A few years ago, when my beloved Washington Redskins were having one of their craptacular seasons, an article quoted a player from one of the teams who had played against the Redskins about what exactly was allowing so many teams to win. The player noted that while the Redskins looked impressive on paper, once they got on the field the other team had only to get one good punch in and they would fold for the rest of the game – leading to a romp.
In other words, they had a glass jaw.
If the tussle over the public option component of health care reform continues along what seems to be its current trajectory, the Obama administration will have taken a serious punch to the face and the GOP will end up running all over them.
The main problem here is that President Obama seems overly focused on getting some kind of bipartisanship out of Washington, but the problem is he’s going about it using the Tom Daschle method. Many of us will remember the days where Tom Daschle led as minority leader and majority leader as marked by all sorts of ridiculous concessions to the Bush administration and the Republicans – most notably on the Iraq War. In retrospect all that bipartisanship led to was the loss of political power and clout for the Democrats, and more importantly, the near-ruination of the prestige and fiscal supremacy of the United States. That’s all.
In theory, concessions on these things are supposed to lead to votes. Senator X wants this, okay we do it, now we have his vote. Representative Y really wants this to cost this much, okay we do it, now we have her vote. The problem is President Obama and the leadership in the Senate (for now, the House seems to be sticking to their guns) seem to be in a mode of permanent concession that is not going to produce any Republican votes.
The Dems could negotiate health care reform down to a band-aid and a sheet of prayer and the GOP wouldn’t vote for it because the band-aid cost too much. Gotta be “deficit neutral”, you know!
I don’t get this. And while intellectually I sort of understand the various moving parts that have to be juggled around simultaneously, my gut feeling – and I’m sure the same goes for much of the American majority who supported the President and the Congress – is that we have the votes to get things accomplished, so why are even playing this game?
There are 60 votes for cloture in the Senate – at least there should be unless any Democrat is stupid enough to filibuster health care reform for Christ’s sake, and there has got to be at least 51 Dems with the guts to do this thing, or why bother? In the House the margins are even better, with 40 votes of wiggle room for Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. GET IT DONE.
I’ve often written here about how I think its kind of ridiculous how the religious right invests so much in Republicans expecting things like the outlawing of abortion – their ultimate goal – and instead Republican presidents like Bush refuse to do more than make a phone call to their rallies, let alone enact actual legislation related to their cause.
President Obama and the Democratic Congress risk serious damage with their base over health care, in a way that won’t be papered over like the religious right and abortion. This is not 1992, where a President with less than 50% of the vote won on a moderate platform with very little wiggle room to work with in the congress. Obama won by almost 7%, with more than double the electoral votes of his opponent. His party enjoys considerable majorities in both houses of congress. That is not a mandate to go play pattycake with John Boehner. Its a mandate to get serious stuff done.
Democrats are in power because the electorate trusted them on 3 major items: Economy, National Security, and Health Care. On economy and national security they are on the right path, with a return to some sort of fiscal sanity and regulated markets, combined with a strategic disengagement from Iraq as well as a rededication in Afghanistan to finishing the job that began on 9/11. But while 2/3 will get you into Cooperstown, it won’t help the Dems electorally.
And again, more importantly, it won’t help the country.
Heart Bypass Surgergy: I’ve Seen Too Many
While I haven’t seen the worst of this first-hand, I have seen what our current health care system screws up. I’m lucky, I’m one of those people with a pretty good health benefit from my employer. Other, close, members of my family don’t have that. The costs are too high, they aren’t covered on their jobs, and they have pre-existing conditions. Sure, they are cared for when they need emergency care but I honestly would much rather not have to have people in my family wait until the doctors have to rip arteries out of their chests to get their health care needs adressed. Oh, and the giant bills that ensue.
The Republican party and a few Democrats with their heads shoved up their butts want more people to suffer. They – especially the Republicans – won’t budge and they won’t give an inch. Their ideology and the idea of winning one fight versus a President they seek to kneecap is far more important to them than the members of my family or the millions of others out there. That’s why they insist on mob rule and death panel lies rather than a serious discussion on this.
Their minds were made up on November 4, 2008. There is no sense in engaging with them, let alone conceding anything to them until they decide to bring some honesty to this issue.
The president and congress could make the Washington village types really happy with a milquetoast nothingball package of legislation that doesn’t do a thing and leads to policy and electoral failure. Or they could do the job we put them in place to do.
But while 2/3 will get you into Cooperstown
Try again. You need at least 3/4.
Democrats are in power because the electorate trusted them on 3 major items: Economy, National Security, and Health Care.
You’re the one doing the mis-reading. Obama got elected because:
* Republicans deservedly lost the title of “the fiscally responsible party”.
* Hope
* Change
Part of that Hope & Change that he was going to transcend politics, work to bring everyone together, and fix the problems of ordinary Americans, and to do so transparently. Instead, he’s rammed through bills that noone’s read and tarred and feathered anyone who dared ask questions. Average Americans don’t like being called thugs and Nazis, but that’s exactly what Obama’s doing. And his sliding polls are evidence of it.
Well, he could. Democrats are frequently both tactical and strategic idiots. And they hate actually having to stand up for the things they like to say they stand up for, because that entails making conservatives and often particular wealthy interests unhappy, and they really hate that.
But there’s not a lot of actual evidence yet of what will definitely emerge from the legislative wrangling, or how it will be pushed.
And also, as much as I support the public option, and as much as it will save a ton of money, and as much as it shouldn’t be given up to attempt to lure crazies who hate Democrats and health reform anyway, I never really expected a strong public option to be included in the first place — I thought it was John Edwards inspired hippie communist fantasy.
The fact that there very well may be a public option is actually a continuing surprise for me — I never thought it would be seriously discussed to be included. (It wasn’t a feature of the plan Obama promoted during the campaign, for example.)
Also, bear in mind that as good and helpful as the discussed public option is, it’s really, really tiny and limited compared to what I think a lot of Democrats and liberals are thinking it is. I think a lot of people are letting themselves think that the public option actually being discussed is like the public option they’d prefer in their own heads, but it’s not.
The White House itself issued corrective statements to this Sunday’s comments.
To be honest, I have never really thought the administration was seriously committed to a public option as an overarching goal and were really only persuaded to seriously include it when the examination of the different options showed how helpful it would be in addressing costs. From much of the administration’s point of view it’s likely perceived as a technocratic and budgetary approach rather than a line-in-the-sand moral battle.
Read Krugman today, for example, particularly on the “Swiss” model by which universal and high quality and fair coverage is achieved through comprehensive regulation of private insurance combined with subsidy for people who find it difficult to afford.
So, while I can engage as well as any other left-liberal in long contests of how deeply the Democrats suck and the structural factors which make that so, even I haven’t yet concluded that there’s evidence that they will fuck this all up, or have already completely blown this, just that they’re still at their standard operating level of being a few inches away from fucking everything up. But then, they always are.
Glass Joe.
Just downloaded that game for the wii.
I don’t know why people keep saying we have 60 votes. We don’t. Senator Kennedy was too ill to even go to his own sister’s funeral. Do you really think anybody can say for sure that he would be able to come back and vote for cloture should he be needed? Hell no.
That doesn’t mean Dems are off the hook. But it does mean we need to not only be more honest about it but also make sure the media is reporting it correctly too because it seems for sure that we are going to need to pull one vote out of somewhere to get passed cloture. That is unless Senator Kennedy decides to step down and let Gov Patrick replace him which to me would make all the sense in the world but I doubt it will happen.
Take, for example, this FireDogLake post about how many progressive Democratic House members have stated they would not vote for a plan without a public option:
Fine. Good move. That should help.
But that’s not my entire reaction. My reaction is, why is this seen as something odd and exceptional and the result of lots of additional mobilizing and lobbying of these members?
Why isn’t it simply considered standard for liberal / progressive / etc Democratic elected members to clarify and take stands on what they will and will not vote for?
Why instead the passive / aggressive approach to hope that President Obama simply on his own or after a few discussions gives them what they want?
Conservative Democrats and ‘Blue Dogs’ etc. are accustomed to hollering and screaming and vowing and defying and all the rest to get their way. They’re getting out there and demanding this or that from Obama.
Not to be too Obama-centric in any legislative analysis, but if the administration is getting clear statements from more conservative quarters about what they will or will not vote for or that they will or won’t do this or that on a committee, and they’re not getting as much of that from non-conservative Democrat, who would you feel like was being serious and who wasn’t?
This sort of thing should be the norm, not some exception.
Cognitively Dissonant SaveFarris says:
“Average Americans don’t like being called thugs and Nazis, but that’s exactly what Obama’s doing. And his sliding polls are evidence of it.”
I suppose if you were watching “Wonkavision” that would be true, but the rest of us note the over use of Godwinian epithets are pointed at the Obama Administration. But that’s a trueism of the GOP tactic- find what makes you suck the hardest and stick it on your opponent- reverse projection.
My question is, why is the minority party holding America Hostage? If this were reversed there would be so many calling them “Un American”
and tarred and feathered anyone who dared ask questions
Like that time Obama had two people arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirts? Oh wait, that was someone else. Never mind.
SaveFarris – evidence, please, that Obama has “tarred and feathered anyone who disagrees” or ever called anyone a Nazi.
As for the Swiss model, I’d be all for it if I thought there were a snowball’s chance in hell that Congress could pass meaningful regulation. Alas, the pharma and insurance industries pour far too much money into K-Street for that to ever happen.
The reason they’re pouring so much money into the process is certainly not because they’re assured that they can resist the always-potentially-autonomous federal government. The reason they’re spending so much money on lobbying right now is precisely because they know that the odds of something actually being done are great. If they didn’t think much would get done, they wouldn’t be spending so much money and energy on this.
“…Oh, and the giant bills that ensue.”
Relatedly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16lives-t.html?scp=1&sq=Sara%20Paretsky&st=cse
The last paragraph is the kicker.
Sooner or later Obama has to realize that “bipartisanship” with paranoid nuts is pointless. No matter what concessions he makes, the right will still react with stuff like the first comment in this thread.
When the Republicans controlled the Presidency and both Houses, they never let anyone forget who was boss. We shouldn’t either.
Bipartisanship is something only people in the beltway like David Broder care about
Obama runs the risk of becoming Carter II if he does not make a stand.
“Obama runs the risk of becoming Carter II if he does not make a stand”
Please, let him take a hard stance, and his fall will be twice as big and with huge consequences.
SouthernQ and El Cid,
you need to update your talking points. Big Pharma is the good guy now.
I’m not giving any “talking points”. I was never a person arguing that the 2008 election ushered in anti-capitalist revolutionaries. OMG! Democrats have been working with Big Pharma! Shocking! Rather, I’m one of those who understands both the actual U.S. power structure and how the Democratic Party is usually much, much better for the vast majority of the nation.
Personally, I don’t vist liberal blogs in order to endlessly go round and round with right wing turds. I don’t go to right wing blogs (those which aren’t cowards about commenters) and beg and harangue *them* to see things my way. Nor do I go live 24/7 on soccer blogs complaining why soccer sucks compared to, say, basketball, or vice versa. I really don’t get you people.
However, a front pager at the Great Orange Satan that Obama did apparently support a public option during the campaign, but I sure as heck don’t recall it so it must have been kind of a back burner thing, or I’m just forgetful.
One has to appreciate the irony of somebody asking people to bring “honesty to the issue” when a few sentences earlier, he accused those who aren’t playing ball by his rules of “wanting people to suffer.” Because we know that the suffering of people can only be alleviated by the federal government. Talk about ego.
SaveFarris is absolutely right. It was Obama who talked up the hopey/changey rhetoric and how he was going to gather everybody around the campfire to get things done in DC. Now it’s “Sit down, shut up and get out of the way.”
We’re talking about legislation that will affect a good percentage of our economy. This is not something that gets pushed through because something “needs to get done.” That’s not how things should work. Why is it that the Democrats don’t want to allow time for debate? They want to take this gargantuan bill that hardly anybody has read and just pass it. Does that make sense to anybody?
People keep blathering about Canada, Great Britain, France, etc. Let’s look at something here that is central to this issue:
Canadian population: 33 million
French population: 61 million
British population: 61 million
USA population: 304 million
Do you see the difference here? We’re talking about rolling out a plan that will affect over a QUARTER BILLION people. This is not something that deserves to be rushed through (and don’t give me the response about reform being taken up 16 years ago and so doing it again now is not “rushing.” I’m talking about the BILL itself, not the overall reform). We’re talking about a huge effort that will cost TRILLIONS of dollars. This is legislation that DEMANDS vigorous and careful debate. Unfortunately, the politicians are too busy worrying about their summer recess.
Why is it that the Democrats don’t want to allow time for debate?
We’ve debated this for 40 years. Plus, even if we were to engage in debate now, all your side keeps bringing up is bull.
Do you see the difference here?
Yeah, those other countries have civilized health care, and the U.S. is at the mercy of Hugeass Insurance. But I thought that was old news.
LOL,
40 years debating what? A 1000 page bill that was largely unread. Real sound practice.
A 1000 page bill that was largely unread.
Well, there has been plenty of time now. Apparently opponents of the bill haven’t bothered to read it. If they had, we would been hearing substantive criticism, not the made-up twaddle about “government takeovers.”
We’ve debated this for 40 years. Plus, even if we were to engage in debate now, all your side keeps bringing up is bull.
This bill hasn’t been debated AT ALL. Again, stop with the nonsense about how long the ISSUE has been debated. This is about THIS particular bill.
And stop with the baby crap about “your side doing______.” That’s an intellectually cowardly way of saying, “We don’t want to debate the merits of this bill, we just want to DO SOMETHING.” A response like that is totally political because at that point, nobody cares if it will work or not. People just want the credit for “getting something done.”
This is about THIS particular bill.
Even if we limit it to those silly confines, conservatives are not seriously arguing the merits of the House bill. They’re bitching that its too long and will convert grandma to dust. It’s not serious.
BOO HOO HOO!!! HR3200 IS LOOOOONG!!! BOO HOO HOO!!!
WE HONEST AND FOR TRU CONSERVATIVS WOULD TOO READ IT IF WE HAD TIME, MAYBE YOU COULD GIVE US ‘TIL FALL 2012 TO THINK ABOUT IT
KTHXBAI
ALSO WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE THAN CANADA, SO, SHUT UP!!!!
Apparently opponents of the bill haven’t bothered to read it.
The real problem is, the supporters haven’t even read it.
The real problem is, the supporters haven’t even read it.
You can’t support it unless you read it, but it’s OK to oppose it without reading it?
LOL Quaker,
You mean like the provisions to gently council our grandparents towards the shining light that Sarah Palin brought to popular attention? Or the startling fact that federal employees would be exempt from the provisons of this bill? Perhaps you mean the unliklihood that private insurance could survive competition with a subsidized syatem that faces no real bottom line? Maybe it is the spectre of government rationing of healthcare that brother Zeke has committed to in writing. Is that the kind of critism you feel is missing from the debate?
Obama is on record as favoring the eventual destruction of the private option over time. Is the only reason not to believe him his past problems with the truth?
El Cid, your snark aside, the question is, “Why does it have to be one massive bill?” If somebody could choose what the biggest problem with our country’s health care system is, what would you say? And then why not address that particular issue first and then move on.
People always forget their history. Medicare was never going to cost more than $10 billion. Now it costs over $400 billion and is going broke. Yet, we’re supposed to just take this bill and pass it on through. Unreal.
Now it costs over $400 billion and is going broke.
And do you want to get rid of Medicare? Probably not. Why? Because it works. Sometimes expensive things work.
You mean like the provisions to gently council our grandparents towards the shining light that Sarah Palin
brought to popular attention?blatantly lied about.Fixed.
SQ,
Sarah gave it a stark name but she didn’t lie about it. While a rose may smell as sweet by any other name it still has thorns.
The real problem is, the supporters haven’t even read it.
It gets even better. I’ll bet dollars to donuts one of the *AUTHORS* hasn’t read it. Paging Sen. Kennedy…
It certainly was galling that our inexperienced young president saw fit to give the drunken coward of Massachusetts a medal for his accomplishments. We might search the rolls of congress from the revolution on and not find a lower snake in the grass than Ted Kennedy.
You mean like the provisions to gently council our grandparents towards the shining light that Sarah Palin brought to popular attention?
AO, I’m certain that you, like all sound-thinking opponents of this bill, have read every jot and tittle of the proposed legislation. Perhaps you could point us to the location of Ms. Palin’s “death panels”?
Maybe it is the spectre of government rationing of healthcare that brother Zeke has committed to in writing.
While we’re at it, AO, I call you on this one too. Where is this “commitment” from Dr. Emmanuel?
Sometimes expensive things work.
Enron “worked” too. Up until it didn’t.
People keep blathering about Canada, Great Britain, France, etc. Let’s look at something here that is central to this issue:
Canadian population: 33 million
French population: 61 million
British population: 61 million
USA population: 304 million
Do you see the difference here? We’re talking about rolling out a plan that will affect over a QUARTER BILLION people.
So, let me get this straight, Jay. My country didn’t need to worry about how long we debated health care because we had a smaller population? Did I get that right?
How about Britain and France? It’s not like people were rolling in the dough after the second world war there, yet…
So don’t blast to me about how you all are suffering monetarily in the recession. Don’t tell me that you are too big a population to have the gut understanding that a happy, healthy population work hard and well.
People lost their lives, their families, their homes and suffered immensely in these countries you just pooh-poohed because of their population. And yet, they had more balls to spend a little more money and have heaps more empathy for their fellow man than you apparently have.
“Sometimes expensive things work.
Enron “worked” too. Up until it didn’t.”
Obama’s fault, I know.
I agree with Jay.
It appears that the Canadian, French, and British experiments, while not perfect, have seen some success. As Americans, we have no excuse but to build on these successes.
Now if only his fellow conservatives would take his advice and do what he and Oliver are suggesting, stick to the merits and quit bringing up bizzaro world crap.
This bill hasn’t been debated AT ALL.
Well, at least you’ve admitted that the Republican hysteria isn’t “debate”. I suppose that’s a start.
Wait — on the one hand, WE HAVE 300 MILLION PEOPLE AND THIS MAKES HEALTH CARE REFORM MUCH MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN CANADA OR YURRUP.
And on the other hand, OMG WHY IZ IT 1,000 PAGES? SURELY DEATH PANELS ARE HID IN THUR.
A country with a smaller population is going to have a smaller tax-base as well. Arguing that a public system wouldn’t work in America because we’re too big is ridiculous.
“We might search the rolls of congress from the revolution on and not find a lower snake in the grass than Ted Kennedy.”
Way off topic, I know. But, seriously? Lower than Tom DeLay? Lower than Renzi? Ted Stevens? Richard Pombo? Tom Feeney? And that’s just relatively recent – you could go further back, to the Gilded Age, when the industrialists all but bought elections on both sides of the isle.
Come on, even Jefferson? That’s a gimme for you!
Lower than Tom DeLay? Lower than Renzi? Ted Stevens? Richard Pombo? Tom Feeney?
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Mary Jo Kopechne? Wasn’t that the intern that died mysteriously in Joe Scarborough’s office?
No, wait, maybe it was Bob Dornan’s wife?
Or was that the lawyer that Cheney shot in the face?
Maybe it was the madam that David Vitter frequented?
I know it wasn’t a page for Mark Foley…
No, I guess you stumped me.