TPMDC
Leading Health Care Experts Tell House To Pass Senate Health Care Bill
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Rep. George Miller (D-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
Nearly four dozen of the nation's leading health care luminaries--including Jacob Hacker, the man who brought the public option to light--are urging the House of Representatives to pass the Senate health care bill, and quickly pass a separate bill to modify it: an approach favored by some members of Democratic leadership, major unions, and reform advocates.
In a stark message to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her health care lieutenants--Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Henry Waxman (D-CA), and George Miller (D-CA)--the experts say it's time for the House to act.
"Both houses of Congress have adopted legislation that would provide health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, begin to control health care costs that seriously threaten our economy, and improve the quality of health care for every American," reads a letter, obtained by TPMDC. "These bills are imperfect. Yet they represent a huge step forward in creating a more humane, effective, and sustainable health care system for every American. We have come further than we have ever come before. Only two steps remain. The House must adopt the Senate bill, and the President must sign it."
"Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process," the experts say. "Key elements of this repair enjoy broad support in both houses. Other limitations of the Senate bill can be addressed through other means."
They also warn of political recriminations if the year-long push for reform falls short.
"Alternatively, Congress can abandon this effort at this critical moment, leaving millions more Americans to become uninsured in the coming years as health care becomes ever less affordable," the experts say.
Abandoning health care reform--the signature political issue of this administration--would send a message that Democrats are incapable of governing and lead to massive losses in the 2010 election, possibly even in 2012. Such a retreat would also abandon the chance to achieve reforms that millions of Americans across the political spectrum desperately need in these difficult times. Now is the moment for calm and resolute leadership, pressing on toward the goal now within sight.
You can read it in its entirety here.
Comments (289) | 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 22, 2010 10:23 AM
These people spent months convincing the nutcase firebaggers that this bill was the worst thing since NAMBLA. All they talked about was that insurance companies would make more money. They ignored the fact that 30 million more people would have insurance and families making $90K/year would qualify for subsidies.
NOW, that they've succeeded in turning the Democrats against HCR, they say "pass the bill" and talk about all the good it will do. What a bunch of assholes!
Classic example of the Democrats' circular firing squad. They stop shooting only when they've slaughtered their entire army.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 22, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to FreeRider
These people? These people. Which of the people who signed this letter have been trashing the bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
January 23, 2010 10:06 AM in reply to Skybolt
No No No the senate bill is a corporate giveaway.Make the repubs filibuster to the max and disgust even their followers---Show the World how Anti-American the conservative repub party is!
Strip oit the problems and giveaways and pass something ---just not the sutpidity of the senate!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
January 23, 2010 10:34 PM in reply to Docb
This isn't "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." They don't have to filibuster, they just have to threaten. What we need to do is get rid of the Senate altogether. It's a ridiculously unbalanced legislative body.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
January 22, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to FreeRider
No! Hacker and other policy experts never trashed the Senate Bill. It was the non-expert left at Daily Kos and Firedoglake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 22, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to El Puerco
And Hacker has spent how much time working in the health care field? Yeah, he's such an expert.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
January 22, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to masanf
Most of his career!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to El Puerco
Here;s the latest cry from Jane and FDL
We have an emergency.
House progressives are under fire to pass the Senate's terrible bill - without any changes. That means no public option, taxes on the middle class, and massive giveaways to the insurance industry.
We can't let this happen. We need you to act now.
Sign our petition to House progressives: hold firm to your pledge and don't pass the Senate's health care bill. We'll deliver the petition to Rep. Raul Grijalva, the leader of the Progressive Caucus, early next week.
Rep. Grijalva has been a true champion for the public option. And now, because he's sticking to his pledge and his principles, Grijalva is being called a "monster." Seriously.
This is the moment we've known would come. It's why we've been organizing since June for real health care reform.
65 members of Congress have pledged to vote "no" against any bill that does not have a public option. They've signed their names. They released statements. They said it on video. Our petition asks these members to keep their pledge and not allow this terrible Senate bill to pass.
There are several options left to pass health care reform, even with only 59 Senate seats. The Senate can agree to fix the bill by including a public option with 51 votes using "sidecar reconciliation." The House and Senate can also expand public programs to cover millions more people with Medicaid and Medicare, building on ideas from the current bill.
What is not acceptable is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is. That's a sell out of the American people to the insurance industry.
Please sign our emergency petition to House progressives: honor your pledge and don't back down. Don't vote for the Senate bill and push to pass real health care reform. We'll deliver the petition to progressive leader Rep. Raul Grijalva.
After you sign our petition, you'll be brought to a page to call progressive members' offices to make your voice heard.
After all we've been through, the House can't just pass the bill neutered by conservatives like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln. Please sign our petition now.
Thanks for all you do.
Jane, Jon, Marcy, John, Michael, Brian, and the rest of the Firedoglake team.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
January 22, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to FreeRider
Reality-based Democrats have always been better at reacting to changing circumstances than ideology-based Republicans. The Senate bill is pretty poor, but it is far better than anything we could achieve under these new circumstances. Thinking Democrats should understand this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nimh
January 22, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to FreeRider
"These people" are not the people you're thinking of - I think you are confusing two groups of people. But perhaps you could point out who of the signatories was out "spending months convincing the nutcase firebaggers that this bill was the worst thing since NAMBLA"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
I don't know what these guys think they're going to accomplish??? This Scott Brown character has already said he will vote it down. Its time to go nuclear and just get the public option and the anti-trust exemption done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 10:25 AM
pass a separate bill to modify it: an approach favored by some members of Democratic leadership, major unions, and reform advocates.
this is the hard and crucial part of the equation.
There is no way the House is gonna swallow the Senate bill as is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Then the Democrats can kiss goodbye to any healthcare reform. Period. And they will be a minority party as soon as the voters can vote them out. That's the stark reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 10:50 AM in reply to cube3u
these "experts" don't seem to agree with you.
But if, as you say, it is the Senate Bill or nothing, then it is nothing. That's a reality many are beginning to see more and more everyday. Somewhere along the way, someone miscalculated what the House could be forced to do, what liberals and progressives could be forced to accept. Somewhere along the way, someone moved the position of the President and the Democrats from change to more of the same, and now, they are losing the public at large, and their political capital.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Know what....I don't give a damn about anything other than the (D) after the name of any Congress critter. That label is what puts their behinds into office not "liberal" or "progressive" or "extreme purits" or whatever label and ideology you're pedaling. It's simply WRONG to give such an opportunity to the Republicans to take control of our government again.
Wrong.....Unethical....Immoral....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to cube3u
See, I'm just the opposite. I don't give a damn about a (D) being at the end of someones name. That's how you get a crappy bill like what the Senate out together.
Most of the same dems who made sure that the democratic senators could not filibuster any republican legislation during the Bush years are the same ones who watered HCR down to HIR to this throwing money at a problem and cementing a privatized system. The Senate bill sets the democratic party up to be the classic lampoon of the GOP of spending recklessly. You don't give away the treasury to a private industry outside of the correct regualtions and anti-trust laws, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Then you are simply of no use in this discussion. Go back to voting independent in the fall and select your closest allies--the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to cube3u
compelling argument. I'm sure you are likely to sway many people to vote for democrats with arguments like that. Were you a consultant for the Coakley campaign?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to Indie Pro
I only need to persuade you in election campaigns. That is certianly not what this discussion is. This is practical politics 101....not purist adventures with issues 101.
I'm open with what I want--the best healthcare that practical politics will deliver today without those supporting it being defeated in the fall campaign. The equation has changed with the Mass election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 22, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to cube3u
Thanks for supporting another reckless health care bill. My grandchildren will thank you. Part D and HCR, both crafted by the industry for the industry at the expense of Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
January 22, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to cube3u
What difference does it make for there to be a D after someone's name if that person is supporting Republican filibusters and obstructing anything that might work against the interests of their corporate benefactors? It makes very little difference and we're not getting anything passed with so many of those kind of Ds in Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to chimpale
Don't you think this is more in the Senate? The best way to diffuse the power of folks like Nelson and Landrieu is working to increase the Democratic majority even more while "persuading" the worst offenders to retire--if there is a primary candidate that looks good.
With the SC ruling this week, it's also pretty obvious that we need different judges to re-examine stuff like corporations are more important than people.
Can we do this? I don't know after the weak-kneed crap I've witnessed this week.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to cube3u
The best way to diffuse the power of folks like Nelson and Landrieu is working to increase the Democratic majority even more
Go from super majority to superduper majority? How do you plan to do that? Take seats from Republicans in red states? -- did Nelson & Baucus not teach you anything?
Democrats are losing BLUE state senate seats. How do you plan to "increase the majority" when it's melting through your fingers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 22, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to cube3u
Wow, (D) is your only qualification? Really? Do you even spend any time researching candidates before you vote for them? This is part of the problem with politics in America. There are too many like you on both sides and we're just left with the establishment time and again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to cube3u
Cube,
You're damn right it is! That's why I'm voting third party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Great. Let's see how well that works for you. It is a stupid waste of vote and will probably ensure a republican win.
If McCain/Palin had won this election, we wouldn't be talking about health care and we would be in another war in Iran
Fuck you stupid idiots. You never learn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 8:10 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Couldn't get much worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Pure genius Indie Pro. Insurance companies are screwing people to the wall on a daily basis, leaving them uninsured and without access to life-saving care when they are at their most vulnerable- families, mothers and fathers with children crushed in the combine wheels of our horrifically unjust medical system. And so called 'progressives' cavalierly say, "then it's nothing".
You people make me sick. Really. Modeling your behavior off conservatives- when did conservatives sandbag conservative legislation because it wasn't conservative enough. THEY DON'T YOU IDIOTS! They pass it. If it goes in their direction, they never kill it much less kill it when their political power dies with the bill. They take their victory and its momentum and its transformation of the electorate and they move on to the next legislative victory that goes in the right direction.
Over time, this adds up which makes a pretty good answer to this question: why is this country in the dire straits it is in? I.e. because 'progressive' ninnies like are well represented by places like Fire Dog Lake do what they do, and conservatives do what they do. And the consequences are everything from our woeful healthcare system to the fact that we have five justices that believe legal entities controlled by moneyed interests deserve more rights than women with embryos and fetuses in their wombs.
I hope you get your way, and that you and the rest of your 'progressive' buddies have loved ones that get their insurance coverage dropped after getting seriously ill because they once had eczema. Given how little you seem to care for the people whose lives are getting destroyed daily, it would be only fitting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to Majorajam
Over time, this adds up which makes a pretty good answer to this question: why is this country in the dire straits it is in? I.e. because 'progressive' ninnies
I disagree. It is people like you, who rollover for conservatives, who are responsible for this mess and the problems in this country.
That you think this corporate giveaway is the panacea for what ails our heathcare system is a good indication that you don't know what you are fighting for or against.
Hell, Reid had put lifetime caps back in etc. until these same people you demean made a fuss and ruckus about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Making a fuss during negotiations and killing a bill are separate things. I didn't realize this needed to be spelled out. In any case, I was with progressives during the whole rigmarole of negotiations, thinking that they were intelligent enough not to believe their own posturing. I was wrong, as you are here to attest.
That the distinction has apparently eluded you is but one thing that speaks to your ignorance- the idea that this was a giveaway to the insurance companies is just another. Are you aware that shares in these rallied strongly on news of Brown's surge? As the market was falling? What was that then? Hedge funds running interference for their insurance industry pals?
As does the fact that you think coverage of 30 million Americans, banning of preexisting conditions, lifetime maximums, etc. isn't worth passing on the merits. As does the fact that in this bill are many provisions that would start to slow the trajectory of medical costs- not just the excise tax (though that is important), but many other provisions that try to make our world-class inefficiency less so. As does the fact that you are apparently unawares how critical it is to this country's long-term prospects that those costs start to come under control. I suggest you have a look at some of the long term budget deficit projections, and then do a google search for, "capital flight, consequences of". Or call someone in Argentina for that matter.
Whatever you do, try not to sound high-handed about it. I promise you it does not suit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:39 AM in reply to Majorajam
negotiations are not over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Indie Pro
LMAO! Exhibit A in why IndiePro is an firebagging idiot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to FreeRider
this post talks about putting together a recon bill in order to pass the senate bill in the house. You don't think negotiations are part of that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You mightn't have noticed, but the co-chair of the 'progressive' caucus has drawn up a scheme to do HCR without the senate bill that is only slightly less plausible than a plot to take over the world. The magnitude of this kind of delusion is not a negotiation tactic, it's the kind of thing that feeds panic and resignation amongst Democratic politicians like fresh oxygen to a fire. It is a death rattle.
Negotiations are over- it's time to shit or get off the pot. Do give us a call though when you get back from la la land and let us know how the little blue men are getting on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to Majorajam
then you disagree with the "experts" in this post by TPM as well.
I guess HIR reform is dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Really? Is that what they mean by, "Only two steps remain. The House must adopt the Senate bill, and the President must sign it."??
You forgot the update on the little blue men.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Majorajam
yawn.
"Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process," the experts say. "Key elements of this repair enjoy broad support in both houses. Other limitations of the Senate bill can be addressed through other means."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes, and in the dictionary under hopeless it says 'offering no hope, see: Pro, Indie'
Here's a question for you: what does 'only' mean to you, as in "Only two steps remain"? Give you a hint, it doesn't mean hold out for the latter before the former. And as for the latter, did you do per chance notice this bit "Key elements of this repair enjoy broad support in both houses"? Yea, you could interpret that as that the key provisions have consensus appeal and can be passed subsequently. Not sure how this proves your point, exactly, but perhaps you can elaborate. Thanks for the bold text though- quite useful.
Let's just say the picture's becoming less murky as to why you believe the things you do. Why don't you give your synapse a break for a little bit though- it's just a widdle thing and can't held to account given the abuse it takes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to Majorajam
passing the Senate bill "as is" is not gonna happen.
Chris Van Hollen of the DCCC says the Senate bill is “irrevocably tarnished”:
Van Hollen also added that it would be a mistake for Dems to pretend the unpopularity of the Senate reform proposals wasn’t a factor in the Massachusetts loss.
Van Hollen’s comments provide perhaps the clearest glimpse yet into the thinking of Dem leaders and the options they’re considering, and illustrate why they may be reluctant for the House to pass the Senate bill, as some want.
“Because of provisions like the Nebraska deal, the Senate bill has been branded in a way that understandably makes it unacceptable in its current form to many voters, especially independents,” Van Hollen told me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/van-hollen-senate-bills-brand-may-be-irrecovably-tarnished-so-we-may-go-reconciliation-instead/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Van Hollen is wrong. It's an excuse. Everything I read about the Mass election had nothing to do with health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 12:59 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Then find a wider base of reading material. It in fact was THE key issue. PART of the reason it was unpopular was because all sides thought it was too weak a bill and not progressive enough. Add to that the GOpers who want NO bill and yes, it's a majority of people that didn't like it.
Yes, and Coakly being asleep was a huge factor too but the polls of those who DID show up indicate dissatisfaction with HC "reform".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to Majorajam
Its been dead from the get-go. This Senate plan was always DOA with the American public. Insurance companies love it though, by the looks of their stocks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Another genius. Insurance companies love it do they? Judging by their stocks... which rallied on news that Brown was set to win.
The comon factor in all of this stupidity emenating from progressives is that we have a better chance at a just and progressive health care system if we wait to pass an ideal bill, rather than settle for less.
On this they have no evidence- none. In fact, a cursory look through history suggests just the opposite, and knowledge of how the electorate likes their changes (i.e. slow and steady) would support that. But you geniuses that make up a full, what, 5% of the electorate, maybe 15% of Democratic primary voters think it's the whole hog or nothing. Hell, you make up enough to screw everything up if not do anything else, so good on you. Meanwhile 40,000 people every year are dying for your intransigence.
I don't know how you people sleep at night.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to Majorajam
Dude, insurance stocks went up by 10% after the public option was announced dead earlier this month. Who you kiddin'? Which insurance/pharma outfit you workin' for? you guys love it, come on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Oh, and nice number crunching with your ass!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
You are full of crap. Stocks went soaring when Scott Brown won and the market skyrocketed at the news that the house didn't have the votes. If the health insurance companies loves this bill so much, why did they spend 100 million to defeat it - let alone how much the chamber of commerce spent.
You must get your information from Faux News
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 8:09 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Stocks also soared aft the announcement of the death of a "public option" in early January. What's your point? We are in agreement. Both events have the same outcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 12:56 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Not much of an argument. The HC Industry would prefer no bill, it's true. But they're second preference HAS to be a bad bill that will mandate tens of millions more customers who should more than make up any weak limitations on "pre-existing conditions" which they can dance around with claims of "fraud" and weak state insurance boards that won't prosecute much.
If the criteria for a good bill is their stocks crashing then let's see what single payer PLUS strong federal regulaton with teeth would do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
No doubt insurance industry shareholders were happy to be without the public option. You do realize though that that particular factoid has zero bearing over whether this bill is or is not good for the industry though... don't you? No? Oh dear.
As to that question- the one actually relevant to the discussion at hand- insurance industry stocks rallied big on Brown's poll surge, especially relative to the market (you undoubtedly do not know this, but this is the relevant metric). So no, this is patently not an insurance industry giveaway, and by the very metric by which you would try to prove that it is. Game. Set. Match.
Thanks for sharing your awesome cognitive faculties, but this is not World of Warcraft. Why don't you return to those endeavors to which you are better suited.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to Majorajam
it's not wait, it's work for a better bill now. You are the one preaching "No we can't".
and I'm sorry it isn't as easy as accepting the piece of crap conservative legislation Obama and the lobbyists wrote in a backroom deal, further watered down by even more conservative democrats.
what you are offering the poor and sick is more of the same. throwing money at a problem, and not actually helping.
stocks rose when the senate passed its bill too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to Indie Pro
No sense in even responding to these clowns, eh? They clearly are stockholders or at the very least Insurance/pharma PR.
You know they can't be serious with all this nonsense they spew.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 22, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
This piece of crap conservative bill has passed the Senate and is now being supported by experts across the board who have the first friggin clue as to what they are talking about, as opposed to you and your ilk. It's been scored by experts and the CBO as covering 30 million people, and curbing the worst insurance industry practices that victimize so many people all the time. Insurance companies are still fighting it, and even big pharma notwithstanding their sweetheart deal was thinking about trying to kill it too.
Why do you think the votes for this disappeared? Because of the voters in MA, or the corporations? I'll give you two guesses and the first doesn't count. All you are is a useful idiot. Those guys over at Aetna, and Cigna, etc. love folks like you. You're like the local who fought the other locals because they were 'collaborating' with the colonists, notwithstanding that meme having been implanted by the colonial powers.
And no, I have never said not to 'fix' this bill through subsequent legislation. That's part of the very strategy I outlined from the very beginning. The same strategy that conservatives have used to take over this whole fucking country, courtesy of money, of ruthlessness, and yes of useful idiots like yourself.
Fyi, total price performance of a stock at a particular point in time is not the relevant metric here. Performance relative to the market as expectations change which is certainly not when policies are announced, is. I wouldn't expect you to know this or anything else for that matter. I would expect you to wonder why Paul Krugman and so many others that you people ostensibly listen to has become such a big fan of the insurance companies all of the sudden. What. A. Friggin. Joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Majorajam
you have offically gone Full Froth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to Majorajam
Great post majorajam but you are wasting your breath trying to have a conversation with IndiePro.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joeinmaryland
January 22, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Indie Pro
I agree that you should fight for what is right in the bill. But once it is done and the final piece is crafted, you support it.
If this thing crashes and burns you will not see "progressive" reform in your lifetime Meanwhile 30 million (and growing each year) will not have coverage and 40,000 will die each year because head in the sand ideology.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to joeinmaryland
We won't see any reform with this bill anyway. That's why Dems didn't turn out in the Mass election.
Have a look at the numbers in the Quinnipiac poll on my blog. 82% of Dems want a public option. 68% of indys want it too. Not to mention the 34% of Republicans in favor of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
There is another pol out today sauing 60% want the dems to halt health care and instead focus on jobs. On any given day there is a poll contradicting another poll. No wonder people are confused. I pay no attention to any of them. I remember all the polls before the Presidential Election saying Obama was behind - the country wasn't ready for a black president. I remember those polls well
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Maybe you could link us to it? I've found these polls to be badly worded to achieve a certain outcome. Quinnipiac seems to be the best outfit I have found so far.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:05 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Given that this matches the general unpopularity of the bill (which has been tracking that way fora while now), it's hardly surprising that people would include there are bigger worries. For example, 10% unemployment and foreclosures.
I want real HC reform but if a breather helps that to happen, that's ok with me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:12 AM in reply to Tralbry
conclude, not include. Tired.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to Majorajam
Majorajam, you can't reason with an creep like IndiePro. Notice how he didn't even address your point about people dying without healthcare and people being dropped without just cause?
That's because his only concern is trying to stick it to the insurance companies. You see, because being opposed to big business is "liberal". They're just like right wing Republicans--they care about some faceless principle and/or theory, regardless of how it impacts the people.
During the depression, they would have tried to stop the government from providing free milk and cheese to starving families if those products were purchased from Kraft! "They're making Kraft richer. It's a corporate giveaway!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to FreeRider
Notice how he didn't even address your point about people dying without healthcare and people being dropped without just cause?
people will still die if the senate bill is passed.
likely, 20% of the people forced to buy insurance won't be able to actually use it
the senate bill allows for rescission due to fraud, and leaves it to the states to police, which mirrors HIPAA's rescission laws and regulation which do not work, as was discussed in House Committee. Claiming fraud is how the insurance companies accomplish rescission today. State govts, due to influence peddling and burden, are slow or unable to challenge insurance companies teams of lawyers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to Indie Pro
could be, maybe, might be. You've got nothing but a bunch of wild things that could happen. Well, we know what's happening now and you're a heartless skank who is willing to deny 30 million people insurance if it sticks it to the insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 22, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to FreeRider
This bill exposes millions more to captive requirements for healthcare with no guarantees of cost control, massive out of pocket expenditures for care leading to more bankruptcies and deaths, and a mandate to buy into this ruse.
I realize that people are suffering, and IndiePro and myself are not saying that these people should continue to suffer. I'm of the opinion though that this bill will ultimately cause MORE people to suffer.
You don't build a house on a cracked foundation. Especially when it is required to house everyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
You do not appear to have any idea about the real lives of real people, nor to understand the magnitude of suffering and insecuirty that this albeit flawed bill will still alleveiate.
So here is my question: do you have a chronic illness? Do you have health insurance? If you do, does your insurance plan have guaranteed issue and community rating? Do you have a choice of insurance plans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 22, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to Economides
Apparently I don't. I'm just an ideological lefty radical elitist so out of touch with Amerka that I should just shut up. (Where have I heard that talking point before?)
I have health insurance yes, group health insurance. I'm fortunate to have it. And I'm fortunate to work for a company that cares about it's employees.
But I've had also had the pleasure of paying hundreds per month for individual insurance as a small business owner only to be slapped down with high deductibles for emergency treatment which just about put my wife and I in the poor house.
My hope is that others don't have the same experience, because these are the types of plans that are going to be made available to 30M people you speak of, 20% of whom still can't afford to use it if they need to, and the rest of which may be forced into a situation similar to the one I experienced. Oh well, I guess you can be relieved that the insurance companies were able to make some money off of them in the meantime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 8:19 PM in reply to Economides
Talk to me when you lose your insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Economides
Yes to all of the above; I'm a Mass resident. And I know what it's like to have to choose between meeting my deductible to have tests run and paying bills, making rent, getting the car fixed. You end up gambling with your health.
Worse: the actuarial ratios I've seen for the Senate plan are even poorer than those offered on our exchange.
I've also heard provisions in the Senate bill allow companies to skirt MA state regulations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tmc
January 22, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to Majorajam
*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
January 22, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Majorajam
Why are the progressives to blame? What they were trying to get in the first place and ever since was a good bill that doesn't keep the insurance companies in control. Every step of the way they've been blocked by 'moderate' Democrats who held health care reform hostage to their own agendas. Why did Stupak and Nelson have to stick abortion language in there? That wasn't progressives sabotaging the bill. Why the opposition by Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson to a public option? That wasn't progressives threatening to support a Republican filibuster. Who insisted on removing anti-trust language from the bill? Progressives? Nope.
Some of the people here show an awful lot of animosity towards progressives when it's consistently been the progressives who have given in on every impasse. Only after Nelson and Landrieu were bribed with goodies for their states did they decide they could let the bill proceed to a floor vote. How many self-proclaimed moderates here tore into them over that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to chimpale
Look, this is about survival of Democrats--not the slivers the Democrats break into. The bill has to get votes from a coalition of Demcorats. It did in the Senate--where it's a lot more difficult to get the needed votes. That's practical reality of where we are right now.
And now we become Democrats again and not liberals or progressives or purple striped Martians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:18 AM in reply to cube3u
Party over principle, eh?
Love the way Obama is maintaining Bush renditions, FISA and so on, too?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 10:50 AM in reply to cube3u
And if they pass this bill as is, they will be a minority party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to DA in LA
When you have the most strident liberal voices for HCR saying "pass the Senate bill" it proves there will be little or no significant backlash from the left if they do.
Sure, the Nader/Kucinich followers will keep screaming but they will only further marginalize themselves as insane and irrelevant. The sane left realizes this is as good as it's gonna get. Too bad they acted like idiots for so long.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to FreeRider
Backlash from the left? My God, what are you smoking? The independents will crush the Dems. I've never seen a bill that is more of a gift to the Republican talking points machine than this bill. Mandates with no public option? Hilarious. They distort the truth, what do you think they'll do with something that is a turd in reality.
You people accuse Liberals of being not based in reality, but you're sealing the fate of the Democratic Party for years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to DA in LA
So fuck doing what's right because those bad old Republicans will throw their talking points at us? Wuss. Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:39 AM in reply to FreeRider
Oh, I didn't think passing a shitty bill was "Right."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to DA in LA
I know: It's not good enough.
We've heard it all before. Snooze.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to FreeRider
you're confusing what is right with what is easy.
it would be easy for the House to pass the Senate bill as is.
It would not be right
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
He says, "The independents will crush the Dems."
You say, "Wuss. Idiot."
Well played, sir! That'll solve the independents problem!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 22, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to DA in LA
Right, the public is going to run Democrats out of office for giving them health care.
Democrats may go out of office even if they pass health care, but it will be because they did not help the employment situation, not because they did give insure 94% of the American population.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to DA in LA
It's a risk either way, isn't it? If you think the Republicans aren't sitting back enjoying their real chance to massacre us in the fall, you're smoking some good stuff.
There's not "safe" alternative here. No "sure bet". It's time to step out boldly--something Republicans do easily (see history on Bush II administration for examples) and we can't do when we have the majority? We'll be slaughtered for that sort of nonsense--and we will deserve it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to cube3u
passing the Senate bill is not going to be the savior of the democratic party in 2010
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Right. It will be the opposite. It's so obvious it's stunning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to DA in LA
The only thing that's stunning is what a moron you are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 22, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to FreeRider
You are an insufferable wind bag that goes around calling people names just because they don't agree with you. Grow up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to mophan
Here's another name for YOU: insufferable windbag. Oh, that's not name-calling? Coulda fooled me!
Bite me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 22, 2010 11:39 AM in reply to FreeRider
Real immature of you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to FreeRider
"coulda fooled me"
Well played, sir! You're really taking them on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 22, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to DA in LA
Nothing can save the Democrats now.
If they pass it, they lose. If they let it die, they lose.
No matter what, the people lose. Even the Republicans and tea baggers who think they are winning. Everyone loses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to farnsworth
Welcome to the Obama presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Since you don't worry about (D) after the names, you have no worries about who is elected. You simply don't know squat about election politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to cube3u
compelling argument. I'm sure you are likely to sway many people to vote for democrats with arguments like that. Were you a consultant for the Coakley campaign?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Again, this is not an election campaign when I have to persuade you about anything. I simply do not need your vote--nor does anyone in Congress. Resolving this situaion requires a cold look at the politics of the possible.
It is not possible to get any sort of new bill or modified bill through the Senate. This leaves us with what the Senate already passed. That throws things into the House where, yes, historically, most of the compromises to the possible have to be made.
Actually, I think maybe you were involved with Coakley campaign. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to cube3u
It is not possible to get any sort of new bill or modified bill through the Senate.
so now it is Yes We Can't
catchy
then leadership has failed
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to cube3u
The voting out scenario is exactly what we are seeing. Without a public option, average Americans feel betrayed. Libs won't show in November, just like in Mass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 4:45 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
You are totally confused.
Sick people who cannot get insurance, but whose lives or well-being or financial security depend on being able to get health insurance do not give a shit about any public option. They need insurance and they access to care. They don't give a shit about whether their insurer is public or private. That you do not understand the difference is a deep, deep shame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 8:14 PM in reply to Economides
Dude, you are lost. Without a public option, insurance is unaffordable. No competition. Pretty simple economics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:29 AM in reply to Economides
Chronic cases without insurance will be grateful for even a bad bill. That's not going to sway all the independents who aren't chronic cases. This part of the thread was about electoral implications more than moral ones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 22, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to Indie Pro
As a step toward grief recovery, why not move forward with an important piece of regulatory reform that has bipartisan support yet was not included in the Senate bill?
Make health insurance companies comply with antitrust laws. Currently they're exempt, for the same political reason that we've run into a ditch with healthcare reform. This corporate sector has far too much influence over both wings of the political establishment. Yet there are forward-thinking leaders in both parties who have been trying to remove this exemption for years. Plus, this piece of reform has broad appeal to the public.
It would help raise a few spirits and bring a measure of confidence back to the front.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to Watt Childress
Good Idea.
I agree.
Perhaps momentum could be built that way as well. Slowly bringing the public back on board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 22, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro
If I were still a Republican, rather than an independent, I would be looking at the fact that this huge partisan Senate bill failed to hold private insurance companies accountable to antritust laws (while mandating that citizens do business with them).
If I were Senator Scott Brown, I would make antitrust my debut issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to Watt Childress
My illness costs me $20,000 a year to treat, and my insurance possible only because my very large employer runs an exchange that requires guaranteed issue and community rating costs me $5000 (that my and my employers portion that of course comes ultimately out of my pocket). With treatment I go from being a massive drain on resources to being able to contribute far more to my family and to the public than the average worker.
I am lucky obviously because I got a job in a sector that already has the kind of protection on health insurance that are promised to everyone in either the House or Senate Bill.
Tell me, please, pretty please why I should give a shit about anti-trust exemptions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to Economides
"I am lucky obviously because I got a job in a sector that already has the kind of protection on health insurance that are promised to everyone in either the House or Senate Bill."
Yes, you are VERY lucky. You must work for the government. What kind of "sector" offers those types of benefits? I want in!
These bills are a mass of loopholes and big corporate giveaways to be subsidized by the middle class. Hell, they call for the IRS to enforce this thing. If I could afford insurance, I wouldn't need "government run" health care.
Anybody live in a state that forces you to have auto insurance? I do. My rates have only gone up. I am paying TWICE what I did before they mandated we buy from these private insurance bloodsuckers.
I get a kick out of you guys WITH insurance who try to tell those of us who do not have any what is good for us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to Watt Childress
The thugs won't go along with it and neither will the conservadems. We can't get health care done - how do you think we are going to get anti-trust laws against them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 23, 2010 1:56 AM in reply to lousgirl84
I'll try to post something on this topic at my blog in the next few days. For now, I'm trying not to poke around too much in the anger outlets. Lots of hurtful energy pulsing around here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 23, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Actually, check out Kali's post on this topic.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/s/t/star_mason/2010/01/do-you-want-to-walk-away-or-ke.php#comments
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kali Star
January 22, 2010 10:28 AM
What's important is that the President does not walk away from health care. He must come out for SOMETHING. If it's not a whole bill, he can call for the Dorgan or Leahy Bills to be reintroduced to the house. Most people can't tell you what's in these bills. Why ? If you do know the provisions of the bills, tell me why you are for or against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Kali Star
Rolls back abortion.
Creates discrimination against hiring single, older women.
No public option.
No drug re-importation.
Policing up to the states.
No national exchange.
Mandates without pubic option.
That's just off the top of my head.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to DA in LA
hear, hear
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 22, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to DA in LA
All flaws. Many of them potentially fixable via reconciliation. But then look at this list compared to the status quo:
No more denials of coverage due to preexisting conditions.
No more cancellations of policies by insurance companies.
No more lifetime caps on benefits.
Limits on the out-of-pocket medical costs families can incur.
Subsidies for everyone earning up to 400 percent of poverty (the House bill was much better but this can be fixed by reconciliation).
Medicare expanded to 133 percent of poverty (obviously it should be higher but it's still better than the status quo and, again, it can be fixed by reconciliation).
Choices -- often for the first time ever -- for people not receiving employer-provided health care coverage.
Shrinking of the "donut hole" for Medicare prescription drug coverage beneficiaries.
The greatest expansion of America's social safety net in 45 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to Moose49
Let's put it more simply: sick people who suffer horribly from poor health and economic insecurity and who today cannot get insurance will be able to do so. They will get access to care to alleviate their suffering and they will get security that they can finally pay for what they need. If you have ever met one of these sick people you may know that the value to them in better health and an end in insecurity is almost certainly more than they would ever pay in premiums to a private or public insurer.
That the litmus test crowd cares not a whit about that is a testament to their selfishness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 24, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to Economides
Sure, they'll not only be able to get insurance, they'll have to get it. And once they start paying it, they'll realize they won't be able to afford to use the coverage. They won't be able to afford the co-pays and worse, deductibles. And there's nothing that limits the amount the companies will be able to charge in premiums. Great simulacrum of reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 22, 2010 10:35 AM
They are absolutely right. What I still find mystifying is why President Obama isn't saying the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 10:51 AM in reply to Moose49
Probably because he has no idea how to be a leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to DA in LA
And you are an idiot troll. I hope you collect your pennies from the freepers who pay you to come in her and make stupid remarks.
He is a far better leader than any president I have seen of late. At least he's trying to make changes but meeting with opposition at every turn. Bush was no leader, he was a war monger and a stupid one at that but he had the friends in high places with all the money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OberDtop
January 23, 2010 12:53 AM in reply to lousgirl84
If this is the results that Obama gets with a SUPER-MAJORITY, Obama will not be able to cash his own paycheck after the 2010 elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
January 22, 2010 10:39 AM
They're right. Passing a bill that was supported by 59 current senators is hardly subverting the process. Even the Senate bill is a big improvement. My concern with trying to break the bill into chunks is the personal energy in Congress and the public for working on health care is exhausted. I really think Democrats were punished less for the content of the bill --- which most people know little about anyway --- and much more for the ridiculous amount of time this is taking. The public may not have my specific opinion, that we could have passed this before the August recess if the centrist Democrats weren't blithering fools, but they know this isn't normal for the process to drag on and take so much attention with so many other problems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShoelessJoeMcCarthy
January 22, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to ericf
Co-sign. They have got to get this DONE and move on. People are so sick of hearing about it. But it's even worse if they abandon it, or, as you point out, spend the next six months dorking around with broken-up chunks of the original bill. Talk about a surefire recipe for losing control of Congress! Pass the Senate bill and do the needed fixes through reconciliation. That is just about the only path that offers any hope at this point. Do I think that's going to happen? I have to say I'm fairly pessimistic right now, given that the president appears willing to simply flunk this test, and many members of the House seem willing to, as Josh put it, throw their majority on the fire. And the notion that some sort of scaled-back bill can be crafted that would attract some GOP support is ludicrous and laughable. My God, did our side learn nothing from the stimulus battle last year? It was quite clear from the start what the deal would be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
January 22, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to ericf
Co-Sign Co-Sign! Polling consistently shows that when voters are informed of the actual content of the bill, they like it. What they do not like is the process. Sausage making is ugly, but in the end the sausage still tastes good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to El Puerco
So, you actually believe Democrats will be able to inform Americans about what's in the bill with the Republican noise machine working? Have you lived in this country before?
Dems pass this bill as is, they are looking at years in the wilderness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to DA in LA
Are you talking about that legendary Republican machine that prevailed in 2006, 2008 and now represents a party that's 19% of the population?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 22, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to FreeRider
The Democrats are working as hard as they can to empower that 19%, and put them in charge again.
Or hadn't you noticed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to FreeRider
Bingo. There is this myth that is being perpetuated by the noisemakers that these people are more powerful than they are. The democrats are not giving the 19% the power, the media is. There is a concerted effort on behalf of the MSM to destroy this President. It is as obvious to me as the nose on my face. How dare a young uppity you know what have the nerve to run for President and win. Now one year later, all we hear is how's he doing. He's falling apart. Where's the leadership. If the rest of you don't see it, you haven't been paying attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 22, 2010 10:41 AM
The House is responsible for the fate of health care. Vote for the damn bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 10:41 AM
For crying out loud, it goes into effect in 2014!!!
There is more than enough tiem to tweak the provisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
January 22, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
They don't have that long. The Pukes are going to take control of both houses of Congress in 2010 and they'll take the White House in 2012. They already have the Supreme Court. Game, set and match.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 22, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
Yeah, they should just give up because something bad might happen later.
No one knows what will happen in November, period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
January 22, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to Skybolt
Exactly.
I've always thought that a responsible baseball team should just give up and concede the game in the third inning, even if they have a lead, because the other guys could always come back in the bottom of the ninth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
January 22, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
There is no indication today that the Dems are going to lose control of both houses this year. There is even less indication that the President is in any trouble (I kind of wish he were-maybe he'd be less timid). Dropping HCR after wasting nearly a year on it would guarantee such destruction.
Pass the Senate bill, make changes through reconciliation if possible, and change the subject.
Dropping HCR now shows contemptable weakness and will drive away a lot of independents and Democarts this fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Khyber900
January 22, 2010 10:47 AM
This is a good statement. Failure to pass this bill will mean failure in the 2010 elections. It's the difference between Obama getting a B+/A- in his first year or a C. But more importantly, it's about whether 40 million americans (all of whom are either registered to vote or could register to vote) are going to get any relief from the crushing burden of health care. I personally don't understand why people would want to be a member of Congress if they couldn't help such people. Cast 1 lousy vote House members! 1 lousy vote! What do you have to lose?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to Khyber900
Passing this bill as is will mean failure in the 2010 elections. The Senate and the President screwed up, big time. And now they want the House to take the hit.
It's mind-boggling stupid politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
January 22, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to DA in LA
Passing NO bill after wasting nine months or so is far worse politically than passing this bill.
I'll accept an argument over whether this bill is better than the status quo policywise, but not politically.
Walking away from HCR now is what would doom the party in the fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to howie
No, both options will destroy the party. Obama is doing to Democrats what Bush did to Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:24 AM in reply to howie
Oh don't be so gloomy. This bill will have few electoral implications because so much of it is deferred. If a LOT of people don't see it as a real change in their real lives, the claim of victory for the people will be pyrrhic. Pass a bill that is well known to be unpopular wuith the majority and this is going to make everyone love the Dems again? I don't think so. Since the vast majority already HAVE insurance and this won't significantly lower costs for most of them it won't even be a blip on their radar. If you can show me that only the Independents that politicians need to get elected will see immediate help then it won't make a diff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 22, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to DA in LA
I don't see a recommendation in your short note. No doubt they've totally screwed it up; no level headed person would dispute that. But now that we're here, what?
Admit that they've spent an entire year wasting time and energy, and DeMint, Coburn, Palin seem to have a point? I'm serious. What to do now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Lose.
Anyone who thinks passing this bill will give Dems a chance in November and beyond is a fool. The Dems blew it and Obama specifically. When passed, the Republicans will find the parts of the bill that most upset Americans and open that wound with an axe. You thought Death Panels were bad? Get ready for a hurricane of mandates and anything else they can find.
Someone on FireDogLake interviewed some Republican House member as he was walking down the street. He's from Arizona and a classic Republican lunatic. In 2 minutes, he obliterated any talking points Democrats may have. It was pretty amazing. He made some very good points. And it was soooo easy. Just wait until the machine gets going. (And I didn't see it on FDL, it was linked to from Reddit)
The point is, it's done. The party has eviscerated itself. Because there was no direction, no leader and no listening to the base. So, if they pass this bill, they will be ruined. If they don't, they will be ruined. The only hope they have is to pare it down and pass a public option through reconciliation. (Because the public option is very popular)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to DA in LA
LOL. Your recommendation is "curl into a fetal positon and try to avoid the blows"? Yeah, that'll work....NOT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to cube3u
You mean like Reid and Obama are already doing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to DA in LA
You are such a coward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
January 22, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to DA in LA
You are simply delusional. Those who voted for either the House or Senate bills will still get nailed for their vote even if the bills fail. But if the bill passes, then they can point to individual elements and ask their rethuglian opponents if they will really vote to repeal them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 22, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to DA in LA
Why don't you hop back on over to red state my friend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joeinmaryland
January 22, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to DA in LA
NO--having the House consider holding thier noses and swallowing the Senate bill (with some mods through reconcilliation) is typical in Washington given the political dynamics in the two separate houses.
What is mind boggling stupid politics is the House not passing the Senate bill.
Moderates and independants don't care about the minutia of what a policy says. All they care about is whether or not their legislators are doing their job and getting something done. Pass HCR and get onto banks and jobs. Accomplish something tangible and 2010 will be ok. After a year of debate, dropping HCR with no guarantee that banks or jobs will be addressed is political suicide come 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to DA in LA
In the voters' minds the only thing that will matter is that (D) after the names on the ballots. Are you actually suggesting that it's more important for House Democrats to avoid a hit now so they can take the hit by losing their jobs in the fall? How is that helpful?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
January 22, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to Khyber900
LOL the bill does nothing of the kind...its a giveaway to companies that have proven themselves liars and thieves and does nothing to supervise them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 22, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to madmatt
More slander against companies. Yawn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
January 22, 2010 10:48 AM
Why don't they pass the "modifications" first, if its as simple as they say they can have it done before brown is even seated. As it is I don't trust them to do anything except force a mandate on shitty insurance down my throat.
And freeride, 30 million more people wont have insurance since the companies can still charge unaffordable amounts to the ill, they just can't deny them outright. And the subsidies don't even keep up with the 30% hike ins rates went up this year alone...those lobbyists and private jets don't pay for themselves...thats why 25% of each dollar can go to executive salaries and finding new ways to screw their customers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 10:53 AM in reply to madmatt
* You'd rather stick it to the health cos than reduce uninsured. I hate them to. But killing people to prove a point to predaotry corps is simpy wrong, as well as stupid. Sad to say -- Insurers win either way. We don't. Pass the damn bill.
* The "you go first" thing is simply immature. How can you modify a law that doesn't exist? The law passed second is the one that overrides previous law. If the House wants to keep the Senate honest, they can refuse to pass the next budget or something else. Hold them hostage until they play ball. But don't kill THIS bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
January 22, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
No I just realize that since there is no enforcement mechanism the insurance companies will do nothing but charge way more than sick people can afford to pay. At the same time they will suck money from the rest of us thru accounts that require such huge deductibles as to be useless.
I am one of the people who would like to be able to see a doctor...its been 7 years, so don't fuckin tell me what the sick need!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to madmatt
At best, your post is ill-informed; at worsts it's full of lies. Whatever the case, it's not worth a counter-response. Go post this bs at Kos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mgmonklewis
January 22, 2010 11:08 AM in reply to FreeRider
Is there a reason you're so rude and obnoxious to anyone who disagrees with you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to mgmonklewis
Is there a reason you're playing blog mom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mgmonklewis
January 22, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to FreeRider
Case in point.
You're being really obnoxious and discouraging actual discussion. Which I guess is your right, but maybe you should work out your anger by doing some journaling or something instead, and leaving us out of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to mgmonklewis
You're weren't in it until you poked your big nose in!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mgmonklewis
January 22, 2010 11:27 AM in reply to FreeRider
Everyone who reads these threads is in the discussion. The threads aren't your personal soapbox, or anyone else's. You are poisoning the discussion with your ad hominem attacks against everyone who you think disagrees with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to mgmonklewis
Don't worry about it. We just see the whale tail and don't read the comment next to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to DA in LA
Great idea! Whenever I see DA in LA next to a comment, I will ignore it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to barbara63
Me too and I just happen to agree with FreeRider on this issue
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 22, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to FreeRider
I'm not picking sides, but it is a *great* comeback -- ha ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
January 22, 2010 10:53 AM
I think it's possible that the House Dems are negotiating with the Senate Dems for assurances once the bill is passed. I think that's important. The Senate didn't pay much attention to the House bill when the "Gang of Six" was meeting. Simply rubber-stamping the Senate bill seems ideal, but every House member will have to explain the insurance mandate to his/her constituents this year. I hope they can work it out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to whitesauce
The Senate took forever to reach compromises. With one less in the majority, my view is that it will take even longer now. And that simply won't fly, IMO.
The public is impatient for other issues to be worked on with legislation. So if we want to do healthcare, then the House needs to pass the Senate bill and then try to get rid of the worst things in--like Nelson's sweetheart deal for Nebraska.
What we can be a bit more certain about is that the chances to make changes will evaporate if the Democrats suffer major losses in the fall.
I prefer passing the bill and taking the risk that it will take a while to fix the worst things in it in light of Republican obstructionism and stalling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
January 22, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to cube3u
I think your approach is reasonable. Do you think it's reasonable for the House to fight for assurances from the Senate before it votes on the bill? There should at least be rules for future negotiations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to whitesauce
My question is how much are those assurances worth? Unless we want chaos, the Senate rules require 60 and we now have 59. It's a risk, but I think it's one we have to take. We would have to put up brief amendment type bills--like the Get Rid of Nelson's Sweet Deal for Nebraska--quickly and bring them to a vote as fast as possible so Republicans couldn't use the worst things in the bill as battering rams.
I'm willing to wait a bit for those pieces to be developed. But the Democrats don't have a long time--I estimate 7-10 days at the most. Shorter would be better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
January 22, 2010 10:53 AM
why isn't Obama twisting arms and bullying a little? Can't Rahm send a dead fish to someone or something?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 22, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to blkblt
This is Washington politics as it really is, not a movie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 12:50 AM in reply to anna am
I guess LBJ didn't understand Washington politics as it is. He was such a sweet old man to his opponents and bought them all flowers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eclecticbrotha
January 22, 2010 10:55 AM
Obama was urging the House to employ this procedure last week, well before Scott Brown won in MA. The House won't do it because they are stuck in this fantasy where the senate can rework their bill to the House's liking and get it past the Lieberdouches in their ranks. Since the debacle in MA, the cries to pass the senate bill through the House have become even louder but the House becomes even more delusional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
David Dunham
January 22, 2010 10:56 AM
I suggest those of us who want the Senate bill pass contact members of Congress we know and urge them to pass it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to David Dunham
Great idea! I called mine yesterday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 22, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to David Dunham
I did yesterday. Will do it again, and again, and again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 22, 2010 10:57 AM
Proceed at your own peril.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cgwillis
January 22, 2010 10:58 AM
This is like Groundhogs day. The democratic leadership needs to see a psychiatrist because they have a major inferiority complex.
It is like junior prom. the democrats are the nice, but quiet kid who the girl would really like if she just got know him... but he won't talk to her. he gets her some punch, maybe holds the door, mumbles your welcome, but spends most of his time at the table while she dances with some jerk. "She'll come around," he thinks, "I don't want to be rude and interrupt..."
Get over yourself. So many democrats--including the President--have blindly accepted the premise that this country is center-right. Well, it is and it will continue to be until the democratic leadership *leads* us across the line. After all, the country was center-left until Nixon and Reagan stood up and stole the next dance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 22, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to cgwillis
that is way too much information about your adolescent years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 10:59 AM
The letter is rather disingenuous. They say "only two steps remain" but then sneak in the admission that there really is a third step: "Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process."
Well, yeah. The political reality, like it or not, is that that third step HAS to be done if you want the bill to pass. So direct your ire at the Senate, which is the body that's holding this up. They cannot and should not be trusted to do it without having an agreed framework in place for passage of the package of fixes before the actual bill is voted on by the House. So it's your Senators you should be calling and emailing.
It's hilarious that the same people who ridicule "pie in the sky" progressives are themselves unwilling to deal with the political reality that's right in front of their noses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I agree.
They cannot and should not be trusted to do it without having an agreed framework in place
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Get a load of this quote (admittedly from a Politico story so a grain of salt would be a prudent precaution): “The Senate moderates’ viewpoint is, ‘We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/dont_forget_to_blame_the_senat.html
Umm, Senate assholes, the House also passed ITS bill, and that was supposed to result in a COMPROMISE version between the houses. And we only need 50 of you. Come on, sack up, you can do it. You wasted MONTHS diddling around on your fucking bill, what's another 3 weeks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:06 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
When Wendell Potter, HCAN and Jacob Hacker are saying "pass the senate bill" firebaggers like you look like ridiculous with your continued fantasy scenarios or how we may yet get a public option or medicare buy-in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to FreeRider
You can read, right? I already pointed out that they ALSO said the fixes should be passed via reconciliation. You don't get to trumpet the part you like and leave that bit out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Give it up, LoserBonne! If there are changes made through reconciliation, they will be those changes negotiated over the past few weeks in conference such as fixing the Cadillac tax and ditching the Cornhusker kickback. There won't be a public option, medicare buy-in and there will still be mandates.
A week ago, that wasn't good enough for you. You and the rest of the firebaggers wanted the entire bill scrapped because it wasn't good enough. Now, you're saying OK to that deal.
Are you saying you're ready to join us in reality?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to FreeRider
You're the one who so desperately wants these crappy insurance bailouts. I'm simply telling you what has to happen to make that possible. But as always you'd rather hurl grade-school insults than think or deal with reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 22, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
You're the one who so desperately wants these crappy insurance bailouts.
With all due respect, that's an awful mischaracterization of his (and of those of us who share the same view about this issue) position.
Who that support the Senate bill ever said this is a God-given perfect thing? And who ever said everything is heavenly fine if this bill is passed? Please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to geofu54
You misunderstood me. In response to a misplaced accusation of inconsistency, I was simply addressing those who (unlike me) really want the bill to pass despite those reservations. Fine, I'll go along for the sake of argument. Then, if you're serious, what you need to do is not punch the hippies some more, but pressure the Senate to do their part of the deal that's right there on the table waiting to be done. THAT is reality.
Good luck with that. (And with bringing Stupak around in the House.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Have you guys seen the latest Quinnipiac poll? Even indies are for the Public Option at like 68%. I blogged about it on TPM.
Totally disproves this punditry on how nobody want health care reform. We just don't want Obama's/Senate's plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Dude, whaletale works for insurance/pharma. I figured that out long ago, when she stated harping on about how we should just take anything. She loves this giveaway bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Probably DLC, is my guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
January 22, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to FreeRider
There's no need for attacks here. You're entitled to your opinion, just as those to whom you've replied do.
I don't think anyone is arguing about "fantasy scenarios" at this point. The reality now is that the current bill will be hard to pass in the House without concessions. The idea that the House should cede its own power because the Senate took so long to pass a bill is unreasonable.
I think people should always make their opinions known to the representatives. However, if we don't even agree on how to proceed in this forum, what consensus can we impose on the Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to whitesauce
You reading anything by these douchebags? Not worth much I agree. I can't even finish the first sentence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I will call my senators and tell them that I support the Senate Bill and also support their using reconciliation to make the necessary changes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
And how! I guess we were crazy to think we could get Obama in the White House too. I mean "Hussein". Geez! If there were ever a more difficult candidate to elect its the black guy with the Muslim name.
This thing has got to go nuclear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mad As Hell
January 22, 2010 10:59 AM
Please call you congressperson every day and tell him or her to pass the Senate bill.
202-224-3121
It's easy and they want these calls.
It's
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to Mad As Hell
No, call your Democratic Senator(s). The holdup is the Senate's refusal to agree to the needed fixes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
W T F
January 22, 2010 11:06 AM
Here's what the Democrats need to do, in this order:
First pass the Senate plan as is and send it to the President to sign.
Second, propose legislation that would strip the anti-trust exemption from all health insurance companies. This bill should be as simple as possible, should be posted on the House and Senate's websites for all citizen to review for 72 hours, and then be moved to the floor (of the Senate first) for debate and vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to W T F
If Obama signs the Senate bill, be prepared for the Mass election on a national scale.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
The people of Mass did not elect Brown because of Health Care Reform. They elected Brown because they were pissed at their own state legislature and their governor. They had their taxes raised and 1 month before the election they suffered more job losses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
January 22, 2010 11:08 AM
Pelosi, Rangel, Waxman, Miller: The Four Horses of the Apocollapse. Forget about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BossDrop
January 22, 2010 11:09 AM
DUH!!!. As Josh said, just pass the friggin senate bill. fix it later for pete sake and lets move on!!. What is the matter with these people. the folks in the house are just outsmarting themselves, this is an obvious move. no more fixes right now. pass the bill, fix it later.
Time for someone with some guption to walk in that house and start smashing toes. wake up and do the obvious....sheesh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to BossDrop
Nope. Make the assholes filibuster it like Johnson did over the '64 Civil Rights bill. They will have to defend their do-nothing strategy and will hang themselves come November.
Have we learned nothing from history? Anybody read it anymore? Jeeesh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 22, 2010 11:12 AM
I wonder how many of them are on the government payroll?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 11:17 AM
By the way, just a reminder that the progressives are not the only roadblock to House passage of the Senate bill as is. Stupak and his gang have yet to indicate willingness to accept the Nelson abortion language.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ABrod
January 22, 2010 11:22 AM
Please, join the reality based community.
The voters clearly don’t like the Senate bill, big time.
But your representatives in the House are supposed flip the bird to voters and say, tough s##t, I know better than you and we are going to pass the Senate bill.
Total insanity. IT ISN’T EVEN THEIR BILL. THEY DON’T LIKE THE BILL!
Look, I want health care reform as much as anyone, but to expect representatives to act like that is really naïve and childish.
You want what you want, and god damn it your representatives better do what you want.
If health care is dead, it’s dead. Blame the Senate for dragging its feet, blame the filibuster for destroying representative democracy, but don’t expect the Democratic representatives to commit political suicide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 22, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to ABrod
Public opinion polls are not a reliable gauge of whether legislation should or should not be passed. Give me a break.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ABrod
January 22, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
I did NOT say that the Senate bill should not be passed by the House.
I wrote that it is not realistic to expect the House to pass the Senate bill because they see the Mass election as a repudiation of the Senate bill and feel that passing is way too risky.
I would like to see it happen, but I just don't think it is realistic.
That is all I said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joeinmaryland
January 22, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to ABrod
Everyone agrees that the sausage meat grinder that is the political process has produced something that everyone will have a complaint about.
Again, you are allowing lack of perfection to get in the way of the ultimate objective.
Get the Senate plan in place now. Codify universal healthcare as a right. Let's get past the situation where healthcare is a possible option. Then fix the legislation over time.
I don't care who is to blame for this mess, who should shove it to whom, who should prove who is the boss.
The bottom line is that we are at the 1 yard line, and the options coming out of the progressive caucus sounds like they want to do a quarterback pass off of a double reverse. For gods sake, hand it off the 300 pound fullback and move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 23, 2010 2:29 AM in reply to joeinmaryland
Wha you guys don't get is that this bill will actually HURT middle class Americans, by FORCING them to spend money they don't have to prop up private insurance and pharma.
It will kill the economy because nobody will have any discretionary income to consume anything. We will continue to feed the cycle of ever increasing premiums and deductibles with NO accountability.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 22, 2010 11:28 AM
Obama needs to show LEADERSHIP and tell the House to PASS THE SENATE BILL and then will be fixed with reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Maritza
Agreed. This is the best chance we will have at healthcare reform for a very long time. If you think the bill is industry-driven now, how do you think yesterday's Supreme Court decision will influence any future bills?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to Maritza
And they will just do it, because if there is one thing we know about democrats it's that they always line up in lock step behind their president.
The political problem is that the most liberal members of the house are also electorally the safest. They drew the boundaries so that would be the case. And they love their prerogatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 22, 2010 11:29 AM
I don't see any reason why the Senate and House can't or have not worked out a part-2 for the bill to be added later. Is there any indication they're even talking about it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Memekiller
January 22, 2010 11:32 AM
This is as good as it gets with Dems - they will never have as much power, with so much good will and so much distaste for the other party's policies. The question is, with Dems, is the best we can get the most progressive policy in 50 years, or buckling at the goal line at clutch time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marlow
January 22, 2010 11:34 AM
Dear Barak,
this is really pretty simple. If the bill passes you stand a reasonable shot at being given another four years...
If it doesn't pass, you're Jimmy Carter...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marlow
January 22, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to marlow
Dear Barak,
I was thinking (once again) about Gary Wills assessment of you and the situation we're in and then I came across a line from Krugman that struck as curious:
"Now, part of Democrats’ problem since Tuesday’s special election has been that they have been waiting in vain for leadership from the White House, where Mr. Obama has conspicuously failed to rise to the occasion."
Are you being blackmailed?
Well, "history" will win out...it always does...
So it goes...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to marlow
I'm confused. You think the former prime minister of Israel is going to do something about health care.
If you are gonna tear the President of the United States a new one, you might wanna learn to spell his name at least 50% of the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marlow
January 22, 2010 7:28 PM in reply to Economides
I didn't mention the PM of anywhere and have no idea why you would mention him...however I freely cop to being both a rotten typist and an even worse speller...
and if anyone is blackmailing him it's the people wills mentions in his essay from the NYReview of books published back in September...it is titled The Entangled Giant...
As to the current situation...
"Members feel President Obama showed deference to his old colleagues in the Senate from the beginning of the health care discussions and the House was rolled each step in the way.
"Everyone in the house feels like the White House bent over backwards to engage the Senate and they didn't get anything for it anyway," one leadership aide told TPMDC."
I think Teddy and the Senate backed Obama over Billary because B.c. made no friends in the Senate...he was willing to throw them off the neaest political cliff...the infamous "he'd be serving us coffee" quip wasn't bigotry it was about the fact that Obama has no backlog of favors to call in because he was/is a beard for the Senate and of course he has caved in to every outrageous demand of the Senate and as the Senate is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street Obama is an empty suit...
Now that Teddy is dead what were left with is a guy who sounds good and has exactly what Clinton said: no experience...Obama doesn't know how to work the system...he might learn but I doubt he has the time...and of course the House doesn't trust him...
so it goes...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:47 AM in reply to marlow
Barak is the last name of the former PM in Israel. Barack is the first name of the POTUS.
Understand now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marlow
January 22, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to Economides
I didn't mention the PM of anywhere and have no idea why you would mention him...however I freely cop to being both a rotten typist and an even worse speller...
and if anyone is blackmailing him it's the people wills mentions in his essay from the NYReview of books published back in September...it is titled The Entangled Giant...
As to the current situation...
"Members feel President Obama showed deference to his old colleagues in the Senate from the beginning of the health care discussions and the House was rolled each step in the way.
"Everyone in the house feels like the White House bent over backwards to engage the Senate and they didn't get anything for it anyway," one leadership aide told TPMDC."
I think Teddy and the Senate backed Obama over Billary because B.c. made no friends in the Senate...he was willing to throw them off the neaest political cliff...the infamous "he'd be serving us coffee" quip wasn't bigotry it was about the fact that Obama has no backlog of favors to call in because he was/is a beard for the Senate and of course he has caved in to every outrageous demand of the Senate and as the Senate is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street Obama is an empty suit...
Now that Teddy is dead what were left with is a guy who sounds good and has exactly what Clinton said: no experience...Obama doesn't know how to work the system...he might learn but I doubt he has the time...and of course the House doesn't trust him...
so it goes...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:07 AM in reply to marlow
So he has three more years to pass it, then? Good.
(I assume you're referring to Pres Obama)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 22, 2010 11:40 AM
The way I see it, this is House Democrats' last chance to demonstrate that they are adults, not children. Adults accept that they aren't going to get everything, take what works, and vow to continue fighting to improve. Children throw their hands in the air and whine to their constituents about how those meany Republicans in the Senate aren't playing fair.
Sack up, Democrats. Pass the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to agio
Good point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
January 22, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to agio
So, if House Democrats don't believe this bill will work, what should they do? Pass it anyway? I think House Dems should hold their position until they know what the Senate will support when it's time to fix the bill.
I would love to think that House Dems would be courageous enough to pass a bill without fear over losing their seats, but the reality is that very few in either the House or the Senate are so brave. The Senate Democrats need to step up and offer future concessions so they can move on. The House ceding its power to the Senate is irresponsible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 22, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to whitesauce
Well I totally agree that the Senate (and White House) are being irresponsibly AWOL on this. But that's how it is. The brunt of the matter falls on the House's shoulders.
I'm no expert but my gut instinct tells me that the House sits the less change we have of getting anything passed. Which is why I favor passing the Senate bill now and trying to fix it through reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 22, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to agio
should read: "the more the House sits, the less the chance..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:43 AM in reply to agio
Tired cliche. I'm the adult and you're the child. Not very effective but certainly common among the apologists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 22, 2010 11:40 AM
The clock is ticking, Obama is missing and the Democrats are in disarray.
It's a recipe for disaster.
Let's hope the Democrats can hold on to 41 Senate seats after 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lonesomeliberal
January 22, 2010 11:44 AM
I really hope that this letter was sent to the White House as well, as it is hard to imagine the House Democrats coming up with the courage to do this without some visible support and encouragement from the President, who seems (publicly at least) pretty content to try and sneak off into a corner and hide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
January 22, 2010 11:45 AM
Well...DUH!!!!
Pass it, sign it, reconcile it, run on it.
OR ditch it, get hammered for it, run from it, get PWN3D in November, and sentence millions of Americans to death and/or financial ruin.
Act with some courage, Democrats. I know that's a novel concept, and I know it might cause some people to say bad things about you, but take it from someone with courage in spades, it feels fucking awesome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
January 22, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to darkrhyme
Yeah, you got it. I think our congresspunks are having a hard time deciding if they should roll in dough from the health care corporations (fail HCR bill) or do thier jobs and live in fear of losing thier places at the slop-trough (pass bill). For some reason the nimrods in congress think that Beck, Limbaugh and O'Rielly represent the people more then they do and quake in fear if the triple axis of weasel claims if they pass the bill they will be run out of office. I don't know what else besides money would cause the SNAFU we are witnessing now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:55 AM in reply to darkrhyme
I'm not sure it's "courage" for the people's house to cave to the House of Lords. Seems pretty craven to me. Also a tad undemocratic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kJCUWzUl
January 22, 2010 11:50 AM
For all the reports of the message sent by the MA vote, Democrats are responding by doing nothing and not changing a thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 22, 2010 11:53 AM
This is looking more and more like a debate among 8th grade children. For one thing, the role of advocacy groups is to advocate what they believe in, down to the bitter end, if that is what it takes. The role of Congress is to arrive at a bill that can pass, which takes compromises. It is then the role of Congress to work on correcting any mistakes they made in their compromises as they become evident. The President's role is to attempt to lead both the people and the Congress, by persuasion, so the end result of all of the advocacy and compromises is the best result possible.
Nome of those people deserve contempt for doing their role well, not the advocacy groups, the Congress or the President. Contempt should only be directed at those who give up, who are so afraid of losing their elected offices that they give up, who are so hidebound in their advocacy that they give up their friends, anyone who quits long before it is time to do so.
The Senate bill is very deficient, and mean spirited in some ways, but it is the best possible bill we can get. So, Congress needs to stop messing their diapers and do their job - pass it, and move on to the needed corrections. And, we need to advocate for our principles, but acknowledge that we will, at best, only partially succeed in getting our principles adopted nationwide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 22, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
Word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 22, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to agio
Double Word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NitPicker1
January 22, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to geofu54
And a third.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 22, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
HoppyCalif2, speaking for the 8th graders...it is NOT CLEAR who is and has "given up" and when. You want to label progressive Congressional Democrats as "giving up" if they are against passing the Senate Bill. We Dirty F***king Hippies see "giving up" the Public Option as having already "given up"...that the Senate Bill is beyond a reasonable adult compromise and has totally "given up" on the kind of Health Care Reform we need. So maybe coming to a consensus on who has "given up" isn't the way forward here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 22, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to allen bukoff
But we've already seen that the more progressive parts of the bill, which most of us would like to see enacted such as a public option, etc., won't pass the Senate. I just don't understand how refusing to pass this bill now will get us any closer to those goals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 22, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to agio
agio, how do we really know that something else can't or won't pass the Senate? All we know is that the previous "negotiating" efforts made by the current Senate Democrats/Senate Leadership failed to get anything better than the current Senate bill out of the Senate. We Dem progressives do not believe this is the "best" that could have been achieved. We didn't believe it then and we don't believe it now. Change the leadership, change the rules, change the game, and just don't be so sure that the Senate Bill has been proven to be the best we can achieve even under the current circumstances.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:17 AM in reply to agio
For the last time: R E C O N C I L I A T I O N.
Pass a bill with the basic protections that even all of the GOP can't all go against and requires the 50 votes. Let them committ political suicide by turning down eliminating pre-existing conditions
THEN follow it up with other bills that only take 50 votes like Medicare expansion with option buy-ins which is BETTER than the Public Option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:21 AM in reply to Tralbry
Take 2:
For the last time: R E C O N C I L I A T I O N.
Pass a bill with the basic protections that even all of the GOP can't all go against and requires the 60 votes for cloture. Let them commit political suicide by turning down eliminating pre-existing conditions or caps on payouts.
THEN follow it up with other bills that only take 50 votes like Medicare expansion with option buy-ins which is BETTER than the Public Option
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 22, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to allen bukoff
The "Public Option" as finally compromised down to was only a symbol, not a real attribute for health care reform. A genuine Public Option would be available to nearly everyone, if not everyone, and would be available in 2 years or less, not in 4 years or more. Giving up that compromised down version of a Public Option was a minor sacrifice needed to get the many benefits that the final bill would provide.
A far worse part of the final bill is the second class treatment it gives to women's health care. That, in my opinion, came very close to being a deal breaker, but even that can be corrected by Congress if they are willing to do their jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:09 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
I'm not sure saying that the Public Option when we last saw it was bad one is much of an argument against a GOOD one, or Medicare expansion or other approaches. Yes, THAT one was weak but it is far more than symbloic (which is incidentally a WH talking point). It is the difference between the INCREASED privatisation of HC and the true treatment of HC as a RIGHT because the govt guarantees it even if it has to provide it itself.
I find it absurd when people cite the meme that this is the best we can get or "historic" because progressives have been trying to get Universal Healthcare for 50 years while ignoring that for all those years that meant a govt entitity that would not deny anyone based on class or need because their duty was NOT to make a profit but to serve the people as real safety nets do.
Imagine LBJ turning voting righst over to Diebold. THAT is what we have here, with a vague promise of toothless regulation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 1:59 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
And this isn't the best result possible. Also, the President gets an F for his leadership by your definition since he didn't try very gard, unless engineering the Baucus bill was trying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dan
January 22, 2010 11:57 AM
I'm in Chapel Hill, NC- and I contacted David Price's office yesterday-and his aide gave me a pretty wishy-washy answer about adopting the Senate Bill, Price was in favor of a public option. I called today (got his voice-mail) and said I was in favor of getting this thing passed. Everyone should do the same, we need movement on this-and I haven't seen much indication that any Senate Republicans are going to meet us half-way on this. Make a call, TODAY
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to Dan
I again remind people that Stupak is dead set against passage of the Senate bill. Would anybody like to pause from their hippie-punching for a moment to tell us how you propose to get him and his gang on board?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to Dan
Can you ask Mr. Price why he is willing to let sick people who can't get insurance now suffer because he prefers the public option? I am sure those people who are suffering prefer not to be sick, but why do they have to wait for Mr. Price to have his ego soothed before they can get some relief.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:12 AM in reply to Economides
WHy do you hate people who are sick before 2013? Why dio you hate America?
(Sorry - couldn't resist)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
January 22, 2010 11:58 AM
This is an aside, but on this topic: can you believe that health care has pretty much disappeared from the front page of the Huffington Post? I mean I know financial stuff is their big deal, so I'm not surprised at the top story, but if anyone ever needed a reminder that Arianna Huffington doesn't care too much about this issue, here it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:23 AM in reply to Philv
Neither HC nor the Financial should be the top post. The SCOTUS ruling should be - unless the imminent death of democracy in the next 20 years doesn't bother you.
Besides, AH was among the first to ask for a new bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 22, 2010 11:59 AM
Once again, Josh Marshall and you Village Democrats are trying to frame this as an either/or choice: either we pass the Senate Bill or unimagineably bad things are going to happen. This exaggeration is designed to support your argument/choice and has also become a rigid mind set on your part. It is further reinforced by your attitude that you're the ones who "really understand how things work" (vs. us crazy "tea bagger" Dirty F***king Hippies) You've also now simply begun bunching any and all alternative proposals into "breaking it out into smaller bills" and then quickly dismiss that whole category as crazy and naive...which helps preserve your we've-only-got-two-choices argument. You guys really need to break your own mind set and let yourself get creative about the possibilities for national health care reform going forward from the current impasse. One way to start might be to admit that WE don't really REALLY know how the Senate bill, even if enacted, would change things (i.e., how many people will it help and how? and how many people will lose and how) and that WE especially don't really REALLY know how the politics of this will actually play out (if the Senate bill is passed--i.e., whether Democrats will be hailed or ridiculed for this bill ). I can admit that. Can you? And can you give some thought to coming up with some other creative and brilliant solutions than "passing the Senate bill?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 22, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to allen bukoff
I give you points for trying, Allen, but it'll fall on deaf ears. The Villagers have decided to hold their breath until they turn blue for a bill that nobody on any part of the political spectrum actually likes. 'Tis a curious spectacle indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 22, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to allen bukoff
word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joeinmaryland
January 22, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to allen bukoff
What we can say is that the American public is exhausted about the conversation. They are starting to toon out. Once they do that, the only thing that will resonate is that they got a majority in the house/senate and the presidency, that the Democrats flagship issue was healthcare, they wasted a year on it and got nowhere. Are these the people you want running the show? End of conversation.
I'm not talking about the 30% that really care about policy, it's the vast 70% of the population that are low info voters that don't care about policy but can recognize incompetance when they see it.
You want another 30 years of right wing crap--let this thing fester for 6 more months right into the 2010 elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:34 AM in reply to joeinmaryland
It's not either 30 years or nothing. Another false choice. BO has at least 3 years left. Aside from that every other deadline is an artificial one. Yes, people are sick of it NOW which again requires a breather. The next time it has to move quicker between the moment the Prez announces it's reintroduction and all the final votes. And yes, it has to be simpler or more easily communicated without languishing leaks about Pharam deals and Ben NBelson deals and the rest. Plys Prezie has to SMACK DOWN some people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 22, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to allen bukoff
Sure can. It's a risk. No doubt about it.
But you folks can't explain to me how any new legislation is going to get through the Senate. A Senate, I might add, where healthcare legislation took MONTHS to crank out. I'm especially intrigued to know how any other issue--like the proposed bank reforms Obama announced--are gonna crank their way through the Senate. Are you expecting Republicans to suddenly want to cooperate? What justification do you have for that view?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:31 AM in reply to cube3u
>>> I might add, where healthcare legislation took MONTHS to crank out
Because President Please-Love-Me wasted time on Snowe and others. In other words, all the fundamental DETAILs have already been worked out and it's becoming a matter of editing out or breaking it up into managaeable and passable chunks.
Actually, I HAVE posted a longer strategy for what to do before.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to allen bukoff
"Villagers"
"Dirty F***king Hippies"
Just grow up. It's childish. Slogans, strawmen and smears are for simpletons. People don't dislike your ideas because they are unfair or bad people. They dislike them because they are naive, impractical, and reckless.
And whenever anyone disagrees with you, you just attack them personally. Josh Marshall, Paul Krugman, I guess even Labor, all "sellouts" for actually wanting to pass a bill because he alternatives are worse.
The grown up thing is to recognize that life isn't a choice between right and wrong, but between bad and worse.
The Dems are awful and incorrigible. But none of us vote for them because we trust them and they are good people. We vote for them because the Republicans are far far worse. This bill is certainly flawed and not what we wanted. But it will cover more people than giving up or living in fantasy land. If we get to single payer in the future, we can scrap it. But fewer will be killed or maimed in the meantime by America's atrocious health care system.
And if you are willing to let people die to prove a point or to acheive perfection, well, I'd call you worse things than "DFH" or whatever sham selfpitying nonnsense you pretend people say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 22, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Yes, you said what I want to say!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:47 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
"Just grow up" and the pretense of being the only adult are no less of an insult and a conceited one at that. It's a dodge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:26 AM in reply to allen bukoff
Agreed. It's a false choice. This or nothing. Now or never. Bad Senate bill or bupkis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
January 22, 2010 12:00 PM
As bad as this bill is, there are enough good things in it to be able to call it progress and to provide a framework for a much better bill. The House should pass it, and I think the House could if it's all that is necessary to finally get it out there, and if no 'blue dogs' are able to extort anything more out of them before the president signs it.
But, a serious effort to reform the reform bill needs to begin immediately after that. Improvements can be made a piece at a time without keeping other things like a jobs bill or climate change from being addressed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fed-Up
January 22, 2010 12:07 PM
I hope this is not becoming Jimmy Carter the sequal. "Nice guys finish last."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
January 22, 2010 12:15 PM
House Dems: Pass the Damn Senate Bill. Or move home to your parents' basements and hide in shame for the rest of your lives. Simple choice, really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 12:24 PM
The best way to diffuse the power of folks like Nelson and Landrieu is working to increase the Democratic majority even more
Go from super majority to superduper majority? How do you plan to do that? Take seats from Republicans in red states? -- did Nelson & Baucus not teach you anything?
Democrats are losing BLUE state senate seats. How do you plan to "increase the majority" when it's melting through your fingers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 12:36 PM
I've said since last September, you are not going to be able to pass individual mandates without a public option and/or Medicare expansion.
Progressives will not stand for it. They are not going to simply roll over this time.
If that means not bill, then that is what it means.
The Senate and House versions are irreconcilable.
Comprehensive HIR is over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to willia451
Also means thousands of people will die. Right now, there's some uninsured people skipping their diabetes meds they cant afford and going blind and getting their foot removed.
Get out the champagne! Point proven!
Nice job, "progressives".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
That is not the fault of Progressives. Its the fault of our corrupt government and the Health Insurance Industry that wants to try to saddle the nation with the POS Senate Bill. Which is highly unpopular.
We can help those thousands by simply expanding Medicare and/or Medicaid to cover them.
Which is what we should have done, to begin with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joeinmaryland
January 22, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to willia451
What we should have done from the very beginning vs what we have now are totally different issues. It is a no brainer that expanding Medicaid and Medicare would have been the simplest route to go, but that is not where we are today.
I agree with you, the Senate, the House and the President whiffed at this one. If we do not pass the bill now, than this whiff is the 3rd strike. If we pass the Senate bill now and work at correcting it over time, at least we have couple of more pitches to get a hit.
It is that simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 22, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
No, this is the fault of people like AnswerFrog who failed to fight for a real health care reform bill and is now willing to buy off his guilt--about the millions of people who won't be helped and all the people who will die because he didn't help pass real health care reform--by then self-righteously exaggerating the few people his bill will save and compare it to doing "nothing" (even though "nothing" is still not the only alternative to AnswerFrog's failed bill). You created this health-care dead end, you completely miscalculated, and now you want to blame it on the progressives. Look around. It's not going down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
writergal
January 22, 2010 1:35 PM
PASS THE FUCKING BILL!!!!!!!
Let's get a foundation of help for people who need this. Should we have done other stuff? yes. Am I in favor of expanding medicare? yes. This, however, is needed, to start the fire.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to writergal
And by start the fire, do you mean give the insurance/pharma companies MORE money to buy off our reps? With this new court ruling lifting corporate restrictions on paying candidates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 22, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
PASS THE FUCKING BILL!!!!!!!
The with this new ruling the corporations don't need any more money to buy our politicians; we may as well get 94% universal health care out of the deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:39 AM in reply to writergal
That wasn't very ladylike.
(Thanks, Arlen)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 3:32 PM
What bill? Its dead. No 60th vote. Game over!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
If you're talking abo0ut reconciliation, then what's the harm in going for the whole ball of wax? Give us the PUBLIC OPTION!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 22, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
There is no "the PUBLIC OPTION". When we use that term we mean that we want a government run insurance program that we can chose if we find it better than what the insurance companies are selling us. But, that program was compromised out of existence early in the negotiations. What was left had only the "Public Option" name, but none of the attributes needed. It would not have been available to more than a few percent of us, it would not have been able to compete on price with insurance companies, and it would not have been available to anyone for several years. It was a "public option" in name only. So, that battle was lost months ago. We need to involve ourselves in today's battle not the battles already fought and lost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artappraiser
January 22, 2010 9:07 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Well said, hoppy. It's amazing how far from reality so many discussions on this get, isn't it? It's like the will fight to the death for a name, a word. Someone on the hill should just throw some language in there using the words "public option" but having nothing to do with one, and that might make some happy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:44 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
Admitting it's bad isn't helping your case. And yes, we KNEW that about the PO. Which is why there was briefly hope when there was talk of expanding Medicare to 55 which Lieberman then hypocrtically killed.
See other post, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
This is politics and improvisatory by nature. What was true 5 months ago may not be the case. The situation is now very fluid and it's time for the Administration to pivot. We'll see what he - and self-identified Congressional progressives - are made of now.
When people present two choices in a political environment they almost invariably have some interest in one of the two choices being made, even if it's merely their sense of having been on the 'right side' all along. But there are always more than two choices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 23, 2010 10:07 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Uh...what did you say, again? You lost me after the first word there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 24, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
It's not either the Senate bill or nothing. That's what the Senate bill's advocates are telling us. There's always room to bargain in politics, and political alliances and politician's stances change quickly and often. So what was compromised out of negotiations a few months ago is conceivably in play now. And I apologize I wasn't clearer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 22, 2010 4:06 PM
Precisely. I'm just not gonna get caught up splitting hairs. "public option", "government run plan", whatever you like. The Senate bill has nothing. Its time to just cram this thing down the Republitards throat with reconciliation. No more pussyfootin' around.
Bush would have had this bill passed by last summer, if he took a notion! He didn't try and win anything with Dems. He got shit done. Yeah, stupid shit, but it got done!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fed-Up
January 22, 2010 4:19 PM
Hey, I will see everybody in the next decade after Med. Ins. rates has at least double. Maybe by then the low info. voter might get it. But then again by that time all the politicians will be payed off by the Ins. companies. Thanks to the corporate Surpreme Court. I love this country but sometimes I would love to get the hell out of here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to Fed-Up
Talk to me about low information voters. My sister is one of them. A repubilcan (at least she thinks she is) who watches Fox for her news. I tried having a conversation with her on health care reform until she asked me one question: "Why do so many people not have health insurance? As some background, she has never had to work a day in her life. Her husband took good care of them. They were typical republicans, no debt, paid off mortgage, but he smoked and got lung cancer and died at age 63 and left her with no bills, no mortgage a house worth close to a million and a million dollars in liquid cash. She sold the house at the highest point of the market and bought a smaller new retirement home and lives with people of the same ilk. They just don't understand that most people don't live like they do and haven't a clue.
We were all raised in a repubilcan, racist (my father) home. All my siblings remained republicans but I saw the light because of JFK and even though I was too young to vote for him, his message resonated with me and I have never looked back. I kind of feel sorry for my family. They are ignorant beyond words. Unfortunately they enjoy being that way.
We can't talk politics otherwise we would not be speaking with each other.
Thanks for listening
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 22, 2010 5:30 PM
Just received this from FAIR
Pedophiles, Terrorists and the Massachusetts Senate Race
01/21/2010 by Jim Naureckas
An illuminating account of how conservatives won the Massachusetts Senate race (Washington Independent, 1/20/10) singled out an op-ed by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal (1/14/10) as having energized citizens to vote against Martha Coakley. And, honestly, the piece does provide plenty of legitimate ammunition for the anti-Coakley side.
The op-ed centered on a case in which three members of the Amirault family, which ran a pre-school in Massachusetts, were sent to prison based on children's accounts of seemingly impossible sexual abuse. (Read the column if you want to see the grisly yet preposterous examples.) Rabinowitz, who has long written about the child sex-abuse witch-hunting that has put numerous people in jail based on bizarre and unverifiable accusations, pointed to Coakley's strenuous defense of the convictions as attorney general as evidence of her unsuitability for higher office.
It's refreshing to see a piece of conservative opinion journalism that is grounded in actual investigation and addresses a real issue (and doesn't mention ACORN even once). If it had an impact on the outcome of the Senate race, that's what political writing is supposed to do.
There's one false note that I want to point out in the op-ed, though, when Rabinowitz contrasted Coakley's enthusiasm for the dubious process that convicted the Amiraults with her concern over the treatment of prisoners rounded up in the "War on Terror": "It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo--her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence."
I think it's fair to say that the point of Rabinowitz's sarcasm is that Coakley's concern for due process is misplaced--that it should be reserved for the innocent Amiraults, and not extended to the terror suspects. This impression is confirmed by an earlier column from Rabinowitz (2/2/09) that attacked Obama for "issuing executive orders effectively undermining efforts to extract (from captured Al-Qaeda operatives) intelligence essential to the prevention of terror attacks"--i.e., preventing the government from torturing suspects.
Sexually abusing children and killing random people to make political points are both horrible things--which is why people are inclined not to worry too much about the rights of people who are accused of such crimes, and sometimes neglect the rules that are designed to separate the guilty from the innocent. Rabinowitz made a strong case that Coakley fell into this trap when it came to the Massachusetts pre-school charges--but she seems to have a similar blind spot for the possibility that some inmates at Guantanamo may have been equally railroaded.
Rabinowitz writes movingly about the heartbreak of being unjustly imprisoned and separated from one's family; she could write exactly the same story about many of the Guantanamo inmates--but provoking outrage against the politicians responsible for the tragedies might not be to her ideological taste.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artappraiser
January 22, 2010 8:44 PM
Pretty misleading journalism tricks here, and that's coming from someone who wouldn't mind seeing the Senate bill passed.
Calling the list of signatories "four dozen leading health care lumnaries" is really beyond stretching it.
Not unless you think of people like Dean Baker, Theda Skocpol, Anna Burger (Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU,) and Jerome Karabel (sociology professor @ UC-Berkeley with expertise in equal opportunity admissions) as "health care luminaries" or "health care experts."
There's only a few on that list that deserve that designation by any responsible criteria.
Shame on you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 23, 2010 2:51 AM in reply to artappraiser
There is desperation to pass this bill as is for political reasons, sometimes well-intentioned moral ones, but most of all the overriding assumption that it's this or nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tropicgirl
January 23, 2010 6:10 PM
It was all about the MANDATES from the beginning. Even with Obama.
The insurance companies HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. They can't really make the profits they want to make without MANDATING WELL PEOPLE. That is why they try to cheat people. Face it, one OVERNIGHT stay in a hospital is $20K.
They need a mandate AND they need the TAXPAYERS TO SUBSIDIZE the policies of those who cannot afford. (Public money should subsidize care, not policies, ever.)
If they wanted to, they could do the following... THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT:
1. Pass regulatory reforms WITH THE MAJORITY THAT YOU HAVE. The important ones will pass both sides.
2. Extend, improve and expand Medicare and Medicaid to those who are high risk and older, with RECONCILIATION... This is what it is for. That way you subsidize CARE not policies for crooks. Conservatives have stated support for this.
3. Other than fair regulation, LEAVE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ALONE to re-structure their business model, if they are legit, they will be able to. People do not want to bail out or subsidize private companies ever, anymore.
These is the honest thing to do. Its amazing to see the health industry insiders STARTING TO CRY because the Massachusetts voters, representing the American people, killed this bill. It really put an end to their shell game, their bait-and-switch game, Didn't it?
And for all those politicians still shoving this steaming pile at us, KEEP DOING IT, go, baby. It will be the end of you.
Obama has destroyed the Blue Dogs.
Obama has destroyed the Democratic leadership; used like a wet rag.
Obama has destroyed the Democratic candidates.
Obama has destroyed the turnout for local elections.
Obama has even destroyed the "progressive" media
He has destroyed the Democratic majority and chances for the near future.
He may have even destroyed himself.
If I were a politician, I would run as fast as I could.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 23, 2010 10:18 PM in reply to tropicgirl
First, if each of us can wait until we are sick, facing $100,000 in medical bills before we buy health insurance, that bankrupts all of the companies selling that insurance. So, they now protect themselves by refusing insurance to those already sick and needing someone else to pay their bills. That is good business practice, but leaves many people facing bankruptcy when they unexpectedly get sick.
To fix that by requiring insurance companies to sell insurance to everyone who wants it, requires also that people have to get that insurance even though they don't expect to be sick. That lets all of us pool the risk, so all of us are protected. So, yes mandatory insurance coverage is supported by everyone who has any understanding of the problem, including Obama.
Reconciliation means budget reconciliation, and it is limited to bills directly involving federal income and federal expenditures. The total health care reform bill doesn't by any stretch qualify for that process. So, reconciliation has never been an optional way to pass the bill.
The Senate rules are designed to prevent any bill from ever being passed unless all senators who want payment for their vote get it. That is the problem that eventually has to be solved.
Right now the only possible way to get any progress at all towards universal health care is to pass the Senate bill in the House and then use the reconciliation process to correct some of the gross errors in it, and amendments to other bills to correct the remaining portions. We need to get this show on the road.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
January 24, 2010 1:18 AM
Ttese are the key questions and the factual answers.
Who are Obama's 'constituencies'? Follow the decisions:
1. Decision - Ignore previous Republican crimes and misdemeanors: Constituencies - Republican voters and Republican Congress people he hoped would go 'bi-partisan'.
2. Decision - Support a stingy stimulus full of tax breaks and pork: Constituencies - investors, special interests.
3. Decision - Kill the only option that would have slowed the cost of health care & led to universal coverage: Constituencies - Health insurance and pharmacy industries.
4. Decision - Accelerate the Bush bailout,: Constituency - Financial industry.
5. Decision - Escalate a meaningless and fruitless war: Constituencies - military and corporate mercenaries.
6. Decision - Gut real financial reform and substitute finger wagging and silly taxes and fees: Constituencies - financial industry and the wealthy.
7. Decision - Not help people with bankruptcy and mortgages remediation: Constituencies - financial industry, banks and wealthy.
and
8. Decision - Fiddle around and not pass a jobs bill: wealthy and Republicans.
Obama’s constituencies are the health insurance and pharmacy industry, military-mercenary complex, the financial industry and banks, and the wealthy.
Why has Obama lost the support of the voters? Based on the decisions Obama has made, these appear to be the reasons for the lose:
1. Republicans are better off with real Republicans;
2. Independents, who wanted change, see the status quo protected and coddled;
3. Democrats see a so-called Democratic White House and so-called Democratic Congress pushing Republican policies and catering to traditionally Republican constituencies.
Obama has made decisions that have hurt most Americans, and, he is either:
1. Oblivious to them,
2. Doesn’t care, or
3. Erroneously assumed the military-mercenary, health insurance-pharmaceutical, financial-banking industries and wealthy constituencies would remain loyal and rescue him from troubles.
Obama is apparently constitutionally unable to support the middle class and the traditional Democratic constituency. It is not difficult to understand why Obama's ratings and his 'agenda' have been rejected and Democrats no longer enjoy the support of the majority of voters.
The health care pseudo-reform is simply a specific example of the pattern noted above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 11:37 PM
As to the current situation...
"Members feel President Obama showed deference to his old colleagues in the Senate from the beginning of the health care discussions and the House was rolled each step in the way.
"Everyone in the house feels like the White House bent over backwards to engage the Senate and they didn't get anything for it anyway," one leadership aide told TPMDC."
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?