nelson finally get finished with it?
Here's some hard-nosed political reality--if you don't exert power and pressure, if you don't LEAD, then others will step into the vacuum and do it for you. The only pressure that's been brought to bear by the Obama administration, time and time again, is on progressive reps and senators to go along no matter what...to give and compromise, then give and compromise some more, with nothing being given back in return by Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln or Landrieu. It's either appalling weakness or appalling ineptitude.
At the same time, the Obama administration's efforts to sell this whole package have been lame, and they've let the opposition define the debate to a large extent. Instead of trying to reframe the ideological direction of the country, we have fallen back on the 1990s-era defeatist Clinton-centrism that basically says, "We're whooped, folks, gotta tack to the center-right and hope we keep just enough indie voters in the fold to hang onto power, since we are so hated and despised by much of the American populace." I did not think that Obama bought into that--I thought he was more of a liberal Reagan-type inspirational leader who would begin to push and pull us away from the "government is BAD" diseased mindset that has dominated political discourse in this country for the past 30 years. But--and why shouldn't I have seen it coming with Rahm in charge?--we're back in the 1990s again. Hey, at this rate it WILL be 1994 all over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
December 15, 2009 1:06 AM
Man this is so sad to watch. Democrats cave into this guy again and again.
We were told Holy Joe had to have a Committee Chair even though we accurately predicted
a) Joe would discover oversight with Obama as he never did Bush. Check!
b) Joe will screw the Democrats and side with Republicants. Check!
----
The core problem here is the historical abuse of the filibuster. Reid et al need to campaign hard against this abuse of the filibuster. Make a mockery of the filibusterers so filibusting loses it's political appeal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
December 15, 2009 1:21 AM in reply to AlphaLiberal
Like that! This is what I'm talking about. Open up a can of Whup Ass on all this filibustering!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 15, 2009 3:58 AM in reply to AlphaLiberal
I'm waiting to see if they catch Rahm and Joe in the white house pantry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Ouroborus
December 15, 2009 1:14 AM
Of course he wants Reid to give Lieberman what he wants. After all, Rahm and Joe are both...
...politicians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 1:41 AM in reply to The Ouroborus
This'll go down great with "mainstream Americans." First the Jewish lobby drags us into the killing fields in the Middle East, and now it conspires to bail out the insurance companies while raising the premiums of average Americans. I foresee another comeback by the Bush dynasty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
XXXOOOXXX
December 15, 2009 1:52 AM in reply to The Ouroborus
A I P A C
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 15, 2009 3:56 AM in reply to XXXOOOXXX
Exactly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
suydam@yahoo.com
December 15, 2009 9:31 AM in reply to rbe1
....don't forget Bibi.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
December 15, 2009 1:34 AM
It's so embarrassing to see such a weak, weak, weak, weak president be completely bitch-slapped by the warlords of the senate. The American people can see it, too.
I can't believe I'm saying this but Obama is seriously makes George Bush look good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 1:46 AM in reply to Chisholm
At least Bush knew how to put up a fight and he didn't care what people thought about it. All Obama cares about is to be praised for his empty rhetoric. I've never seen a bigger empty suit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 15, 2009 2:44 AM
If the leadership had any balls, the rules could be changed and we could pass a bill with 50+ or go nuclear to shut off debate.
You are overlooking that a motion to change the Standing Rules is itself debatable, and thus is subject to filibuster. Unlike other motions, motions to change the Standing Rules require an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the members present and voting to end debate and proceed to the vote.
I'd love to see the rules on cloture changed to make it easier to invoke it, but I'm not sure even that is going to be possible in this Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 3:17 AM in reply to slb
"the Standing Rules require an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the members present"
Of course, that's complete BS. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that, and in fact, the fillibuster cloture rule was lowered from 2/3 to 60 votes when it was challenged few decades ago. Don't you read the papers? All the Democrats would have to do is challenege the Constitutionality of the fillibuster and then change the rules by simple majority. But don't expect these weak sisters to stick their neck out. They're too busy taking bribes from the insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 11:27 AM in reply to rstephen
"Of course, that's complete BS. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that"
Reread. The Constitution permits the House and Senate to make their own rules. Explicit Constitutional permission or prescription is unnecessary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to Signalman
"The Constitution permits the House and Senate to make their own rules."
Fer a fact, includin the rule bout how many votes she takes ta change the rules. Catchin on yet?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 3:29 PM in reply to rstephen
"Fer a fact, includin the rule bout how many votes she takes ta change the rules."
Once again, reread.
"Catchin on yet?"
I am, but you aren't. Reread. And kindly tone down the mulish behavior; you might get more polite responses that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JesusQuintana
December 15, 2009 3:26 AM
You people with your hissy fits crack me up. It takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. When the opposition party has 40 votes and is unified in making sure nothing gets passed and another vote is hell-bent on sabotaging his old party there is not much a president can do. It is pretty hard to squeeze blood from a stone, after all. To pass any kind of reform one of the 40 must be cracked or the bitter little man must be appeased. It isn't weakness to try to get some improvement passed, it is reality. All this anger is aimed at the wrong target. It seems the most outrage should be aimed at moderate Republicans who want reform but are putting their party loyalty ahead of the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 4:06 AM in reply to JesusQuintana
"When the opposition party has 40 votes and is unified in making sure nothing gets passed and another vote is hell-bent on sabotaging his old party there is not much a president can do."
There is plenty that a president with guts can do. There was never anything like the same abuse of the filibuster in the past. The Republicans never had anything close to 60 votes, and yet they did whatever they wanted for 8 years. Stop making excuses for a weak and useless president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JesusQuintana
December 15, 2009 8:45 AM in reply to rstephen
And how did that Social Security overhaul do under Bush?
I am not sure who is crazier. The wingnuts on the right or some of you posters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to JesusQuintana
"And how did that Social Security overhaul do under Bush?"
The exception proveth the rule, not the exception. Bush putty nigh got everthin' he wonted outa Congress while Republcans ran the whole shebang.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
silverrocket
December 15, 2009 3:36 AM
I don't hate often but if I had a baseball bat, I'd hit Lieberman over the head over and over again. He is an egomaniac who can't be tamed. I'm dissapointed in Obama's inability to twist his arm. Please get him out of our Caucas. On the most important issue of the century thus far, he has put his own petty feelings ahead of the public.
Shame on Joe. Shame in him!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 15, 2009 3:52 AM
rbe1 to Rahm: why don't you go screw yourself, you SOB: You've already done a good job of screwing the rest of us. What is it ? Is it the fact that Lieberman is another member of the Knesset ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 4:17 AM
Expect to see both Rahm and LIEberman suckling at the tit of the medical insurance industry and/or the military industrial complex a few years from now. While Americans are still dying to protect Israel's interests in the Middle east and paying through the nose for medical insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marcNYC
December 15, 2009 7:03 AM
NOT what I voted for. And I'm supposed to go out and vote again in 2010 for what??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 15, 2009 7:06 AM
When the President's sdefenders are reduced to demonizing the Progressive heart of the Democratic Party -- comparing them to TeaBaggers and Palinites -- the Democratic Party is done. And so is Obama. And I am heartsick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjstraka
December 15, 2009 7:11 AM
Let me see if I understand. Millions of people support Obama expecting a change in the healthcare system. Healthcare fight starts over the summer. Vile mobs of morons start popping up everywhere insisting that affordable health insurance is the first step to socialism (or communism, or facism, or all 3). Obama and Democrats give in on every single point until the bill now a.) forces people to buy insurance from dreadful, amoral companies, yet gives them no cheaper public option to do so, even if they can't afford it b.) will limit a women's right to choose.
I almost can't believe what is happening. The fight for universal health care has turned into the biggest giveaway to insurance company scumbags you could ever dream of, and does more to limit women's reproductive rights than 8 years of the Bush administration. Mark my words, if this piece of @#$% passes Obama will not get a second term, and the lunatics will be back in charge. It's really, really depressing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 7:51 AM
Both parties have become deaf to the voices of the people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 8:54 AM in reply to Silence
That's like saying a parent doesn't have the best interests of his child in mind when the kid doesn't want to eat the strained peas.
The teabaggers are exactly like that kid; strapped into a high chair, shrieking at the top of their lungs and flailing impotently away every time the spoonful of strained peas comes into view.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 9:02 AM in reply to Signalman
I would argue that the opposite is true. The TEA party is not demanding the fruits of your labor. They seek to care for themselves and their own families.
Those demanding a nanny state are the real children.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 11:18 AM in reply to Silence
"I would argue"
You would and you will, I'm sure. And without any sort of facts, evidence or support for your positions. And I encourage you to continue to exercise your First Amendment rights in this regard. It's the best possible way to demonstrate how utterly bereft of reason, logic or human compassion you and your ideological compatriots are.
"that the opposite is true.
Not in the least. Single-payer health care would be a huge boon to American business, both large and small, as it would relieve business of a significant administrative burden as well as a significant cost. As you have claimed to be a small-business owner, that alone should be attractive to you.
"The TEA party is not demanding the fruits of your labor."
Of course it is. The additional tax cuts advocated by the teabagger leadership and organizers would devolve nearly in their entirety to upper-class taxpayers and large corporate organizations. At this point in our economic history, tax relief for small business and lower-income taxpayers is what's called for.
"They seek to care for themselves and their own families."
There's absolutely nothing in President Obama's domestic policy aims, agenda or legislative objectives that prevents or inhibits that. This is simply ignorance and alarmism on your part.
"Those demanding a nanny state"
I see no such individuals on this site. And no such individuals in the US so far. Are there some hiding under your bed or something?
"are the real children."
Here comes the strained-pea airplane -- neeeeeeoooowwwwww! Open wide, little one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 15, 2009 8:02 AM
Another pathetic story that probably has no meat. TPM is digging into the bottom of the heap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 15, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I was wondering when you were going to turn up to say that whatever news story you didn't like can't be true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
December 15, 2009 8:30 AM
Screw you Rahm, you are practically GOP material yourself! Which is lucky for you, you can run as a rethug in Illinois someday soon! This bill doesn't even have an enforcement mechanism...yeah trust the insurance industry to regulate itself. No more money, no more votes!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
December 15, 2009 8:52 AM
I'm really wondering. Is the idea to give Lieberman everything, including the rope to hang himself with, even if it means no health care reform this year? Maybe this is some kind of jujitsu maneuver to ensure Lieberman is unelectable in 2012, but this has gone far beyond that given the number of times the goalposts have moved.
Time to reconciliate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 15, 2009 9:01 AM
another 123 die today!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
suydam@yahoo.com
December 15, 2009 9:28 AM
If the President of the United States can justify the American war machine before the Nobel Peace Committee and get away with it, surely he could bring the same passion, chutspah and towering intelligence to bear on this debate. Especially with a majority of the country behind him. Obama is NOT at all interested in winning this one! Understand, NOT interested. Why? I haven't the foggiest, but he isn't. All he ever uses Rahm for is errand boy, and Obama certainly had this idea. The politicians are all in favor of dropping Liebersmutz, Obama wants him to retain his chair. The President is fighting the country, the politicians, and me. I'm taking this as personally as I have any national policy debate in the seventy years of my life that I have been trying to understand this stuff. That is the end of my support for Mr. Obama. Fool me once,even twice,....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 9:30 AM
Trillions spent on banks, car companies, a no-job stimulus bill, green technology produced overseas, an escalating war and raises for federal workers who don't pay their taxes.
What are you getting? A govt mandate to buy an over-inflated health insurance policy.
Bravo, my brilliant liberal friends, Bravo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 15, 2009 9:41 AM in reply to Silence
The banks are paying back the loans, the stimulus bill saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, we've so far averted Great Depression II, your sad-sack party has done NOTHING for green technology of any kind and continues to do nothing period except do their damned best to preserve the privileges and wealth of the rich and powerful, including corporations that exploit our land and our citizens without paying anything close to their fair share of taxes. Go back to Free Republic, teabagger (so nice that this liberal blog allows you to post here, unlike FR, which bans all non-teabaggers) and join the rest of the blowhard faux-patriots. As mad as I am at President Obama for appeasing Joe Lieberman, Obama on his WORST day leaves this country in better shape than John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh or any of the other clowns that want to keep selling this country down the river.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 15, 2009 9:47 AM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
"Not As Bad As The Republicans!" is a great rallying cry. That will sure motivate the troops.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 15, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to wbgonne
Read my above posts--I greatly share your concerns. Teabagging trolls whose ideology got us in this mess in the first place (effects of which include this HRC bill debacle) still raise my hackles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 10:21 AM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Yup. Keep blaming the TEA party. That way you don't have to take responsibility for the shortcomings of your own party.
The Dems have the house, the senate and the White House. What power does the TEA party have?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 11:26 AM in reply to Silence
The same power a shrieking kid in the cereal aisle of Kroger has. Mom and Dad can walk away from the Captain Crunch and the Frosted Flakes, but they can't bend the squalling brat over their knee and administer three or four good THWACKS to the bottom like the kid deserves. If Mom or Dad tries, someone will call DFACS on them.
Consequently, the kid discovers that he can pitch a fit in public any time he likes with no fear of significant consequence. The teabaggers are exactly like that kid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to Signalman
Why is Mom and Dad asking a kid to pay for their health care?
The problem lies with Mom and Dad. Wouldn't you agree?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to Silence
"Why is Mom and Dad asking a kid to pay for their health care?"
Do you have parents? Are either of them on Medicare? If so, then a kid is paying for their parents' healthcare.
Man, you ask stupid questions. Do you even know how Medicare works? Or veterans' health care?
"The problem lies with Mom and Dad. Wouldn't you agree?"
Nope. Not at all. I don't have any problem paying taxes to support my parents' Medicare. Though I suspect you have a problem with it, just as I suspect you have a problem paying taxes to support vets' health care. Thanks for that, by the way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to Signalman
I'm quite sure your parents don't mind taking it from you either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 2:02 PM in reply to Silence
Just like I didn't mind being supported by them for the first few years of my life.
Adults support their children until those children are grown up enough to take care of themselves. And adults help their parents when their parents become infirm and can't take care of themselves. We do it as individuals, and we do it as a nation. It's the responsible thing to do.
Only irresponsible jackasses like you complain about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to Signalman
As I said, I'm quite sure your parents don't mind taking money from you.
I, however, do not expect my children to support me. My only wish is that they become good parents and care their own children, as I have cared for them.
Visit me? Yes. Support me? No.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to Silence
"As I said, I'm quite sure your parents don't mind taking money from you."
They, as retirees, don't mind taking money from *you,* either. And I, as a disabled veteran, don't mind taking money from you. In fact, we shall soon be taking more from you, and you won't be able to do anything about it. All your wallet are belong to us, troll.
"I, however, do not expect my children to support me."
It doesn't matter what *you* expect. Your children *will* pay into Social Security and Medicare, and you *will* draw on both. That's just how they work. You *already* support everyone who draws SS and Medicare, and when you draw on them, everyone with a job will be supporting *you* as well. Welcome to socialism, comrade. :D (laughing)
"My only wish is that they become good parents and care their own children, as I have cared for them."
Wake the F up, Pollyanna. (eyeroll)
"Visit me? Yes. Support me? No."
Too late, dude. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Do you even have the least clue how Medicare works?
No. Don't bother answering that. It's obvious that you don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 5:19 PM in reply to Signalman
If you are a disabled vet, I'm more than happy to help you out. Our veterans provide a great service to this country and deserve the very best.
Should SS and Medicare survive this horrible fiasco, my entitlements will be given to charity and/or my children, to offset the terrible tax burdens of socialist failure.
The children owe me nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 7:16 PM in reply to Silence
"If you are a disabled vet, I'm more than happy to help you out. Our veterans provide a great service to this country and deserve the very best."
Indeed. Pay for my socialized health care, troll.
"Should SS and Medicare survive this horrible fiasco, my entitlements will be given to charity and/or my children, to offset the terrible tax burdens of socialist failure."
1) I don't believe you.
2) You can't do that with Medicare. As I suspected, you have no idea how it works.
"The children owe me nothing."
Whether you accept SS payments or not, your kids will still be paying into it. And Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 9:08 PM in reply to Signalman
Uh. Who ever said anything about not accepting a medicare subsidy or SS money? I paid for them. What I do with the discounts and cash is my business.
You didn't think I would leave it on the table, did you?
Oh, and you're welcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 16, 2009 7:09 AM in reply to Silence
"Uh. Who ever said anything about not accepting a medicare subsidy or SS money?"
You did. Look here:
"Should SS and Medicare survive this horrible fiasco, my entitlements will be given to charity and/or my children, to offset the terrible tax burdens of socialist failure."
If you think I've misunderstood you, then I recommend you take this opportunity to clarify your previous comments.
You *could* give away your SS entitlements (though I don't believe you for a moment when you say you will), but there's absolutely nothing you can do to 'give away' or 'donate' your Medicare entitlement. That sort of comment simply makes it abundantly clear that you have no experience with or understanding of how Medicare works.
Once again, you're just making crap up.
"I paid for them. What I do with the discounts and cash is my business.
Okay, I'll bite. Tell me how you're going to 'give away' or 'donate' your Medicare entitlements. 'Splain me that, Lucy. (laughing)
"You didn't think I would leave it on the table, did you?"
I don't believe for an instant that you're going to give either of them away, no. I have every confidence that you are going to take full advantage of both your SS and Medicare entitlements, regardless of the brave and tough-guy noises you're trying to make.
"Oh, and you're welcome."
All your wallet are belong to us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 16, 2009 7:59 AM in reply to Signalman
"Okay, I'll bite. Tell me how you're going to 'give away' or 'donate' your Medicare entitlements. 'Splain me that, Lucy. (laughing)"
Simple accounting, my friend. Simple accounting. I guess you wouldn't know about that being a "disabled vet" and all. I know a guy who calls himself a disabled vet. He's a vet. But, his disability was caused by falling off a ladder while painting his house 10 years after serving.
My wallet? No. My father.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 22, 2009 9:24 PM in reply to Silence
"Simple accounting, my friend. Simple accounting."
You are a liar. Also, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Once again, you're just making crap up. Go ahead, liar. Tell me how you're going to 'give away your Medicare entitlement.' Explain it in detail, liar.
"I guess you wouldn't know about that being a "disabled vet" and all."
(laughing) :D
What experience do *you* have with the Medicare system, liar?
"I know a guy who calls himself a disabled vet. He's a vet. But, his disability was caused by falling off a ladder while painting his house 10 years after serving."
My disability comes with a DD-214 and a disability rating letter from the VA, as my disability was honestly come by during active-duty service in the US Army (not National Guard, not Army Reserve). But I have noted your pathetic attempt to impugn my military service and disability incurred in honorable service to my country.
You are reprehensible. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our troops? Why do you hate disabled veterans?
"My wallet? No. My father."
All your wallet are belong to us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 9:57 AM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
What is the source of the payback money?
It's cherry when can you gamble away everything on reckless bets, borrow cheap money from a bunch of schmucks and loan it out at a higher interest rate, to very the schmucks who loaned it to you in the first place.
It doesn't get any better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
December 15, 2009 10:01 AM in reply to Silence
Since you're here, why don't you take a look around the site?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/12/geithner_tarp_to_earn_healthy_profit_for_us.php
I'm glad you're so concerned with making sure that government isn't a tool of wealthy and powerful interests who continually screw the middle-class. Hence, you can't possibly be a Republican, can you? And you surely must not have voted for Bush, either in 2000 or 2004.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 15, 2009 10:10 AM in reply to ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
Oh boy. You still don't get it, do you?
No wonder the housing market collapsed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 11:32 AM in reply to Silence
Okay, I'll bite. Tell us why the housing market collapsed.
I can hardly wait to see what you have to say; I'm already looking forward to taking you down again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 15, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to Silence
Hey, troll!
If I was an ignorant slackjaw like you, I might post something jerky about how you haven't posted yet. You know, like you did earlier today.
But since I'm an adult, and since I know how to behave with politeness and decorum, I won't do that. I'll simply ask you again to reply. However, I don't hold out a lot of hope for you to do that, because you are very, very bad at presenting substantive responses to questions that are asked of you. That's very rude, and you should try to change that part of your character.
I will be here to help you with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
steambadger
December 15, 2009 10:32 AM
Isn't the whole point of Rahm Emanuel supposed to be that he's a steely-eyed killah, who would break legs and take children hostage to get the administration's agenda through? If he can't even handle a lame-duck camera whore like Lieberman, why have him around at all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hms09ky
December 15, 2009 10:33 AM
We've had quite enough of the Emanuel brothers and their wheeling and dealing on health care. People are dying and our economy can't take much more pillage by the insurers and big Pharma.
Save taxpayer money, save lives--enact a single payer Medicare for all plan. One huge pool sharing risk and costs. Everybody in, nobody out. In the final analysis, we'll all have more disposable income and peace of mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Switzer
December 15, 2009 10:57 AM
So the President and his "street brawling" Chief of Staff are kissing up not to their loyal supporters, but kissing the asses of those who have dumped all over them.
It seems the only way for a Congresscritter to have power in a Dem administration is to oppose Dem policies in every way!
Republicans are all guts, and no wisdom, while Democrats have neither.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winski
December 15, 2009 11:08 AM
So Obama has let Rahm-bo take over the health care scam?? Humm.. no wonder Americans won't get anything in their own country... So why put Rahm in charge of trying to get middle-east settlement money out of the rest of the middle-eastern governments that support settlement expansion instead of killing 40,000 more Americans THIS YEAR. They can't get health insurance/coverage because Rahm-Bo and Leiberwocky need the money to go oversea instead to fund new settlement activity instead of getting Americans on the road to healhty ...ohhh, and to their OWN bank accounts...
This is a payoff..pure and simple...NOT just to the insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?