Howard Dean defines progressive health care reform

Howard Dean is opposing progressive health care reform (5.00 / 2)

The goal of progressivism is to help people, not hurt corporations. If we can help people by transferring large sums of money to corporations, fine. We'd prefer another way, but if it works it works. And for-profit corporations provide much of the goods and services in our country: they're gonna get a big slice of the pie no matter how we cut it. Even if the health insurance industry were to get shafted, the health care industry would get a rather tidy sum of money: if you want to prevent corporations from profiteering you'd need to go full socialist and implement the UK system. Hell, the food stamp program transfers large sums of money to the food industry, but people don't feel like we need to eliminate that.

Also to be pedantic, age is not a "preexisting condition" in the technical sense of the word, (it's not a medical condition) and at any rate, opposing a bill because it merely reduces something instead of eliminating it is completely insane. Furthermore, the bill does enhance choice. Just creating a Health Insurance Exchange enhances choice, by making it easier for people to choose between the existing insurers. (Both for-profit and non-profit.)

There is no reason to believe that we can't pass this bill and then pass something better later. In legislation, success is followed up by further improvements, whereas failure is followed up by reform languishing for decades. Perhaps some of those bills could be passed by reconciliation. But we're not going to get there by refusing to compromise.

---

by: UserGoogol @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 13:59:35 PM CST

"Refusing to compromise?" (6.00 / 3)

In what sense is rejecting the current Senate bill refusing to compromise? This bill is the result of an endless list of compromises that have seen most of the good reform features sacrificed to persuade "moderate" Democrats and Joe Lieberman to vote for it. That sacrifice began even before any negotiating took place, when single-payer was excluded from all consideration. As Dr. Dean points out, the current bill is a massive giveaway to the insurance companies, and by the time the remaining changes take effect, insurance premiums will be much higher than now.

There is every reason to believe that whatever gets passed now is going to be the end of reform for the foreseeable future. The Democrats will say "We gave you health-care reform" and shy away from any further conflict with the Republicans and Blue Dogs.


Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 14:15:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

let's make a distinction between the kind of compromise (0.00 / 0)

that's done on the committee of ten and the kind of "compromise" that's done in response to the threat of a filibuster. The former has some give and take, the later is the power to strip whatever aspect of the bill one doesn't like.  All of the "compromise" done in response to Lieberman and Nelson filibuster threat (in the context of a 40-vote block of Republicans who will filibuster anything and everything to do with this bill) is not the kind of compromise that produces a result that represents the will of the majority. Dean talks about the effect of process on policy as the bill gets close to the end game in his Op-Ed.  

Does this front page thread signal a shift in Bob's thinking on what needs to happen next with this bill?  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 14:35:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reminds me of JFK's line. (0.00 / 0)

"We will never negotiate out of fear, but we will never fear to negotiate."  Right now our leadership is doing too much of the first one, IMO.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 17:43:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Improvements can still be made in the Senate" (6.00 / 3)

I think the bill should be passed, with a strong public option and elimination of the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption, and with an individual mandate, through reconciliation since it is now obvious that it cannot be passed with 60 votes. That's what the President should be pushing for. The House already voted for much of that.

Alternately, I think the Democrats should force the Republicans and Lieberman to filibuster the bill.

Americans want health care reform. As a filibuster drags on and no other business can be done, the Republicans will look increasingly obstructionist and out of touch: a rerun of the Gingrich government shut down that cost them a few dozen seats.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:55:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Single payer was excluded when (3.00 / 1)

there was no offer to reduce the "robustness" of it.  It was more important that the public option or single payer cover everything that everyone's cushy employer provided plan covered, it could not leave out anything or skimp on research funding or diagnostic testing and the best medicine for everyone, it would have to cover abortion and fertility treatments, organ donations, medical marijuana, etc.  The same fate has now met the public option, for the same reason.

Try negotiating on what gets covered and maybe we can all agree that a single payer to cover it.  That would leave a place for private companies to offer supplemental insurance for coverage of things that aren't in the public's interest to cover, or are simply too expensive.  But at least everyone would have coverage for basic things, and those things could all be charged to a single payer.

---

by: dcsurfer @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:16:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No need to reduce robustness. (0.00 / 0)

HR 676 covers everything medically necessary and allows for the purchase of plans to cover the extras.  This really has already been thought through.  A good summary is here.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:30:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It looks like a good bill except (0.00 / 0)

"medically necessary" seems to be an open-ended blank check, that could include radical stem cell treatments, organ transplants, IVF, the most expensive prescription drugs, etc.  It needs to reduce robustness so that it isn't a blank check to researchers and medical device companies, it needs to cover basic medicine, not the most advanced.  It needs to be clear that it is for sick people, not researchers and investors and reproductive hijinks.

This part is good: "Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits."  So it allows for private supplemental plans, why not reduce robustness down to a minimal level, and let people that want to be covered for organ transplants and non-generic drugs pay for it (and tax them when they pay for it).

---

by: dcsurfer @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:07:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's smart politics, I think (6.00 / 1)

Howard Dean (and Bernie Sanders, and Arianna Huffington, and DailyKos, and Keith Olbermann, and various other bloggers) is doing exactly what the left should have been doing all along.  They are helping to shift the debate away from terrible concessions to Joe Lieberman.  

The less attractive this bill seems to the left, the more acceptable it may become to the center.  Dean (and others) is giving us the chance to have a better bill (not one that is entirely mediocre now and likely to get worse).  We've already seen Mary Landrieu vigorously defending the bill to Dean on MSNBC.  

The disappointing thing about the Dean business is the venom with which some, including the White House, have attacked Dean.  Some say that Dean is just doing this because of his ego, but what does he have to gain from this.  I can't see him running for anything in the near future.  

---

by: DoubleMan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 14:31:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not so sure. (0.00 / 0)

This is certainly a glass half-full interpretation of Dean's strategy.  But this seems incredibly risky.

We have already heard from the "progressive left" who would have perferred single-payer.  For a year now, many on the left have loudly criticized the bill's weak public option, the concept of exchanges selling private insurance, the individual mandate, and the proposed cuts to Medicare.  Has this helped the bill become "more acceptable to the center?"

Howard Dean making the case for opposing this health care bill.  It doesn't accomplish anything, it's way too expensive, it piles debt on kids.  That's as far as making our case goes.  We don't want the public option back in, which he does, we don't want the Medicare expansion back in, which he does.  So this is a direct hit at the Obama administration and calling them out.  You guys say we can't do this for another 20 years, you're wrong, do it right in the first place, scrap this.  That's a Democrat talking. - Rush Linbaugh, 12/16/09.

Painful stuff.  I don't oppose compromise but, if "kill the bill" becomes the mantra of both Dean and Limbaugh, then I question whether the "center" is large enough or strong enough to prevail.

---

by: theloquaciousliberal @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 14:44:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We may have "heard" from the progressive left... (6.00 / 2)

...but only outside the corridors of power.  As far as I can tell there was never a single-payer coalition inside Congress to counteract the Blue Dogs in the legislative process, despite HR 676 having more than 80 cosponsors.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 17:46:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Also (6.00 / 1)

Saying something and acting are very different.  We need more people in power willing to take a stance rather than just talk.  

I just saw the editor of Salon on Hardball talk about how "furious" she is at the Obama administration and Senate for dropping the public option, but then she roundly criticized Dean's position.  That's what everyone seems to be doing - saying they don't like something and then doing nothing to back it up.  When the Stupak-full bill passed the House and then a group of pro-choice Reps promised not to vote for a bill containing that language, it had some impact on the debate over that issue in the Senate.  

"I don't like that, but OK" only gets you so far, and in this case, it's not where most of us would like to be.  

We need real, two-sided negotiations, and we haven't really seen them thus far.  

I'm not even an advocate of "kill the bill," but I want the bill to have a chance to retain some progressive elements that could be expanded upon later.  Completely revisiting health reform later probably isn't likely, but a big first step will make adjustments later easier.  

---

by: DoubleMan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 19:24:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe it is, but it's a big risk to take (0.00 / 0)

If it's just about shifting debate (rather than legitimately trying to pass by reconciliation, which I'm skeptical would work, even if you break up the bill) that's probably a good strategy, but the big risk factor is Bernie Sanders, and people like him. He's not just a pundit engaged in abstract debate, he actually has a vote in the Senate. If Howard Dean refuses to support the bill, who cares, but if Bernie Sanders refuses to support the bill, the bill dies unless we can get Olympia Snowe in exchange. (Although that's a very real possibility.)

(Although even that's overstating things because if the base becomes convinced that the bill is worthless and a worthless bill is all we can get, then that could really hurt turnout in the elections this year. Managing expectations is important.)

---

by: UserGoogol @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 14:47:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clearly Dean wants health care reform and so does Sanders (6.00 / 1)

If Kill The Bill is a negotiating tactic to get Lieberman and Nelson to negotiate with Senators whose interests run counter to their interests, then the process may not even need to go to reconciliation.  

The problem with bill as it stands is that Lieberman and Nelson never negotiated; they waited until the negotiation was done and dictated.

"Kill The Bill" implies kill health care but you need only to look at who is saying it to know they don't intend to kill reform.  They intend to get it.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 15:08:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this bill is worse than the status quo (3.00 / 1)

it should die a horrible death, if it can't be resuscitated.

If Bernie Sanders can stop this, he's a hero.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:31:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Works? Shafted...? (0.00 / 0)

UserGoogol wrote:

If we can help people by transferring large sums of money to corporations, fine. We'd prefer another way, but if it works it works.

Please cite the facts you used to conclude "it works."

UserGoogol also wrote:

...for-profit corporations... they're gonna get a big slice of the pie no matter how we cut it. Even if the health insurance industry were to get shafted, the health care industry would get a rather tidy sum of money: if you want to prevent corporations from profiteering you'd need to go full socialist and implement the UK system.

[emphasis added]

You have it bass-ackwards: health insurance corporations are anti-free market, full-socialist entities right now.

They are officially exempt from anti-trust laws(!).

They (and health care industries like Big Pharma) receive massive taxpayer subsidies for the normal cost of doing business --on everything from product research to marketing.

They are protected from real-world, free market competition and the consequences of business failure by their allies in government who readily disburse taxpayer money to bail them out.

This isn't just "socialized risk" it's Corporate Communism.

Thus, it is utterly bogus to claim that requiring insurance/health care corporations to follow the rules of free-market capitalism is "getting shafted."

What the current Senate bill does and does not achieve in terms of concrete reforms is a legitimate, fact-based debate; whether said reforms deserve the label "progressive" is opinion and, frankly, less important.

---

by: ThrobbingPatriot @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 15:24:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my one critique (0.00 / 0)

they're not socialist, they're fascist.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:33:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fascist economic policy WAS socialist. (0.00 / 0)

Corporatism and national syndicalism are both obviously socialist.

---

by: JoeTS @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 19:26:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

are you kidding? (0.00 / 0)

There is no reason to believe that we can't pass this bill and then pass something better later.

Decades of zero health care reform, epic disaster this time around, Obama's corporate lapdog tendencies and upcoming 2010 epic losses are all "reasons."  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:27:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Governor Dean is again right on target (6.00 / 1)

It is neither "stupid" nor "insane" to take this posture that Governor Dean and I advocate. Such insults further degrade an already disgusting state of affairs.

The choice is simple and the need for leadership is clear: Either strip the individual mandate, add a strong public option (or a government-sponsored single-payer provision), or kill this legislation and start over in January.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 15:09:05 PM CST

Exactly Right (0.00 / 0)

"Start over in January" is exactly what we should do.  Of all giveaways in this process, the biggest one went by completely unnoticed, that is that this is our only chance at health reform, that we would have to wait a generation to raise this issue again, etc.
 None of this is true, except that our leaders have imposed these conditions upon us.  You could argue that this is the time to sharpen the conflict, when our side is finally energized.  The enemy finally has a (jowly) face.

---

by: Bob Gardner @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 15:56:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree that they should start over in January. (0.00 / 0)

And for God's sake try to make it a simpler bill (not 2,000+ pages). Begin with a framework of what is needed but realize there are risks. The longer this process goes on the less the American public is supporting it. I think there is a genuine risk of a far smaller and simpler bill being passed which will not even get to the point where this bill is now. People want jobs and don't want to hear about mandatory insurance plans with large price tags. The public option is dead now and I think a microscope and more time (getting closer to reelection) will bring support further down.

They should take what they have now or consider NOTHING may happen in January. But I'm good either way. A bird in the hand...

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 15:56:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A simpler January bill ... (6.00 / 1)

Will say, in essence:

"Every American is entitled to high-quality health care", the keyword being "entitled."

Health care should be treated like public education. It should be funded by the government and (perhaps) administered by local authorities. Participation in the health care system should be mandatory (just like compulsory education for minors), and paid for by the government. I'm ok with small copays and similar means to limit overuse by certain individuals.

It's time to nuke the health insurance companies altogether and substantially transform health care providers.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:09:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Do you seriously think that will happen. (0.00 / 0)

If "that" could happen then they certainly would have been able to get the Public Option on the current bill... which they did not!

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:12:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I seriously think we should START there (6.00 / 2)

Had we started there early this year, we might well have the public option today.

I think we need to aggressively advocate what we believe, confident in our grounding in our values and principles. That provides the foundation and strength from which we can occasionally compromise when — and only when — such compromise is necessary. We seem to instead lead from our own insecurity, creating self-fulfilling prophesies that we then whine about when they come to pass.

By attempting to be "bipartisan" and conciliatory with an opposition that is steadfastly intent on blocking everything labeled "Democratic", we dug ourselves into a hole before we began.

I fear this has become the Democratic way.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:30:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear... (0.00 / 0)

Are you saying start again in January with a clean slate and involve Republicans (and that pesky Independent) OR go it alone?

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:35:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My personal opinion (0.00 / 0)

Throw down the gauntlet on HR 676.  It already has more than 80 co-sponsors.  I don't really care at this point how many GOPs support it if any.  In the House of Commons it would be we won, we do things our way; if you don't like it try to defeat us in the next election then you get to try your way.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 17:50:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is this clear enough? (0.00 / 0)

Strip Senator Lieberman of all his seniority and committee assignments. To wit, when the Senate is back in session in January of 2010:

• Remove him as chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee, and remove his assignment to this committee.
• Remove him from the Armed Services committee.
• Remove him from the Small Business committee.

There are surely one or two committees where he can do little harm — let me offer some candidates (my apologies to the current members of these):

• Special Committee on Aging
• Committee on Indian Affairs
• United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control

I was looking for a "Special Committee on Legislative Parking Arrangements", but I couldn't find one.

The Republicans can go pound sand.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:04:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK, that was very clear. (0.00 / 0)

Now, getting back to reality... how will the people who will not fund abortions, who will not support the public option and will no expand medicare going to suddenly jump on board. I find it hard to believe Joe Lieberman will be jolted out of his current position because of his committee positions. I guess what I am saying is what will change to make all of this new approach plausible especially in light of the already full plate of Congress and the growing discontent of the public.

I'm not being partisan here when I say "I just don't see the support for this happening".

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:16:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not trying to change Senator Lieberman (6.00 / 1)

Nor am I trying to persuade right-wing lunatics (of either party) to "suddenly jump on board."

I am saying that the health care reform bill — with a strong public option and without extensions to existing federal abortion policy — was the Democratic Party priority this year. Those who sabotaged it should not celebrate the advantages of Democratic Party affiliation.

This is not about changing the misbehavior of those who betrayed us. It is, instead, about demonstrating to the rest of the Democratic Party that such betrayal has consequences.

The purpose is to influence other Democrats, not change the behavior of these. The steps I outline are steps that the Democratic Party leadership can and must take.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:28:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But Tom remember this... (0.00 / 0)

this is not the only thing going on. Did you see the apprehension in Obama's voice when he finished the Afghanistan speech and suddenly realized he need the support of Republicans (while he had just finished bashing them about healthcare)?

Obama and the Democratic leadership will have to "punish" carefully as they have a full agenda of bill for 2010 which they will need a lot of help on. If they use too many Democrats as whipping boys then they risk other bills as well. Maybe they will try your method and maybe it will work... or maybe it will backfire in their faces. Think of Deval on his push for casino's in 2008.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:39:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it's inevitable (6.00 / 2)

whether it happens now or 50 years from now, the current system is unsustainable and only one or two other countries in the world have 'private' health insurance systems that work, and they don't work better than single payers... and they only work at all because of extremely strong regulations.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:37:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There is no starting over (5.00 / 2)

either we get an imperfect bill now that sets a new (and better) baseline for future improvements, or, like the past 60 years, we are left with nothing. "Starting over" is not an option in an election year.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:54:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Screwing Americans is NOT be an option (0.00 / 0)

Especially Americans who supported the Democratic party in good faith.

"Imperfect"? Talk about lipstick on a pig...

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:09:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

screwing Americans in NOT an option. But that's just what Republicans and "progressives" are willing to do.

Get back to me in ten years when millions more Americans do not have health insurance coverage because of the failure of health care reform now.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:24:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but I disagree (0.00 / 0)

The current bill amounts to smearing vaseline on the implement so that the screwing hurts less. I think its better to end the charade now, recognize just how bad the current situation and proposed "solution" is, and start over.

I understand that it's an election year — I think that's probably appropriate. With the "Democrats" we have, we don't need Republicans.

A lot can and must happen between now and ten years from now. The failure of this bad legislation can and will mark the beginning of the movement towards real change in our health care system.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 13:12:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's not the only alternative (0.00 / 0)

The current Senate bill can be improved, reconciliation can be threatened or used, the president can act, the House can act.

Personally, I'm not in favor of starting over, but I am in favor of improving the current bill, not accepting the Lieberman Plan.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 16:09:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I agree that improvements are possible. When I say "kill it now", I mean if the bill as now configured is the bill offered up for a vote.

For example, as I wrote elsewhere today, stripping the individual mandate (or putting a strong public option back in) is an approach I would support.

I like the scenario of the House insisting that the public option be present. Perhaps that might give Senator Reid some cover to quietly backtrack on the way to a more palatable final bill.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 17:02:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

health care reform polling news and petition (0.00 / 0)

Only 33% of voters approve of the Senate's current plan to pass a bill without a public option but with a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance.

The good news is the poll shows Democrats the roadmap to victory:

59% of voters still support a healthcare reform bill with a public option.

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 20:35:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why is this bill in such trouble with such OVERWHELMING public support? (0.00 / 0)

Unless... it really doesn't have the overwhelming public support. We have numerous polls showing results al over the place depending how the question is asked. I'll go with the polls that show support has fallen dramatically and the true indication is the bill not going anywhere.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:49:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Tasty cherries? (6.00 / 2)

I'll go with the polls that show support has fallen dramatically and the true indication is the bill not going anywhere.

In other words, "I've already made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts."

You saw the poll, you saw the questions, you saw the results. Feel free to offer an alternative poll that you think is more accurate.

This comment, though, sounds very much as though you're only interested in polls that support your own belief — the very essence of cherry-picking.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:13:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I could easily argue that YOU Tom have certainly already made up your mind. (3.00 / 1)

Once again polls which support "believers' on BMG are right on while other polls are foolish or ask the wrong question...

From Rasmussen...

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters are now against the health care plan working its way through Congress, while just 40% support it. Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress.

Bu since you want to govern by polls... this was also on Rasmussen so let us begin the salary reduction for government workers ASAP...

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans believe the average government worker earns more annually than the average taxpayer.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 20:35:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The two polls are consistent (6.00 / 2)

The question asked by the poll you're objecting to was (emphasis mine):

1. PUBLIC OPTION: Would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?

All Americans: 59% FAVOR, 31% OPPOSE, 10% NOT SURE
Democrats: 88% FAVOR, 9% OPPOSE, 3% NOT SURE
Independents: 57% FAVOR, 29% OPPOSE, 14% NOT SURE
Republicans: 24% FAVOR, 64% OPPOSE, 12% NOT SURE
(snipped)
3. MANDATE - NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO MEDICARE BUY-IN: Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that does NOT include a public health insurance option and does NOT expand Medicare, but DOES require all Americans to get health insurance?

All Americans: 33% FAVOR, 56% OPPOSE, 11% NOT SURE
Democrats: 37% FAVOR, 51% OPPOSE, 12% NOT SURE
Independents: 31% FAVOR, 57% OPPOSE, 12% NOT SURE
Republicans: 30% FAVOR, 61% OPPOSE, 9% NOT SURE

I note that the third question in the poll that you object to reports the same result that you cite — 56% of Americans oppose the bill currently under consideration.

In the Rasmussen poll that you cite, I don't see a question that attempts to measure support for a public option — the 59% support number that we're discussing. If the data is in your poll, I encourage you to identify where.

If it isn't, then your citation reinforces, rather than weakens, the claim you oppose. In arriving at the same result for the same question, the Rasmussen poll supports the methodology of the poll we're discussing. In citing a poll that doesn't measure the question we're discussing, you're simply cherry-picking.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:08:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

why are you surprised about the cherry picking? (5.00 / 1)

He's baiting you, not arguing.

---

by: huh @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:04:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not surprised (6.00 / 1)

I actually welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that his own poll strengthens the argument we are making, and weakens his own. In this case, I'm happy to take the bait.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:21:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

makes sense (6.00 / 1)

Here's betting he never admits he's wrong.  

---

by: huh @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:59:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It has never been about fixing health care (0.00 / 0)

It has always been about making people buy junk insurance.  I said it a year ago as we were the pilot program state.  The rest of the 1900 pages are, I am quite sure sufficient reason for me to avoid a doctor at all cost.  It is a confidence in government thing I know and yes, I don't have any.

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:00:24 PM CST

Another major step... BACKWARDS!!! (0.00 / 0)

Just in...

A moderate Democrat whose vote could be crucial said Thursday an attempted Senate compromise on abortion is unsatisfactory, raising doubts about whether the chamber can pass President Barack Obama's health care overhaul by Christmas.

"As it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient," Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key holdout on the health care bill, said in a statement after first making his concerns known to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

I guess BMGers will direct Harry Reid to begin the process of stripping Ben Nelson of all his committee positions and request the DNC stop contributing any campaign funds and... what were the other punishments suggested for not obeying the "law of the pack"?

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:14:58 PM CST

yes they should (6.00 / 1)

anyone who votes to filibuster the democratic bill should be punished severely if they're in the democratic caucus. I don't actually care if they vote for or against the bill, but filibustering it from within the caucus should be unacceptable. The Republicans would have never stood for this -- and neither should we.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:39:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's bill is the one he wanted all along (0.00 / 0)

Tangently related, but there's a reason why Obama's been literally thanking Joe Lieberman and raising fury at Howard Dean: The Senate health care bill Liebercare is the bill Barack Obama wanted from the beginning.

So, let's add up the tally:

Obama is against health care reform. He's for escalating bad wars. He's against gay rights. He's for raising taxes by tens of thousands on middle class families -- and shipping that money directly to private health care companies. He's against due process. He's for backroom sleazy deals with big pharma. He's against drug reimportation from Canada. He's against decent bank and credit card reform.

Howard Dean 2012.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:23:55 PM CST

When I say this it sounds like a rant... (0.00 / 0)

but you can pull it off well.

PS You forgot to mention the whole "earmark" thingee.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:38:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LieberCare: Why Side Are You On? (6.00 / 1)

by Bob Fertik on December 17, 2009

In a word, LieberCare sucks. It forces 30 million Americans to buy a massively defective product (unreliable, unaffordable health "insurance") from greedy, corrupt corporations.

The only good parts (tighter insurance regulation, lower-income subsidies) could be easily enacted without turning Americans into insurance slaves.

And the whole bill could easily be replaced with Medicare For All.

So this is a defining moment in Democratic and progressive politics. Which side are you on?

Click HERE to see who lines up where.

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:54:29 PM CST

"Insurance slaves" (0.00 / 0)

Fabulous. Good find.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:41:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sirota: (0.00 / 0)

Before Dean's move, the fight was asymmetrical, as Chris Hayes noted in my interview with him on my radio show yesterday. Before Dean's move, Lieberman had the upper hand in that he was the only one who didn't seem to care whether he alone killed the bill by joining with Republicans for a filibuster. Now, though, Dean has said to progressive members of Congress that they should be OK killing this bill if that's what taking a stand for a better bill means. And you see some of them potentially starting to follow.

This is why the White House and the Beltway media is now publicly freaking out at Dean in a way they never freaked out on corporate Dems (Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, etc.) who were previously obstructing the bill: Because Dean is threatening to change the dynamic that the Beltway was always counting on -- a dynamic that relied on progressives ultimately capitulating to the Joe Liebermans, the Rahm Emanuels, the insurance industry and the drug lobbyists. That dynamic only exists if progressive members of Congress -- and the larger progressive movement and general public -- believes passing the bill is more important than killing it to make it better. If they and we don't believe that, as Howard Dean doesn't and as new polls show we don't, then suddenly progressive members of Congress and the progressive movement can feel free to be as cutthroat as Lieberman himself.

We can feel free to risk sending a bad bill down to defeat in the cause of making it better -- because we know that the bill in its current, non-improved form is bad. And from that stand, we may get more progressive concessions before this thing is finally done. Just as the old dynamic was based on buying Lieberman's vote with insurance/drug industry concessions, this new Dean dynamic could means progressives forcing the leadership and the White House to, say, add back a public option back into this final bill as price for progressive votes.

MORE

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 17:26:47 PM CST

To the "fix it later" and "anything's better than nothing" crowds: (0.00 / 0)

How do we fix this later if there's no incentive to get all sides on the table?

If we don't hold back the mandate, there's no getting this back on the table for literally decades, if we're so lucky. Jon Walker from FDL: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c...

a snippet:

One of the better-sounding arguments for passing the Senate bill is that "we can fix it later." While this does sound appealing at first glance, I just don't see "fixing it later" happening in the next decade or two. Democrats currently have huge majorities in both Houses and the presidency. I can't imagine there being a time anytime soon where the Democrats have more power.

If progressives can't push for better health care reform now with a huge grassroots push, I don't see them having more success after Washington moves on to other topics. As long as this 60-vote myth persists in the Senate, and progressive are not taken seriously, I don't see how any progressive change (be it on health care or any other issue) will ever happen.

The only way I can see progressives being able to fix the bill later is if they can hold something the big industries really want hostage. Progressives need something important they can trade in exchange for better reform. The only thing progressives can hold hostage for real reform is the individual mandate. The insurers, providers, drug manufacturers, etc., all want the individual mandate. What company wouldn't want the government to force people to be its customers?

Progressives should make the rallying cry of "no public option, no mandate" an unmovable demand, now and in the future. Progressives in Congress should refuse to support the individual mandate until it is accompanied by the government guarantee of a decent, cost-effective public health insurance option.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 17:51:45 PM CST

No INDIVIDUAL MANDATE without a public option (0.00 / 0)

This is nothing new.  You cannot force people to buy a crappy poorly regulated insurance product requiring 20% of their income without offering them an option than can deliver services with a better margin than 26% overhead.

Medicare does it for 3% overhead.  Non-profit BC/BS does it for 20% including mandatory pharmacy coverage. The average health insurer does it for 26% overhead.  

Part of the problem is getting more Americans coverage.  The other part of the problem is cost.  This bill, since Lieberman killed PO and Medicare expansion, does not address cost.  

Before we mandate, before Americans get taxed for taking breath, insurance cost must be addressed.  

I don't mind that the WH is defending this bill, and acts like it is as good as it gets as long as at least one progressive in the Senate is willing to force negotiation by withholding their cloture vote for the purpose of improving the bill on choice and therefore cost.

Looks like the progressives have FINALLY gotten the Presidents attention.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:08:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No better time (5.50 / 2)

I can't imagine there being a time anytime soon where the Democrats have more power.

I can't imagine there being anytime soon or late when they will. I would not have said that last Spring, but the Dems have spent almost a year using their big majorities to accomplish ... what? They got those majorities as a mandate to make changes. So far, they haven't done anything. No health care reform. No controls on the financial markets. No end to Iraq. No end to Afghanistan. No torturers brought to justice. No end to use of state secrets to protect corporate enablers of torture. No sunshine on what happened at Abu Ghraib. No end to rendition. No new environmental protections. No massive investment in energy independence.

Back in January, I expected the Democrats to act like they were in charge, and get some major work done. That's not what happened. Again and again, they gave up their power for the sake of 'bipartisanship.' How weak. First, they gave up progressive initiatives to appease the Republicans, who just kept saying 'no' and complaining about there being no bipartisanship. When the Blue Dogs saw how well it worked, they started demanding concessions. And got them. How disgustingly weak.

I hate to say it, but I do not see the masses of energized, hopeful progressives who elected Obama showing up to vote next year. Why bother? They gave the Dems a golden opportunity to make progressive change, and it was immediately turned over to Wall Street and the 'moderates' who represent corporations. It may not be too late; if the Democrats pull it together and change the country's course before next Fall, they should be rewarded. I don't think they will.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:24:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Those energized masses are more likely to ... (0.00 / 0)

show up wreaking havoc in the streets of our cities this summer.

Take another look at what transpired during and after the Democratic Party convention in Chicago in 1968.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:32:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i will be energized (0.00 / 0)

to support any progressive democrat who stands up to Obama in a primary for 2012...


---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:59:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a funny feeling... (0.00 / 0)

that while there is much uproar these days about the current bill, that it will pass. And when it passes he Democrats will be taking full credit for it. They were talking on Morning Joe about all the horrible remarks about Obama leading up to the Afghanistan speech and then all the "brilliant" reviews he received. I think many people critique things to get a "better" solution and then find solace is the "good" solution they got!

When this passes, remember this on BMG.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:21:36 PM CST

I have a funny feeling... (0.00 / 0)

...most people call that indigestion, you think its clairvoyance.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 19:08:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Many liberals accused GWB of "fear mongering" but this last year... (0.00 / 0)

President Obama has been dropping the "If we don't do this... the world will end" kind of remarks.

This came from his interview with Charlie Gibson yesterday...

The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.

"If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee....your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you," he said. "Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. "

The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, "the federal government will go bankrupt."

Is that is? So if we don't pass this bill, the Federal government will go BANKRUPT? And if we pass this bill then the Federal government will... run a surplus? I think Obama has got to stop crying "wolf" every time he needs support from the American people. I know there are many stupid Americans but not as many as he thinks!

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 18:48:14 PM CST

Agreed (6.00 / 1)

When one hears hyperbole like that, one's political Spidey sense starts tingling. It reminds me of Paulson's hysterics last year.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:49:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]