Kill The Bill! Save The Bill!
Tweet
Where I am:
I don’t like that the public option is out. Not even the weak versions like the trigger, the opt-out, and the Medicare buy-in. That sucks, and Hell has reaffirmed the special place they have had on reserve for Joe Lieberman.
I also don’t think President Obama inserted himself in this debate enough. As I stated before, I think they strayed too far away from the Clinton model of being too involved in the crafting of this legislation. The strategic mistake of leaving Harry Reid in charge of anything will be remembered for history to record. In the midst of this most important legislation, Reid proved once again that he’s no Lyndon Johnson. He’ll go down in history as one of the weakest minority/majority leaders and frankly I hope he isn’t re-elected.
On the President personally, I reject the conspiracy theories that he’s a tool of corporate interests as the facts don’t bear that out, nor was I ever of the belief that he was uber-progressive. Barack Obama is on the cautious, deliberative center-left. That’s where he’s always been.
In an ideal world, this point in the debate would have been reached in August. But we live in the real world, and that’s why I think for all the good that isn’t in this bill, it should be passed anyway. We needed to get to the end zone, where we are is about on our own 44 yard line. “You play to win the game.”
On the course of this debate I’ve come to hate the U.S. Senate and if we played under the rules as they are used today, I would still be waiting for civil rights legislation to pass. But that’s also why I think the argument about scrapping the bill isn’t realistic. The best hope at getting something on the books is for the current bill to be passed before Christmas. Either that happens or I believe, health care reform goes on ice for another decade. Congress won’t be passing anything this controversial next year, an election year (if the Democrats are smart, they’ll be passing bills called “The Jobs For America Act” and “Employ An American Now Act”, etc.). Any law pushed after that will be a setup for the 2012 election, and so on. I doubt health care will come up again in this major a format until the post-presidential election.
The bill is what it is. The design and the mandates aren’t pretty (though I think Ezra Klein makes a decent pro-mandate case here), but I think it gives a framework for future, needed modifications. And sure, in the unlikely event Republicans take control of congress, they could dismantle it, but my guess is enough people get on board, that is as likely to happen as the elimination of Medicare or the privatization of social security – both conservative daydreams.
I favor passage.
I think ripping up the bill gives the teabaggers and the GOP what they want, and helps to feed into the growing Fox News narrative of Democratic indifference.
For this of course, I am an Obamabot Broderite Centrist. Despite everything I’ve ever written for the last 10 years, but so what?
98 Responses to “Kill The Bill! Save The Bill!”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
But, but…these are the same battle lines that was made regarding Iraq! Same players, same sides! Surely this means that dumping the bill is the correct, liberal thing to do!
/snark
Seriously, why can’t we just pass this thing and then turn around and push Single Payer/Public Option/Medicare Advanced through reconciliation? Is that against the rules or something?
Data shows that the weaker MA bill is broadly popular
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/17/815688/-Insurance-mandates-are-good:-see-Massachusetts
Didn’t people get enough of the “let the Democrats lose and we’ll do better next time” BS in 2000?
Is that against the rules or something?
Yeah, pretty much.
If I ask you to explain, are you going to give me a rational response, or a flippant one?
Not that I favor burning it all down and starting over, but assuming we would push something more aggressive through on reconciliation assumes Harry Reid has the balls to do so, and I’ve not yet see any evidence he has real mangerines, so.
A.
It is not against the rules, but what must be understood is that the Democratic senators like the filibuster as much as the Republicans. Each of them sees themselves as the next Lieberman or Snow able to stop or drastically modify a big bill that they don’t like somewhere down the line and they don’t want to give up that power. So sure, using reconciliation is a way around the filibuster, but most Democratic Senators (including Reid) are not looking for a way around it.
The bill doesn’t reduce costs and leaves tens of millions still uninsured. The whole rationale for this mess has flown out the window. Not sure why anyone on the left side of the aisle would still be for this except to give Obama some sort of empty victory. It surely won’t help the average joe in any meaningful way.
No reason we can’t do both.
Rational:
Reconcilliation is only applicable if you’ve got a budget bill. Public Option has been sold as revenue neutral. So if you strip away the other parts of the bill (eliminating Medicare “waste” specifically), then you’re left with something that doesn’t affect the budget one way or the other, so Reconcilliation isn’t an option.
Now, you know, I know, and Obama/Reid/Pelosi know that the Public Option WON’T be revenue neutral and will end up costing us more than we can imagine. (Just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicare D, Medicaid, SCHIP, ad nauseum). BUT, if Democrats were to admit that, they would lose even more support for a bill that doesn’t have all that much to begin with.
So they’re in something of a catch-22: keep selling that the Public Option won’t cost anything and lose the ability to ram it through with 50 votes. Or tell everyone what they already know and watch the bottom drop of their poll numbers.
Single Payer would actually be allowed passage using reconcilliation rules, since it would directly affect government spending. However, as I read the tea leaves (YMMV), I don’t see 50 votes for Single Payer. So, theoretically, you COULD bring it to a vote. But watching it fail to pass would, I imagine, be quite catostrophic for those on the Pro-Health-Reform side.
Flip:
Democratics care not for the rule of law anyway, so why all the hubub?
Thanks for your concern, william.
Mandating that people have to buy shitty, expensive insurance from the Aetna, BC/BS, et. al. without any price controls, or alternative (i.e. a public option), is a recipe for disaster –politically for the Dems and economically for everyone.
This is not “expanding” coverage, it’s forcing people to buy into a monopoly; it’s a sloppy wet kiss for the insurance industry.
Fuck Reid for compromising away everything worthwhile, and fuck Obama for not showing any leadership, and fuck ALL the Dems in the Senate for not fighting for something they’ve been campaigning on for forty years.
The Dem leaders have accomplished one thing: Out of all the possible outcomes, they managed to craft a bill that will please absolutely no one. The liberals were shat upon and demoralized, the independents will be irate when their healthcare costs go up and blame the Dems, and the Republicans will still vote against it and use it in every attack ad. Nice work.
Obama was the wrong choice. And now he and his bestest buddy Joe Lieberman are going to fuck us over.
I regret we didn’t work for Hillary, because this is something she obviously cares about. She’s willing to fight for it.
I’m ashamed I supported the wrong candidate last year.
The Lieberman/Obama bill coming out now is not progress, it’s regression. And as fucked as the GOP is with darlings like Palin, it’s clear that Ted Kennedy would be ashamed of Obama. As we all should.
This is a crap bill, and I’m looking forward to progressive Lib Senators like Sanders and Feingold killing it.
“It surely won’t help the average joe in any meaningful way.”
As if that was ever the actual pragmatic goal?
“For this of course, I am an Obamabot Broderite Centrist.”
Nah, you’re just another blogger/media whore trying to position yourself for a few extra bucks by not taking a position on something. You aren’t the crazy, wild eyed “liberal” who doesn’t link to dailykos, you’re just another de facto Republican who’s got an (I’ll be the first to admit) interesting blog with interesting discussion.
Barack Obama’s election was an amazing thing for America. Your inability to see that he’s really not that different from George W. Bush is terribly sad though.
I hope Media Matters pays you enough to not struggle with these realities at night. Specifically, that a vote for Obama was a vote for Lieberman.
But it was cute how you banned for me being a nasty, combative liberal. For fuck’s sake, just drop Charles Johnson a line and beg him to link you your site you fucking failure, you fucking coward.
I always forget that the claim of being a doubleplusungood concern troll trumps any substantive point made by a poster. Regardless of whether one thinks a bad bill is better than no bill, one has to admit that this has been a particularly sad, leaderless display of sausage-making.
As usual this is mostly conservative noise. The reason reconciliation isn’t being used is because Harry Reid doesn’t have the balls to do so, especially not this late in the game.
That anyone on the right can talk about rule of law after 8 years of Bush’s outlaw rule is hilarious.
Yeah, because if Hillary Clinton had been elected Joe Lieberman wouldn’t be an asshole and Harry Reid would get a spine transplant. Give me a break.
Congratulations on winning the illogical award. I laid out my position above. I don’t make any more or less money based on what my position on any issue is. I banned you for randomly attacking people, and I did the same for a conservative. I don’t like dickish.
Fap. Fap.
That’s an excellent argument, how could I argue with such logic?
There’s nothing illogical about it. It’s your ingrained desire to suck up to DLC bullshit and try and market it as “edgey.” And it’s really fucking sad.
But please, let us all know how bad it is that you’re being “attacked” by people who really want to make this country a better place. I mean, Howard Dean and Markos Moulitsas are totally crazy people unworthy of consideration, right? Isn’t the Iron Man movie about to come out or something? LET’S FOCUS ON WHAT’S IMPORTANT!!! BOOBS!!!
Honestly, this little game you try and play is so played out. You’re Oliver Willis the not crazy hippie liberal, and you’re willing to swallow down this Lieberman/Obama health care bill like it’s the second coming the the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. And that’s why you’re lame. You’re Bull-Moose blogger redux.
Yeah, you know me, always down for the DLC. I’ll never understand this emotional thing with liberals where, despite the 85% of the time you agree with them on things, when the 15% pops up it makes you clearly worse than Hitler.
I didn’t attack Markos or Dean, in fact as noted above I largely agree with them. But there’s thing called reality, and in reality does anyone seriously think the senate is going to turn on a dime? Jesus.
But go ahead with the personal attack in lieu of an actual argument, go howl at the moon.
And the Iron Man movie does look awesome.
I’ve linked it before and you’re too cowardly to link it again:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/rahm-to-reid-give-lieberman-what-he-wants.php
Obama, as he sucked Lieberman’s cock and nudged his pinky ring and asked “How Hard?”, turned real health care reform over to the Republican from Connecticut.
But that’s like, total changey hopey progress, right?
This is the best we could get without public financing of political campaigns. Plug your nose and pass it.
To hopefully turn thing down a notch, I honestly wonder if my vote for Obama was worth it.
Guantanomo Bay is still in operation. A failed occupation of Iraq is on-going. A failed occupation of Afghanistan is on-going. A laughable “surge” of our next Vietnam in about to happen. And if I ever decide to return to America, I’ll have to forcibly give an insurance company money despite the fact that I’m healthy and spry.
I’m always going to vote against Republicans because they are insane and hate America. I’ll think about voting for Dems, because at the end of the day they’re feckless asshole lead by the king of feckless assholes, Barack Obama, great friend of noted asshole Joseph Lieberman.
It’s nice to be mobile.
Well, at least you have the guts to admit that if LBJ had conducted himself on civil rights as Obama has on health care, neither Obama nor you would have been allowed to vote in the last election.
Seriously, we have finally come to the nightmare scenario: the Democrats are now bent on passing the absolute worst possible health care bill, one which will force millions of Americans to buy shitty worthless policies from corrupt monopolies while providing no meaningful cost containment and no meaningful insurance regulation. Go ahead, pass the fucking bill. I don’t care. I am resigned to its passage, just as I am resigned to losing the House in 2010 and the Senate by 2012. And while I’ll never vote for a Repuke, if Obama has any kind of primary challenge in 2012, I’ll support him or her completely.
Karl Rove used to dream about the coming permanent Republican majority. I bet not even he imagined that Barack Obama would be the one to make his dreams come true.
Actually the parallel was between LBJ and Reid, both majority leaders of the Senate. But people are not exactly being rational about things today.
What’s the alternative? Would Lieberman not be a dick if Clinton had won?
LBJ getting the Civil Rights bill passed in 1964 was a huge gamble that, honestly, screwed him to high heaven. But god forbid great people take great risks.
Obama doesn’t seem to be willing to take any sort of risks. He sends Rahm off to do his not actually very dirty work. But excuse me for wanting something great from out victory in November 2008 beyond “Nice family photos.”
But I should apologize to Oliver for being too liberal. I’d forgotten that his site was the second coming of Bull Moose Blogger or whatever the hell that reactionary asshole’s name was.
Leibniz all around.
Because Obama sending his hatchet-man Rahm to tell Reid to capitulate to Lieberman no matter what totally proves that Obama is the tired, sad wilting lily who was just so sadly unable to stand up to the Senator from Connecticut.
Don’t sweat it Oliver; Apparently Think Progress and Paul Krugman are also “tools” of the DLC.
Yeah, but he’s [william] a fucking
pervertconcern troll, Dude.Would Clinton have bent over and asked Lieberman where to insert?
I like fighters Oliver, not cowards. Don’t you?
I like fighters Oliver, not cowards. Don’t you?
Of course, but let’s not revise history in the process: Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, while at the same time Barack Obama opposed it. She was the steward of the failed health care reform during the first Clinton presidency. The argument that we would have a magical public option pony if HRC won is bunk (and she was a bigger supporter of mandates during the primaries than Obama). Our problem is with the conservative Dems in the senate and with Obama giving them leeway.
For God’s sake, make even one rational argument.
I’m totally torn here: I think the proposed healthcare bill sucks, but I love boobs. What’s a guy to do?
I have a question: What am I supposed to ‘gain’ if this bill passes?
No real price controls on the insurance industry, no public option to compete with it. I’m nowhere near eligible for medicare, even if it were put at age 50, but it would have been nice. Maybe they tie up a few “pre-existing condition” loopholes, as though Blue Cross wont be able to invent wholly new ways to screw over all the new customers now forced legally to buy their policies.
To my knowledge the only thing still making it through is that I will be mandated to pay money I cannot presently afford into the insurance apparatus that I know for a fact to be utterly broken, from experience working in medical billing and experience as a patient. Even assuming there are later going to be stipends made available for people to be able to afford insurance with, even if the whole prospect of being forced to buy a thing is made painless, why is this a good thing anymore?
Oliver, I will make a rational argument against passing this bill: I make 44k/yr. Right now I pay a little bit less that 7k in taxes, but if this bill passes, I’ll be forced–forced–to pony up an average of 17% off the top to the insurance industry. Not to mention that I have asthma, so that’s a preexisting condition, so let’s boost that up to 23.5% off the top.
So now, instead of making 44k/yr, I’m going to be taking home 33,700 before I get taxed!
I’m sorry, I’m willing to pay my taxes to ensure that my fellow Americans get healthcare; I’m willing to buy products that do what they’re supposed to; but being forced to buy a shitty product that doesn’t work and is ridiculously expensive, or being fined if I don’t, makes me unspeakably angry.
This failure, combined with Obama’s utter failure on gay rights, his lack of progress on reining in Wall Street, and the undeniable fact that he specifically thanked Joe Lieberman for his work, have all disgusted me to the point where I will support his primary challenger, should he most deservedly get one.
Hope and change, that’s what I voted for, and instead I got absolutely nothing.
Rex and Damien make the exact same points I do below. Why don’t you take your foul mouth and address their arguments since you won’t address mine.
This bill sucks.
So pass it already. We don’t need Lieberman and Nelson making it worse.
It’s the best we can hope for with the corrupt conservaDems and the lunatic GOP.
The only argument I can see for passing this bill is that it’s so horribly bad, it will create a huge public outcry that will force Congress to fix it, i.e. pass the bill it should have passed in the first place.
That’s what Ezra Klein’s argument for mandates boils down to:
If the reason this bill is so bad is because Obama felt he had lost the political capital to pass something better after months of “death panels,” “socialism,” “exploding deficits,” etc., then maybe Klein’s argument will play out the way he hopes. People will be so pissed off at the new system that no amount of screeching from the industry or conservatives would be able to stop a better bill from being passed.
If that’s the thinking on high, it’s the stunning combination of political cowardice and cynicism from the left that I have ever seen.
Oliver, I usually always admire and for the most part agree with you on your blog commentaries.
I draw the line here.
If you cannot call a stinking pile of shit-a stinking pile of shit-then you have taken a humongous step backwards.
They need to scrap the mandate. The progressives in the Senate should be saying scrap the mandate or no vote from them.
@CJ: They need to scrap the mandate.
Finally an opinion I think I can agree with.
Wow, Jaim, what’s gotten in to you?
I think you and I have similar feelings of betrayal though, having both lived in countries with well functioning single payer systems. I put a lot of hope in things getting better in America health care wise and know the power and liberation that government run health care can provide.
I think he’s having buyer’s remorse.
Yea, since we don’t have the choice to buy into a public option (which was like a compromise to the mandate). We shouldn’t be forced to buy insurance that we can’t afford now.
The Dems and the White House are really dropping the ball on this, and is only giving the Republicans the leeway to point out that even through the Democrats are in a majority they still can’t get anything done right.
The Reid as coward meme is wrong and has always been wrong. You give him way too little credit. He DOESN’T WANT the more progressive parts of the bill to pass. It’s that simple. And he’s not alone. Obama doesn’t want them either. Reid and Obama and many others have NO PROBLEM allowing Lieberman to be the scapegoat. The coward card fails with a modicum of rational thought. What’s he scared of, exactly? Passing a highly popular public option? Or the even more popular medicare by-in option? I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why Reid is so terrified to go the reconciliation route. Care to fill me in? Meanwhile, we can simply see the amount of insurance and pharma money entering the coffers of Democratic representatives to see the real motivation for this alleged “cowardice.”
In other words, it’s not Lieberman, nor is it Nelson or any other ludicrously labeled “centrist,” who’s at fault. It’s the mainstream Democratic party position.
Indeed. Good points all. It’ll take some serious re-working to make his bill remotely palatable.
You didn’t get nothing. You got a little bit. But not much. This bill as it is blows, as Rex and you clearly noted with specific examples. But things could be worse. Feel better? (It’s totally cool if you don’t.)
Oliver,
You’ve repeated the Reid-Sans-Spine meme repeatedly, yet have failed to back up that assertion with a cogent argument explaining what exactly Reid is afraid of. Simply put, why would he be afraid to put forth a bill through reconciliation which states quite simply: Medicare Buy-In for anyone 55 and up? That’s for starters. We can throw different highly popular one line Reconciliation bills into the mix and the question would be the same. Why, then, is he so afraid? I simply have yet to here a reason posed which passes the smell test. Can you fill me in? Thanks.
Reid wouldn’t shut down the endless Baucus stuff. He didnt want to put the public option in. His entire tenure of leadership has been a giant bowl of half steps and retreats. Why in God’s name do you think that such a weak-willed person would, with 8 days left until Christmas, go to something as radical as reconciliaiton?
I couldn’t agree more.
So what IS the goal, then? (This ought to be good)
Wow. Quaker in the Basement and Repacker Rider were right. It is a ton of fun to watch the tongs get heated.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/11/30/mike-huckabees-commutation-of-maurice-clemmons-sentence/#comment-193177
mmmmm… schadenfreude is delicious.
Thia basically comes down to a simple issue: Do you think reform will be possible in the future.
I don’t see how we ever get these folks back at the bargaining table once we give them the individual mandate. Thats all they want, and that’s the only reason a bill this weak even made it this far. Once we give them that, the game’s over. This issue won’t ever likely be revisited. No more tweaks. No new programs later.
If you think the Democrats will actually tweak and reform this bill further in the coming years, you probably think passing it is a good idea. If you think they will lack the political power or, after this bruising battle, the will to reform the bill further, you likely don’t.
Anyway, sink the bill and a small-bore bill gets passed through reconciliation. Obama is clearly not willing to let this bill die, and a lot of us don’t want to se individual mandates get passed if this is all we’re going to get for them.
For the love of god, stop acting like the world ends if this bill doesn’t pass. Obama’s election prospects are tied to the economy, not healthcare reform.
Yup.
Bringing up Hillary is probably a waste of time. But I have a hard time picturing her telling her chief of staff to go to Harry Reid’s office and telling him to do whatever Joe Lieberman wants.
I’m happy to stand by everything I’ve said. Please feel free to make logical counter arguments.
Why pass a shitty Lieberman/Obama bill?
No, kill it.
Oh please. You still can’t man up and admit that this isn’t Reid’s bill, it’s Obama’s bill. He had no interest in a real reform bill in the first place. He just wanted to put his name on a hopey-changey piece of legislation regardless of its actual impact on people. He twisted Reid’s arms so that he’d do whatever Joe freakin’ Lieberman wanted.
Not that there isn’t plenty of blame to go around, but most of it belongs to Obama.
And your oh so dignified defense? Claiming anyone who disagrees with you is “illogical” and providing no counter-argument.
Pathetic.
We voted for the wrong guy.
There you go again. Now Reid is “weak-willed.”
Or…. he simply doesn’t want the true reforms we are all talking about…. and weakness has nothing to do with it.
I have hard time picturing a lot of things, but having a hard time doing so doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen.
I truly hope you get your spirit back because it seems you lost it.
“Why in God’s name do you think that such a weak-willed person would, with 8 days left until Christmas, go to something as radical as reconciliation?”
That’s my point! Why wouldn’t he? The idea that he’s avoided the obvious step of reconciliation has NOTHING to do with his being weak-willed, cowardly or lacking in a spine (or any of the other similar charges you’ve thrown at him.
What ACTUALLY makes sense if you think about it logically for a minute, is he NEVER WANTED TO ENACT THOSE POLICIES FOR OTHER REASONS. It’s not a lack of courage. He’s simply corrupt. He’s bought and paid for by corporate interests. That’s it. Every time you wrongly blame his courage, you give him an out. I’ll ask again, what do you contend has had him so fearful of using reconciliation? What is he afraid of? What courage does he actually need to pass a VERY POPULAR provision via reconciliation? I literally have not heard a reasonable answer to this question in months of asking it to those, like you, who write off Reid’s inaction under a banner of cowardice. It makes no sense! We need to open our eyes and see the REAL incentives at work here. Reid is selling out to the insurance industry and we are letting him get away with it. If one thinks about it logically for a minute, the only conclusion one could arrive at is that Reid is ecstatic with Lieberman’s demands. What other answer makes any sense???
I realize I’m a broken record here, but Reid was under direct orders from Obama to give Holy Joe whatever he wanted.
This is about Obama, not Reid.
From what I’ve read it was more like Rahm went and told Reid to get it done. And get it done can mean many things not necessarily as give in.
I’m having a hard time seeing this bill as anything other than “Dear Americans: Fuck you. You know just where to shove your majority support for a public option. Love, Congress.”
And Rahm’s job title is — wait for it — “White House Chief of Staff.” Or do you really think he went rogue on this one?
Not really, no. But I can’t decide if this shit bill makes me want to move away or run for office.
soullite, disappointing as it is, this bill will not make it harder to engineer further reforms in the future. It’s not anywhere near everything we wanted, but it does set a new floor for coverage that it will be difficult to fall below. Even if Republicans gain control of congress they will find it very difficult politically to take away what this bill gives people.
As time goes on, two things will happen: either this bill will work far better than we expect, and there will be no need for much additional reform, or its weaknesses in coverage and cost control will become clear. In the latter case, even a congress similar in composition to what we have now will be more likely to make further reforms than to claw back the benefits that this bill bestows.
Simple fact is, you add up the Republicans, the Democrats who should be Republicans, the Democrats who are owned by the lobbyists and the spiteful self-centered asshole from CT, and we just don’t have the votes to push a decent bill through the senate’s arcane bill-passing ritual.
If this bill fails now, there won’t be another bill in this congress, and even if the Republicans make only modest gains in the off-year elections there won’t be a bill in the next congress. If and when Obama is returned with a fortified Democratic congress in 2013, he’ll have to start all over again at square one. Meanwhile, all the people who could be given insurance under the current bill won’t have insurance and thousands of them will die as a result. That’s too big a price to pay for the off chance that sometime over the next few months Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson will wake up and realize “hey, you know, those dirty fucking hippies have a point”.
That’s the calculus behind Rahm Emanuel’s message to Reid that Jaim is pissing his diapers about. Time to pass this bill, be happy about what we’ve gained, and start working toward getting the rest.
The bill as it stands now might be worse than nothing. The bill we’ll get at the 11th hour with all the arm twisting will probably be worse than what we have now. A mandate with the PO is a hand-out to insurance companies.
So kindly go fuck yourself.
*without the PO, even
Point being, I could actually get behind a bill with the argument that this is like the 1957 Civil Rights Act which was pretty meaningless but at least paved the way for substantive legislation in 1964.
But how is requiring people to carry insurance with the very same companies that currently ruin people’s lives an improvement? Companies will still be allowed to use the “fraud” argument when they decide to dump you because your tumor is too expensive to cut out, just as they do now.
The burden is on you and Joe Lieberman to show us what benefits people get (it’s clear what insurance companies will get). Personally, I’d rather have “nothing” as opposed to “something” cooked up and approved by Lieberman et al.
Obama bit off more than he could chew on this one, and he caved in to both the GOP and GOP-in-name-only folks from the beginning.
But how is requiring people to carry insurance with the very same companies that currently ruin people’s lives an improvement?
Because as odious as you and I find for-profit health care and the heartless insurance corporations, the simple fact is that they ruin fewer lives than they help. Agreed: they ruin far too many far more than is necessary, but as our side is fond of pointing out, when people have insurance – even insurance form the nasty evil corporate behemoths – they tend not to die as quickly.
You want to save lives: support this bill. You want to hold out for one you like better, fine, but keep in mind the number of people who will be dying for lack of insurance while you wait. And it will be a long wait.
Obviously I disagree. The whole point of the mandate was to recognize the enormity of the issue and more cynically, since there’s no way the insurance companies could disappear, throw a trillion-dollar bone to them to get them to deal in good faith. And for this mandate we were ideally to get the public option. OK, so Obama’s good friend Joe Lieberman and others kill that. Let’s continue to play ball. How about guarantee of coverage for very sick people? Nope. Insurance company lawyers will happily drop you when they find out you didn’t disclose to them that you were taking the wrong type of ashtma medication. How about an end to recission? Nuh-uh. Sick people are too darn expensive for for-profit businesses. Sorry. How about some substantive guarantee tying insurance premiums to inflation? Nada. We’re private insurers, remember!
There’s no “here” here. As I read elsewhere, you can’t even say this is a “program” that can be built on later. Shoveling money to the insurance companies isn’t a platform for anything, it’s a step backwards from where America should be.
But the emerging narrative is interesting. People who oppose this bill are wild-eyed idealists with no understanding of how serious adults conduct serious business. Thing is, I’d be willing to compromise on something less than a public option. At the start of this whole thing I thought the most important thing was that if you had a pre-existing condition you could still get reasonably affordable health-care. We could achieve that with a much smaller bill, not this dinosaur-sized hand-out to private businesses.
Kill it. Although Bernie Sanders might be the one who does, not Nelson or Snowe or Obama’s BFF Joe Lieberman.
And as I depart for a weekend out of town, let’s also remember that we could very well get stringent anti-choice legislation thrown in for good measure.
A step back on HCR and women’s rights! Huzzah!
You really think that the Senate Majority Leader is in the habit of taking orders from the President? I don’t agree with these concessions in the least, but let’s not pretend as if Sen. Reid is just a meat puppet.
Reid is corrupt or incompetent. How is either outcome a positive?
So we should have voted for McCain now?
As I’ve noted several times now, President Obama gets plenty of blame for this. But you continue to act as if Harry Reid – the majority leader of the US Senate – is just some guy walking around the Capitol building.
People who oppose this bill are wild-eyed idealists with no understanding of how serious adults conduct serious business.
Do you have enough straw for the whole farm? This isn’t a dividing line between idealists and being “serious”. It’s based on WTF you think Harry Reid is going to do in the next 6 days.
It’s a bitter pill, indeed. But Krugman also takes this position, as well.
I’m not sure whether to interpret the lack of answer to my question to mean that there isn’t one or that its simply more important or entertaining to complain circuitously about who is playing what level of the political game at which level of competency. That question is, again, what do I stand to gain if the bill passes?
If the answer seems insultingly obvious then I do apologize for my ignorance, but at this point I actually do need it spelled out for me because the main parts I was looking forward to were dropped and don’t see what I’m supposed to gain. I can’t afford insurance as it stands, and have no faith in the insurance industry whatsoever. What benefit do I enjoy of being mandated to pay money I don’t have into an obviously broken system? Or, what else is there in the bill that makes it worth the negative of having to hand money I don’t have over to erstwhile criminals?
Who says it’s positive? We both want to blame Reid, but you’re mistake is blaming his lack of appropriate action on being merely gutless, and not a corrupt, bought and paid for operative for big insurance. Your position implies that he WANTS these progressive reforms, but simply lacks the courage to fight for them. My position, which is the correct one, implies that he DOESN’T WANT these reforms and never did. He’s playing us.
Both positions make the guy a weasel, but there is still an enormous, fundamental difference between them.
Additionally, one could make the exact same case for Jesus Chri… er… Barack Obama. He’s played us as well.
From what I understand, there’s a proposal in the Senate right now that’s actually gaining some ground.
Basically, for every ten thousand dollars you pay, Joe Lieberman gets to either slap you as hard as he possible can five times in a row, or he gets to poop on something you love.
BUT you get to choose which.
Obama calls it a healthy compromise.
Well thank god for that. Some kind of bill will pass and it will be called a compromise. I mean it would be awful if after all of this horror there werent some kind of bill passed. I mean if that were the case it would become abundantly obvious that the Democratic leadership were incompetent spineless twerps. At least this way its marginally less obvious.
Know what? Fuck it, I’m campaigning for Palin in 2012. She’ll be the worst possible thing to ever happen to the country but dammit she’s the leader we deserve.
I’m with Rex here, even though I’m in a slightly different category. I currently have what is laughably considered to be a “good” plan with my employer. A “low-deductible” plan, ha fucking ha. Recently had to have 3 endoscopies within 6 months, and guess what? In addition to the $550 that comes out of my check each month,the substantial premium paid by my employer, and the $250 copay for each one, I still owe almost $12,000 and no end in sight! This shit is going to bankrupt me, and soon.
I had hoped for REAL healthcare reform. I knew we wouldn’t get single-payer, but I had hoped for real, affordable coverage. That ain’t in this bill.
I say kill it, let us limp along with what we have, and try again for single payer in 2011. For now, Obama should concentrate on jobs, jobs, jobs, and if people are going back to work right and left in 2010, we’ll keep our majorities.
In the meantime, we can all hope Lieberman gets hit by a bus or has a stroke or something.
Meanwhile, all the people who could be given insurance under the current bill won’t have insurance and thousands of them will die as a result.
A small point of order, if I may. The bill currently under discussion doesn’t kick in until 2013. So even if it were to be passed by the House & Senate then signed this afternoon, “all the people” will still die. This bill helps them not one wit.
Obviously I disagree.
Apparently on no rational basis, at least as far as anything I said in my post.
Okay Jaim, let’s say we kill the bill. Then what? Your move.
I think we can all agree that the “healthcare” in the bill is worthless. But note that the Senate Dems really wants to pass something, so I think the best we can hope for is a bill that doesn’t prohibit reproductive rights, and some reasonable control on the “mandate”.
Then it goes to conference and maybe we get something back.
But reconciliation, something we should have done months ago, will never happen. If it was an option, would have been done already. Fuck just about everyone in the senate. Idiots.
@Rex Mundane: “She’ll be the worst possible thing to ever happen to the country but dammit she’s the leader we deserve.”
Loaded word, deserve. Americans are arguably lazy, complacent, deluded and easily led around by the nose. OTOH, the current squeeze between corporations and corporate news conglomerates makes it harder than ever for them to self-educate and organize, even allowing for the will to do so. Pity or contempt, I can’t make up my mind.
But save the bill but kill the mandate. Is this legislatively possible?
Anything that annoys McCain and disappoints Lieberman and the other senatorial whores can’t be all bad.
SaveFarris, many of the provisions of the bill would kick in immediately resulting in more people getting more and better insurance.
As for those that don’t, well if we can this bill and try to introduce a similar one in 2013 (at the earliest), then it’s likely that many provisions of that bill couldn’t take effect until 2017 or thereabouts.
Sorry about your situation, Bruce, but if you think there’s a snowball’s chance that we’ll get any meaningful movement on healthcare in 2011 if we flush this bill now, you’re very mistaken.
Dude, come down off the ledge.
Honestly, this little game you try and play is so played out. You’re Oliver Willis the not crazy hippie liberal,
I thought he was Oliver Willis the Pineapple Negro.
It’s still the first quarter.
You’re probably right, Wilbur. Deep, heavy sigh.
By the way, I only used myself as an example, not in a bid for sympathy. I’m no worse off than millions of other working class joes in this country.
and try again for single payer in 2011.
Try again? When did this collection of wussies and corporate whores try the first time?
Best of luck btw, Bruce.
And now for the obligatory smug Canadian. I slipped and fell rather hard on the ice a couple of days ago and found myself heading into my nearest Emergency to have the old back checked out. In and out was about two hours, including x-rays and customary poking and prodding. They patted me on the head and sent me on my way with 6 percocets and a prescription for a nerve pain blocker of some kind. Naturally, all that was covered except for the scrip that I had filled a little later. That set me back about 26 bucks. But we are all dying in the street, right? Damn you socialized medicine!!
A compromise would be one thing. But compromise is a two-way street. This bill gives us nothing. It might actually be worse than nothing when we find out what little turds re: eroding abortion rights are snuggled in at the last second. Nobody here has shown how this bill isn’t worse than nothing.
Obama should have the humility to realize that passing this bill in the name of his legacy and calling it the “Ted Kennedy Health Care Act of 2009″ is a cynical, cruel joke. And that he f’ed up big time in not holding some town meetings and not making it clear that substantive health care reform is something Americans, even in Nebraska, want. But he didn’t have either the nerve or the desire (I suspect the latter, i.e. he just wanted something passed that he could sign for his hopey-changey legacy).
So now we get the worst of both worlds: a shit bill that will still allow the GOP to criticize Obama and the Dem leadership for being cowards who will curl into little balls whenever Lieberman snaps his fingers.
Report card at the end of year one? F-
I guess it’s true, the past does meet us in the future. Sad, indeed.