TPMDC
Hoyer: Senate Health Care Bill Better Than Nothing
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Share
Send to a friend!
At his weekly press conference this morning, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told reporters that the Senate health care bill would be better than no reform at all. He also insisted that, if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate special election tonight, Congress can act to pass reform in the approximately 15-day window between tonight and when Republican Scott Brown is officially seated.
I asked Hoyer whether he believes the Senate's health care bill would be better than no bill at all.
"I think the Senate bill clearly is better than nothing," Hoyer said.
His outlook is telling. If Democrats lose a Senate seat tonight, they could be faced with an unappealing choice: Have the House take up the Senate's health care bill, or allow reform to die.
As we've reported, there's likely to be a 15 day window between when the winner of tonight's election is determined, and when the winner is sworn in. Another reporter asked Hoyer, "is it feasible to pass legislation of this magnitude in the next 15 days."
Hoyer answered emphatically: "Yes."
Now, that answer doesn't distinguish between the two main options on the table--the House passing the Senate's bill word-for-word, and the House sending the Senate an amended bill for final passage. The latter option would be significantly more time consuming, particularly given the Congressional Budget Office's uncertain timeline. We should know more about what direction Democrats will take later today, and after the election.
Comments (113) | 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.
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 12:46 PM
There will be a healthcare bill one way or another. So if any liberal/progressive is staying home or voting for Brown because you don't think this bill is good enough, the only thing you're doing is making sure there won't be a jobs bill or financial regulatory reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 19, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to FreeRider
I seriously doubt that anyone is that stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
I seriously doubt you've read the postings here and at other liberal sites. Many have claimed that letting Coakley lose will send a message to Obama and either kill the bill or get a more liberal one.
If you think that's stupid talk, I won't disagree with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 19, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
I think people use these blogs to vent...at least I hope that's what it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
January 19, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to FreeRider
The way health care went, I don't see a jobs bill or financial regulation bill any time soon, even if Coakley wins. I don't necessarily blame MA libs for staying home. And I also doubt this is going to send a signal to Obama to be more liberal.
This is lose-lose all around if you ask me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to Chris
You need some new glasses because your vision is awful. There's no comparison between tackling something as tough as healthcare and pushing for a jobs bill. Jobs and financial regulation are very popular and few people will have the cajones to oppose either.
As far as liberals staying home, they're good at cutting off their own noses. No surprise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
January 19, 2010 5:11 PM in reply to FreeRider
I don't wear glasses but a jobs bill seems far off. Unless it comes from TARP, I really don't see it happening. If HCR does pass, and who knows at this point, I think that will be enough for Dems to hold ground in this year's elections.
The liberal wing can screw a few things up no doubt about that, but I can actually see their point this time. Nothing on Gitmo, DADT and really nothing on HCR so why should they rush to the polls? I think if Obama had in the least reversed DADT, MA would be a different story. If you quit feeding your dog long enough, he eventually goes to your neighbors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 12:47 PM
ramming through unpopular legislation, now that speaks to success in 2010:
Fifty-one percent of Americans oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by the Obama administration and Congress. Forty-four percent are in favor...
...Americans by 58-22 percent prefer higher income taxes on wealthier Americans instead. And a public option, widely reported as dead, gets slightly more support than the alternative, private plans with terms negotiated by the government – a 47-41 percent split.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
January 19, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I see...and all the hate from liberals against Obama I seen in this blog when a public option was still on the table and the constant drop in poll numbers were all my imagination!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to Nutter
the public option always polled well among independents and liberals.
I doubt there is any direct relation between comments on this website and any poll numbers, if that is your claim. I'm not sure what your point is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
January 19, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to Indie Pro
If that is true, when a massive Medicare expansion was proposed, why did I not see his poll numbers go up by 20 points? Surely any lib would want that instead of some wishy washy public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to Nutter
this isn't about Obama's poll numbers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to Nutter
And also the numbers debunk any attempt to spin this as Obama not being liberal enough. I wish he put forth a single payer bill, but even a modest HCR bill is ultimately a very liberal idea.
Independents are going soft, apparently getting weak in the knees when actual reform is attempt. Everybody wants reform and recognizes the need in the abstract, but actual progress is met with "too soon" "ooh, scary change!" GOP nutjobs bang their pots and pans and fearmonger, and the cowardly American middle gets jittery. "woah, hold on, let's not fix all these huge problems too fast!"
Dems are still solid. But at least 1/3 of the electorate is independent and we can't count on them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 1:05 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
the changes liberals want are more popular in the poll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brainpicnic
January 19, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Of what poll do you speaketh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to Brainpicnic
the one I quoted. It's the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to Indie Pro
This isn't even a real issue. The public option has always been the most popular part of the legislation, making it even more idiotic when Obama sold it out. The polling for HCR plummeted after the Senate Dems got through wrecking it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to wbgonne
Obama didn't sell out the public option, the public option couldn't get 60 Senate votes in order to pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to Darrius
Uh-huh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
January 19, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to wbgonne
And I saw all these liberals pissed at him even immediately after the House passed a public option bill because.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to Nutter
. . . because it was clear Obama was going to sell out on the public option in the end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yeah...
Because we should really write legislation to satiate buzzword predilection and good policy can always be written as simply as a poll question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to zonk
are you arguing that the Senate bill is better policy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Than the status quo?
Absolutely and beyond any hint of a doubt.
Than the House version?
It's closer, but ultimately, yes - it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to zonk
I disagree. I think this legislation cements a privatized system, when a community based system would be better. It allocated tax dollars to go directly to an industry outside of anti-trust laws, and regualtions left to the states to enforce.
Even without moving towards a community based system, the Senate bill leaves the industry in the position to gobble up any savings found by this legislation by simply increasing premiums.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro
But it doesn't (leave regulatory controls to the state) --
Significant portions of the legislation address health insurance regulatory oversight - as I said elsewhere, it's really the very FIRST (outside of Part C and D policies) federal oversight.
People get their knickers in a twist because there's a lot of "Secretary shall" and such, but that's how good legislation is written.
The AMT fiasco of a few years came about precisely BECAUSE congress got too smart by half in mandating directly in the legislation things that are best left to an executive agency to do.
Sometimes good legislation requires an agency to use the much more apolitical rulemaking process to fill in the particulars.
The Senate bill has done a very good job of mandating floors - and it's also left a good HHS Secretary room to build upon that, without leaving gaps for a bad HHS Secretary to exploit.
As to the antitrust exemption, I'm not too broken up over that. Most of the states that lack private competition are actually among those most opposed to a public option - there are exceptions, PA, for one - but most of the NDs, SDs, etc aren't unhappy (for better or worse) with a single BCBS entity having the lion's share of business.
The demonization of private insurers served a purpose up to a point - every piece of legislation needs a good enemy - but it's really gotten out of control. There are problems, yes, but many of those problems are more of the systemic nature than those of individual bad players.... and most of the insurance-side systemic issues are addressed in this bill.
Those unaddressed are largely on the provider (and Medicare) side - but the way this legislation has been constructed, that's a separate battle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 3:42 PM in reply to zonk
the parts that deal with rescission do, as I stated.
there are other parts we could get into as well, like the loophole that allows higher premiums for sicker patients as part of the wellness programs. This is a problem that the Heart Association, as well as others have complained about.
It goes on and on. There is a reason why most hated the baucus bill, and that is essentially what the Senate passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to Indie Pro
If the Democrats pass the Senate Bill or any health care legislation then 2010 won't be about health care; it will be about the economy. That is why Democrats are falling, the health care debate is holding the party hostage. Once Health care reform passes, House bill, Senate bill, or any other bill the debate will immediately shift to the economy. It will shift because that is what the country wants to talk about and do something about anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to Darrius
I think a bill that throws tax payer money at a problem, with little to do with fixing that problem, and without meaningful cost controls and regulations on the industry, will be an issue when the economy comes up, and the state of affairs for average people is discussed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Would you care to provide the text of the bill that apparently is up for passage in whatever fantasy world you're reporting from?
Because here in reality, the statement "...and without meaningful cost controls and regulations on the industry, is pure nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to zonk
here's one: leaving industry outiside of anti-trust laws
here's another: the anti-rescission language allows for "fraud" which is the strategy used today by the insurance industry, to claim fraud and not pay for something. Enforcement of this law is left to the states, as it is under HIPAA today. The Fed only comes in when it determines the States aren't doing enough, which it never has under HIPAA, which was brought up during committee hearings for this legislation. States are reluctant to use their limited resources to go up against the insurance industry's team of lawyers, and the few times they have, they lose.
etc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The antitrust threat was always just a cudgel - more of a "we'll show you" billy club than something that would have had any real effect on coverage (generally, the BC/BSs in rural areas where they control a lion's share of the market score better on beneficiary satisfaction surveys than do those in more competitive areas)...
The antitrust issue was always more of general commerce issue - should monopolies and near-monopolies be de facto busted up regardless of the impact on consumers - than a HCR issue.
As to oversight, the bill's language in fact grants very broad authority to the HHS in enforcement... it's just that most of that isn't so much spelled out as much as it's left to the rulemaking process because there are areas where the DOL/HHS are to conduct studies to ensure that the exchange plans are competitive with those offered via employer packages.
Check out the oversight rules - the only thing that the bill "leaves to the states" are the things that probably should be left to the states (namely, the freedom to not have to modify state based programs that might already be effective).
The Senate bill gives HHS the sole discretion to assess significant penalties for non-compliance and also gives Treasury the ability to collect them. While the baseline $1 per person per day of non-compliance may not seem like much, the nature of the rules is such that if Aetna screws someone in a way that the HHS determines doesn't comply with the law -- they would be facing penalties in the billions after just a couple months of non-compliance.... not to mention, escalator penalties.
I don't know where this business of oversight being left to the states started, but whoever started it either isn't being honest or hasn't read the legislation.
There are significant reporting requirements and extensive penalty provisions -- at the federal level -- in this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to zonk
it's in there, my friend, as I've stated.
the anti-trust legislation prevents industry from being able to collude.
Take the website in the Senate bill, where you can see what prices other companies are setting. This is billed as a way of keeping the insurance companies honest, because it eases shopping around. But with the ability to collude at will, they can work with each other in setting prices, as they do now, as they do in negotiating regions with each other.
Man, if you're trying to sell me that allowing the justice departmemnt to investigate collusion and other shenanigans of an industry isn't that big of a deal, save it. Try someone else.
This bill leaves people at the mercy of an industry until later, when we'll come back and fix it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
January 19, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'd find those poll numbers more credible if they indicated what, exactly, the "opponents" don't like. I was always under the impression that when people were asked whether they were in favor of this, or that, they said "yes". When asked generically whether they favor "the health care bill", they said "no". I think this is because people don't know what's in the bill; they know what Fox and friends tells them is in the bill, which is pretty scary.
Dems finally have to do something because it's right, and not just because the polls pull one way or the other. Anyone who saw Jon Stewart last night has got to be embarrassed to be a Democrat at this point (we only have a majority of 18 in the Senate if Coakley loses? that's not enough? gimme a break!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to George C
Dems finally have to do something because it's right, and not just because the polls pull one way or the other.
the problem for me is this attitude is adopted only when it comes to passing a corporate-centered bill. In the end, it is contributions to campaigns that count, and that is the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
January 19, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Fair enough: the system is skewed towards doing nothing, though Bush somehow managed to do "whatever the f**k he wanted" (in Jon Stewart's terms) even though he led either a minority or a much smaller majority. Besides the impact of money, there's also the filibuster and the newly found inclination to use it to stall even measures the R's favor, just to prove a point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to George C
Bush was able to do more because many conservative/corporate democrats were happy to go along with them.
plus, they were able to threaten to do away with the filibuster, and a few dems would fall in line out of fear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
January 19, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Remember that much of the opposition to HCR as it exists today comes from the left in that it doesn't go far enough. Fair enough. But they still support key provisions of the bill, in stark contrast to Republicans who can just say no to everything and who refuse to govern.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to Indie Pro
What a surprise...
The left blogosphere has made obfuscation and outright lies about a PO-less HCR bill a cottage industry since October.
With the righties dead set against the bill since day 1 and the lefties doing everything in their power to convince the Democratic base that the bill sells children to be used as health insurance exec hors d'oeuvres - why is anyone shocked at the poll numbers?
The shame of things is that even the Senate bill is such a good bill -- bordering on very good -- and the Dems are likely to lose no matter what.
This bill has the very first federal controls over health insurance. There are requirements for reasonable proportions of revenue going directly towards care. There are rescission and discrimination protections that go beyond anything at the state level. Medicare gets a very, very badly needed boost to its solvency with the elimination of some PhRMA giveaways and the charity care subsidies it bears now. For the first time, junk insurance is eliminated - the legislation spells out a quite thorough and completely acceptable list of what MUST be covered. There's means testing that ensures no one pays too large a portion of their income towards health care. There are sections that require more clarity and an end to fine print in policies. Some - the donut hole - of the problems in the Part D legislation are fixed.
But sure... you know... why shouldn't we take the word of a snuff film auteur like Jane Hamsher on what's "really" important for a good bill. I'm sure she and others like her know best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to zonk
I disagree. See above.
I agree with Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.):
Slaughter argued that while the House bill is far from perfect, the Senate bill's exclusion of a public option, along with abortion funding restrictions and other measures, make the bill undeserving of a vote.
Specifically, Slaughter said, the Senate bill would charge seniors higher premiums, would fail to nix health insurers' antitrust exemption and would not go far enough in extending coverage to people in the U.S.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Then congresswoman Slaughter is wrong - and she's more interested in making blogospheric friends than being honest about what she's voting on...
First of, this would mark the very first time I've ever heard someone actually laud the Stupakian House bill over the Senate bill in terms of abortion rights. I don't know where she's getting her ideas from on that front - while the Senate bill isn't roses and candy on abortion rights - it's definitely better than the house bill just by virtue of the provisions being more carefully written not to have the potential to go beyond even the Hyde rules.
As far as the public option difference... well... that's been beaten to death - but I still have yet to hear ANY convincing argument as to why a provision that would -- at its absolute most, address 10% of the uninsured (the CBO estimated what... 2 to 4 million?), would require HIGHER premiums than those via competing private options in the exchange (again, per the CBO), and would generally have more of the bare minimum coverage (again, per the CBO) is worth fighting for.
The House bill PO is worse than worthless -- and why any progressive that truly wants single payer or Medicare for all would fight to include a provision that would only give the opponents all the ammunition they need, 10-15-20 years from now, to say "See? It doesn't work!" is beyond me.
They sold you a bill of goods, my friend.
You demanded a "public option" so they gave you one that is doomed to be a disaster, sure to suffer from substantial deficits, enormously likely to have very low satisfaction rates (due to the higher premiums and likely bottom scale coverage out of necessity), and makes for a perfect conservative "told you so".... thinking you'll go along because is technically "is" a public option.
As to the Medicare affects, again, Congresswoman Slaughter is being disingenuous... the 'higher prices' per the Senate bill are almost exclusively because of the Medicare Advantage cuts... given that Advantage participation is quite low (less than 20%... much less if you properly classify what are really Part D plans that get classified as Part C plans because of bells and whistles), and given that Advantage plans are generally bought by the upper class of retirees -- it would be more accurate to say that "Wealthy seniors may pay more for coverage". The majority of seniors -- especially those whose sole coverage is strictly standard Medicare and/or a Part D prescription plan -- will not see one dime's worth of difference in their coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to zonk
I was against the House PO too. No one is selling me anything, including you on the Obama/Senate Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to zonk
Co-Sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
January 19, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Frankly, I think that a Brown win will create Republicans worst nightmare. I expect the House to adopt the Senate version of the Health Care reform and that will just sizzle Republicans. However, all that remains to be seen but I think that Hoyer made Pa comment about that approach. My own Republican Party hates the Senate version but I think it may end up being the law of the land. It is sort of an issue of being careful what you wish for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 19, 2010 12:48 PM
I'm no fan of Hoyer but he's right on both counts. If it's 15 days until the new senator is seated (hopefully Coakley, but still...), that should be enough time to pass the amended bill. If Reid wimps out and Lieberman and Nelson suck up to the Repugnuts, then the House should pass the Senate bill. There's a lot in there I don't like but it's far better than the status quo, and far better politically for the Dems to show they can actually deliver on something (albeit half a loaf at best). Then, follow that up with improvements via reconcilation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
January 19, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to Moose49
What if Coakley pulls a "Coleman." Ask Franken if he got to vote while he was waiting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 19, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Then ram it through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
January 19, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to Moose49
The House only passed their own bill 220-215...you think there's a solid 218 for the Senate bill in the House?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
January 19, 2010 12:52 PM
Some people seem to frequently confuse "unpopular" legislation with "not supported by everybody." In most polls, support/opposition to HCR is roughly split. Letting it die isn't going to make everybody happy; it's going to make half of the country happy and the other half furious, just as passing it will. If you have to piss off half the country, might as well accomplish something in the process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 19, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to IndyLinda
I couldn't agree more. But beyond that, once the legislation is in place, it will prove popular. When people realize that they can't be discriminated against due to preexisting conditions . . . that they will no longer be at risk of going bankrupt due to illness . . . that they will be able to obtain health insurance with government subsidies for most middle class families . . . once all of this happens, repealing the legislation will be what's unpopular.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to Moose49
My guess is very much to the contrary. I guess we'll get to see who's right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 19, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I just hope we will get to see who's right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to Moose49
Be careful what you wish for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 19, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to Moose49
Wow, it seems you cut and paste the same exact post you put up yesterday on this topic. The most nonsensical assumption of your "argument"? That people haven't already considered those things. And this bill does absolutely nothing to control costs, and the Dems even admit it will increase health care costs, so the notion that individuals will no longer go bankrupt is pure bullshit. People will be forced by law to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not, something that will be real popular, I'm sure. I would like those who think the subsidies will make health care more affordable for those who can't afford it to explain to me how financial aid has made college more affordable and lowered the cost of higher education. The same exact thing will happen with health care. The providers will raise their prices to absord the subsidies, and people will not be able to afford the health care they will now be compelled by law to buy.
The particulars of the bill have been known for months now. The notion that people will somehow understand and like it better after it passes is pure fantasy. Such a notion is almost as ridiculous as the statement that the polls on health care are roughly split, a statement made by an earlier commenter.
The following are the last six polls on health care. THe left column is support, the right is opppose:
44% 51% Washington Post
39% 51% Fox
46% 55% YouGov
34% 54% Quinnipiac
40 57% CNN
40% 55% Rasmussen
4 of the last six polls show a double digit difference. The other two show 9% and 7% margins. In no way is that "roughly split".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Virginia
January 19, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to masanf
Moose49 is right. It is easy to scaremonger on an unknown. Once it becomess reality, the benefits will emerge as the primary narrative.
This has been true of every piece of social legislation: Social security, Medicare, civil rights. People are afraid of a poorly defined unknown, but come to support it when they realize that their lives and society will be improved by it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
January 19, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to masanf
Well, it's still higher than the polls about cave men riding dinosaurs to work -- sometimes peoples' opinions are wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 19, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to masanf
I think because of all the bullshit noise about health care reform and the media's general incompetence at covering substantive issues, I think most voters don't have a full understanding of how the legislation will impact their lives.
As far as people not going bankrupt, the bill does this by ending lifetime coverage limits imposed by insurance companies and by capping what anyone has to spend out of pocket.
The requirement that everyone buy health insurance will be the most controversial aspect of the new law, if it actually becomes law. But I think the downside to this has been exaggerated because 1) most people who don't have coverage today want it, but they either can't afford it or can't obtain it; 2) the subsidies will make it affordable to most families that can't afford it today; 3) the requirement that insureres accept everyone removes the access barrier; and 4) the "hardship exemption" is pretty loose and and the penalties for people not buying health insurance in the Senate bill are pretty small.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
January 19, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to Moose49
I lived in British Columbia, Canada where I had provincial universal medical coverage. I was a landed immigrant and had insurance from my former job but the BC hospital where I had heart surgery opted to bill BCHIS their universal health insurance plans. they said they got paid quicker and got no hassle that way. The care was first rate and compared very favorably to when I had my first heart surgery in Hawaii. It is a myth that universal health care plans somehow reduce the quality of care. Further, doctors do not need to hire two or three bill collectors like they do in our country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
January 19, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to Moose49
Absolutely. Makes me wonder about why we complain about the "mandate" to buy health insurance while Europeans don't bat an eye! Maybe the answer is to make health insurance voluntary, but people who don't sign up have to execute a waiver of any health services unless they pay for them. That'll make everyone happy, except the indies who wind up in a jam and get no health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 19, 2010 5:33 PM in reply to masanf
Well, you officially just decertified yourself as someone who doesn't know wtf he or she's talking about.
The issues of cost control and medical bankruptcy are not causually related. In fact, they're completely unrelated. The "cost control" everyone keeps talking about is total health care spending as a percent of GNP, not out of pocket costs to individuals with insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Portlander
January 19, 2010 12:53 PM
I wonder if it is good strategy to publicize this "out" while folks are voting. Are we depending on a large Coakley turnout but otherwise unenthusiastic voters just because health care reform is supposedly at stake?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 19, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to Portlander
I don't think that HCR is what is motivating most MA voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to agio
Agreed.
People are pissed about the jobs situation.
Hacks of all stripes will declare this an uprising in favor of their ideological preferences but most of the indies we're losing aren't ideologues. They just want job security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
January 19, 2010 1:00 PM
If Pelosi pulls this off, she will be known as the "Greatest Speaker of All Time." She hasn't failed before, so this would be a true challenge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to calchala
I'll agree with you there.
Nancy Pelosi runs a tight ship. While it's quite true that the debate rules make it easier for a house leader, even grading on a curve, she's run circles around Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 1:02 PM
Thank God that someone is NOT in a meltdown and is thinking straight. Not passing health care reform after all this would be political suicide. Pass it and go around selling it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
January 19, 2010 1:04 PM
There are enough other alternatives for passing HCR, that this article is almost midleading, i.e.,
1. Biden, by his statement yesterday about the anti-democratic and abusive use of the filibuster, may be signaling his intent to reform it via "nuking" Rule 22 (see website Congress Matters). Possibilities are then virtually limitless.
2. Pass Senate bill, then go to reconciliation, which would allow Public Option and/or Medicare to be put back in; would only need 50 votes.
3. Other possibilities are discussed "Congress Matters."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to RhodaA
indeed, I like:
The steps to get through “sidecar” reconciliation:
1.House passes the Senate bill
2.House and Senate pass a “fix” to the excise tax that they’ve negotiated
3.Find a way to pay for the “fix,” which costs $60 billion. The best way to pay for it without raising taxes means putting in a public option, expanding Medicare, passing Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment, or some combination of the above.
4.House and Senate then pass the “fix” through reconciliation, which requires a simple majority. 51 Senators have said they’d vote for Schumer’s “level playing field” public option, while 51 voted for Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment
but would they do it? Can you trust them to do it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
January 19, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to Indie Pro
They don't need to use reconciliation. They could place the fixes in the President's budget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
January 19, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I they NUKE 22 FIRST, they don't have to use any reconciliation procedure whatsoever. Could do anything they want, including restoring ant-trust legislation, etc. Whatever, you name it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 19, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Can accountability to anti-trust laws be reinstated through reconciliation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to Watt Childress
my guess is that repealing the anti-trust exemption would not pass the budgetary litmus test. Though, taking away the ability of the industry to collude and such would have an effect on subsidies paid out to insurance companies. Perhaps a case could be made.
I doubt the political will, though. I don't see any reason for this repeal not be in the legislation now. It didn't win any votes. People say it was something Nelson demanded, but he was never forced to demand it, so more concessions were made to win his vote. But that's how it should've played: If Nelson is gonna champion the insurance industry, make him do so out loud, and in public. That he wasn't forced to do such leads me to believe it is more than just Nelson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ArmChairPol
January 19, 2010 1:07 PM
"...HCR." There's three more years left in this Presidency alone. If Plan B only deals with HCR, we need to rename it to "Plan .000B".
If Brown wins we may as well cement over the reflecting pool in DC. Nothing else is getting done!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CM
January 19, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to ArmChairPol
Nuke the filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 1:09 PM
Something is better than nothing, but if they manage to pass that something, I hope there's a concerted effort to sell the damn thing to the public.
Yes, something is better than nothing, but it's pretty discouraging that it's come down to that. Thanks, Max Baucus. Thanks, Joe Lieberman. Thanks, Harry Reid.
Finally, it's easy, in retrospect, to say that Obama seems to have fundamentally underestimated the depth of Republican opposition. Hindsight is always 20-20. Still, I can't help but think that he really has underestimated Republicans. He learned, quickly, on the campaign trail. I'm hoping he's an equally fast learner in this situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 19, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to CT Voter
The President made the mistake of believing that Republicans care about anything outside of their own political prospects. Hopefully he's learned his lesson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
January 19, 2010 1:09 PM
message to president obama and all democrats in congress: i did not go out of my comfort zone and canvas week after week, knocking on doors in my very socially conservative (and dare i say racial overtones) small town for "better than nothing!"
time was wasted on snowe and grassley, august would never had happened if baucus had gotten the bill out of his committee before august; blue dogs and other conservative democrats had remembered their wealth and power come from the democratic party, rahm can not advised barack to go for less and end up with nothing!
why is is the democrats may be on the right side of history; but are just plain stupid? the machiavellian and obfuscating gop can count on the dems screwing up every time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to sbv
You did canvas for "better than nothing." However, you are getting more than "better than nothing." If we had Republicans in office we would have an outright move to the right.
You shouldn't be upset because we are not getting a big enough move to the left, you should be afraid of the Ronald Reagan-like Republican President that will carry 49 states, 60 house seats, and 25 Senators with him to election.
That is the path we are on now. Democrats are attacking and demoralizing each other and eliminating any Democratic turnout in 2010 and 2012. That lack of Democratic enthusiasm and therefore Democratic turnout will create a Republican wave and they will move the country even further to the right than it is now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 19, 2010 1:14 PM
I have no idea where the people on this site are getting the whole 15 day window thing. The election law explicitly states that Kirk can't vote come Wednesday. Furthermore, how many days did the Dems wait to swear in Owens in the House after he won NY-23? The wait period there was counted in hours, not days. The assertion that there is some magical 15 day wait period is completely bogus, and there is already an army of lawyers ready to dispute such an assertion, because the law is clear no such window exists.
And even if it did, it would be a monumental task to get 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate after a Democrat loses in the most liberal state in the union
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to masanf
You have no idea where the 15 day window thing comes from?
Yesterday. State law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to CT Voter
You can also add another 15 days "if the margin of victory is not more than one-half percent of the votes cast" and a recount petition is filed with the Sec'y of the Commonwealth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to masanf
It explicitly states the exact opposite. He is the Senator until his successor is duly certified and sworn in. Suck. On. That.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
January 19, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Remind me -- Did Franken get to vote while he was waiting, as Coleman continued to grasp for absurd straws? Suck on THAT straw!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
January 19, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Meant to be a reply to masanf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ottis
January 19, 2010 1:32 PM
CNN is reporting that if Brown wins, the Democrats may continue to try to get Sen Snow to vote for HCR. I can't believe the people in charge have learned anything and they probably will not. This is so sickening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Just Keep It Simple Stupid
January 19, 2010 1:40 PM
DRIVERS NEEDED....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/19/826843/-URGENT:-Drivers-needed-for-Coakley-Voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimboz
January 19, 2010 1:42 PM
The issue isn't health care reform, it's corporatist ownership of government. Any true reform efforts by this administration will be met with the same result. rahmbama is on the road to a single term presidency precisely because of the results like the current state of health care reform. rahmbama has a choice: stand up and fight for Democratic principles, go after the criminals from the previous administration, single payer, and all the other issues that Democrats advocate for, or face defeat in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to jimboz
Jesus, you need something a lot more elegant than "Rahmbama." What's wrong with "Obamarahma?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CM
January 19, 2010 1:48 PM
Win or lose, the Democrats need to learn how to govern effectively and get bills into law without 60 seats in the Senate. They won't have such large majorities forever, and the Republicans filibuster EVERYTHING. Reforming the filibuster is essential to the future of our democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
January 19, 2010 1:53 PM
Yeah!!! A new Dem rally cry.
Let's hear it people, all together now...
IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING!! YEAAAHHHH!!!!
IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING!! YEAAHH!!
IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING!! YEAH!
I gotta say. I love it. It's got a beat.
WHAT DO YOU WANT?! MORE THAN NOTHING!!
WHEN DO YOU WANT IT?! NOW!!
WHAT DO YOU WANT?! MORE THAN NOTHING!!
WHEN DO YOU WANT IT?! NOW!!
WHAT DO YOU WANT?! MORE THAN NOTHING!!
WHEN DO YOU WANT IT?! NOW!!
As a liberal member of the Democratic party, after the last couple decades, I gotta admit, more than nothing doesn't look so bad.
BETTER THAN NOTHING WE CAN BELIEVE IN?
THE AUDACITY OF BETTER THAN NOTHING?
BECAUSE BETTER THAN NOTHING IS BETTER THAN A SHARP STICK IN THE EYE?
Pleas. Make. It. Stop.
....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
January 19, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to McMia
What did you freaking expect? All major progressive actions are like this. Should I spit in MLK's face is not destroying racism? Should I had shot Lincoln myself for dodging the issue of slavery for so long to keep a few border states to defeat the confederates? Same as with LBJ?
Open your eyes to reality. Tea baggers are suppose to be the delusional ones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to Nutter
You are mistaken. Obama and the Dems have squandered an historic opportunity for progressive reform. They have lost the narrative battle to Teabaggers and the No-Nothing Party. That's why people are pissed. And that's why the Dems may lose Teddy Kennedy's seat today. You should direct your anger at those who deserve it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
January 19, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to Nutter
And therein lies the problem; Where you see "major progressive actions" I see just another DLC puke corporate giveaway.
Individual mandates with no effective cost containment, excise taxes that won't bring in enough revenues to cover the subsidies, no drug reimportation, I could go on and on.
No this isn't "major progressive action".
This is the Democratic party once again selling out to their corporate partners.
But buck up buddy, it'll pass. You'll have your moment of victory.
Have fun with it...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 2:13 PM
I like Josh Marshall's call of "it's time to buck up, shut up, and pass the bill".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to Maritza
For House Progressives that's an invitation to commit political suicide. Armando is much smarter than Josh on this one: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/1/19/12316/5660
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I think both Marshall and Armando are right.
Buck up, shut up, pass the bill... then make fixes in reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to Stroszek
I'd love to believe that last bit would actually happen...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to Stroszek
Exactly. What must be done is that Pelosi must pull her group together and tell them that it would be POLITICAL SUICIDE to let this go now. Instead what must be done is that former Clinton people need to sit with the House and tell them exactly what will happen to them if they don't pass the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to Maritza
Except that's bullshit where progressives are concerned- supporting the Senate pie of crap as is would be the bigger risk for them. Even in 1994 it was the conservadems in shaky seats, by and large, who went bye-bye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 19, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
A failed HCR effort will sink Progressives right along with the rest of the Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
thanks for linking that. It was a good read, and better than the "whatever, just pass it" position of Josh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 19, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Maybe if it was 1970.
As the child of a two-union member household, I'm extremely sympathetic to the union concerns over how 'cadillac plans' are handled. It's not right to change the rules in the midst of contracts -- and I think the compromise (which essentially pushed that revenue provision off until 2017, giving everyone another round of contract negotiations to do under the new reality) was good...
But Armando cannot be all that smart if he thinks bowing either the AFL or the SEIU is smart politics.
It's been 10 years since the unions had the ability to swing all but the most unionized of primaries and probably 20 to 30 years since they've been to win general elections.
For better or worse, unions are all but done as a political force. My personal policy preferences still coincide with union principles -- but Armando just timewarped into our present day if he thinks the Dem's biggest problem is pissing off the unions.
NAFTA didn't help Clinton and the Dems in the 90s - but it was Reagan that all but eliminated unions as a partisan political force.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
January 19, 2010 2:16 PM
As somebody sick and poor enough to be the "target" for this bill all I have to say is FUCK NO! I can overcharged by the insurance companies now if I want to. The only thing this bill does is FORCE me to give them money and get nothing in return.
Not what I donated time and money for. BO is a failure as a leader...maybe if he had tried LEADING it would of worked out different byut he sold us out to Baucus and his wellpoint whore on day 1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 19, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to madmatt
Presumably, if you're sick and poor enough, you will be eligible for subsidies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 2:45 PM
I am completely and totally pessimistic about HCR being enacted this year. I think Brown will win, the bill will be shelved and Democrats will face the wrath of voters in November.
As an aside: though she's gotten a lot of heat, I think Nancy Pelosi has done an admirable job as Speaker.
Unfortunately, I can't give the same praise to Reid as Senate majority leader or to Obama as president. Both have been hugely disappointing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
The good news is that HCR is basically in Pelosi's hands with Obama playing sidekick. That gives me hope.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
January 19, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Wow! you could be called a troll by some for your cogent deduction.
You are right on.The Prez has shown no leadership,preferring to wait on the Senate Finance committe to see how Americans would recieve his weak kneed HCR bill.Well,let's hope he is seeing.
People have lost confidence in the Prez and Senate leadership.Let 'em kiss up more to the Corporations and see how Americans will respond in Nov.
And passiong a HCR bill not worth a damn to enrich Corporations won't help Dems.Steny Hoyer can continue to be as delusional as he wants,He has been around too long to care about Ordinary Americans welfare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 2:52 PM
There are more House members who are not freaking out. Sam Stein is reporting that Congresswoman Schakowsky said that we WILL pass health care one way or the other. "Buck up and pass this thing then move on to jobs".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to Maritza
Right. The president will sign a bill with or without a Senator Coakley.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
January 19, 2010 3:16 PM
President Obama is the man we voted for. He's just stuck dealing with the fractured reality of the democratic "big tent" party & insane reality of his opposition. Not to mention an entrenched corporate influence & arguably the biggest mess any President has ever been saddled with. His successes shouldn't be discounted because he has the backbone to take on one of the biggest issues our nation has ever dealt with. Should he have just taken on DADT or issues with a more certain outcome?
I don't remember everyone hating on Clinton for his failed health care reform anything like this, & he got no where near this close or had as much promise in his legislation.
If you want a better President, vote in a better congress!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 19, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to Leftflank
IIRC there was plenty of hating on Clinton from his left flank. There just wasn't much of an Internet back then for people to go express it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to Leftflank
"If you want a better President, vote in a better congress!"
Well said
GOTV folks, there's still time.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ofasplashmaall
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
January 19, 2010 7:48 PM
If anyone thinks that Obama was as on the side of the people and not insurers and PHARMA, they need only look to Dorgan's re-importation admendment. Obama has always been on the side of corporate-for profit health corporations. His campaign rhetoric was simply that-for the campaign only. Whether it is Wall Street or Healthcare, he has betrayed those that worked for him to get him elected and now he is reaping the revenge of the betrayed. Perhaps being a one term President and shredding the Democratic Party is OK with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?