The Perfect Pony Is Dead
Tweet
You cannot get the perfect pony. It is a mythical creature that doesn’t exist. Sort of like the perfect health care reform.
What would be ideal would be some form of a single-payer system here in America. The problem is we don’t have a zero moment here, a time when we can just hit “pause” and make it so. Here’s Obama back in 2007:
“If you’re starting from scratch,” he says, “then a single-payer system”—a government-managed system like Canada’s, which disconnects health insurance from employment—“would probably make sense. But we’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.”
I’d go a step further and point out that even when Democrats had 60 votes in the senate, they never had a progressive enough majority to make such a thing happen. Anything that progressive was off the table once you have people like Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, Max Baucus, and Kent Conrad among others with powerful seats at the table. That doesn’t even take into account the vehement, hysterical opposition from even supposedly moderate Republicans let alone the conservative ones.
We are unlikely to see single-payer health care enacted in one fell swoop in America any time soon.
So the next best thing was the public option, and I’ll be the first to say the White House fumbled on it. They didn’t come out strongly in favor and they let congress do the detail work (always a recipe for a mistake). I would argue that this White House was trying to avoid the fate of the 1993 reform attempt in which the Clintons were regularly seen as being too involved in Capitol Hill work. As Steve Benen points out, now that the White House is more involved, congress is already bitching.
While the whip counts for public option via reconciliation keep increasing, I think it’s doubtful we’ll see it in a final bill from the House and Senate.
So what is to be done? I think the bill that exists now should be passed. Not because I think it’s a wonderful bill – it isn’t – but because three months into an election year it’s likely to be the best possible plan that is politically feasible. I think the bill has some clear upsides, and while not the perfect pony it at least gets us up and running like a seed investment.
I understand those with qualms about the reform package, but for any Democrat to be against it on those grounds seems to signify non-realism. There’s essentially nothing in Washington that comes out exactly how activists want it to, and while the best solution should be your eventual gold it doesn’t make sense to search for a perfect pony rather than get what you can get accomplished.
71 Responses to “The Perfect Pony Is Dead”
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
There’s a big difference between not getting it right, and getting it so wrong that things will be worse than doing nothing. There’s just no upside, either politically or more importantly policy-wise, in mandating coverage within a broken insurance system, with no protection against rising costs, discrimination for existing conditions, and simply being denied care under recission as people are now. It’s feudalism–exploitation of the American people under the guise of “protection.” How can we advocate passing a system where people will be forced pay more to a private company, than they do to our government in taxes?
To say it’s not realistic is to simply admit that Congress is dysfunctional and not acting in the public interest. Democratic leadership is actually telling their people to vote NO on a public option, because it would “complicate things.” How passing the single most important piece of the puzzle–the part that breaks the private insurance paradigm and puts a competitive player into the market–is a complication rather than a huge win-win for the party and the country, I cannot fathom.
I think I’ve finally figured out why I get so frustrated with this intra-Dem debate. This post kind of nails it — a few months ago, when some of us cried foul as to the details of Liebercare, not to mention the well documented fact that Obama told Rahm to play nice with Lieberman, Baucus, Snowe, etc., and throw more progressive senators under the bus, Oliver and others sternly lectured us wild-eyed crazies as to how we had no grasp of reality, how we didn’t understand the need for compromise. In fact, what we’d been saying all along was that Obama needed to get rid of Rahm and/or tell him to drop the “third way” bullshit and stop thinking there’d ever be a hope of bi-partisanship with the party of No.
So now it’s this “pretty pony” stuff, as if people who questioned Obama and the eventual Senate bill didn’t actually have a stronger grasp of reality than White House apologists did. We’re the ones who cried foul when Obama let it be known that his good friend Princess Lieberman would get his way, no matter what. We’re the ones who told you that it was unrealistic to ever expect the GOP to come on board with any meaningful reform. And for the most part (excepting Oliver’s nemesis the ultra-powerful doom priestess Jane Hamsher) we decided fine, after all the bumbling and missteps and appeasement and Rahm-style triangulation we’ll pinch our noses and support this bill as a possible stepping stone to something good.
So yet again we get this framing of “hard-nosed realists like Oliver are right, and the supposed legions of Hamsherites are unrealistic hippies with their heads in the clouds and we should be thankful for the turd sandwich that is Obama/Liebercare.”
No. Wrong. Uh-uh.
We’ve been right about pretty much everything so far. Obama was far too willing to give up too much too soon, and then he failed to insert himself into the congressional debate like a president who gives a damn should. We’re the realists here. We understand how power works, and how hell-bent on not budging the GOP is.
So I hope this bill passes but honestly, I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m honestly eager to see Obama actually fight for something, but it hasn’t happened yet.
And I’m still waiting to hear how mandates without price controls are going to be better for Americans in the short term.
Oliver and others sternly lectured us wild-eyed crazies as to how we had no grasp of reality, how we didn’t understand the need for compromise
December 2009:
We’re the ones who told you that it was unrealistic to ever expect the GOP to come on board with any meaningful reform.
June 2009: Bipartisan My Ass
July 2009: Time To Go Kevorkian On “Bipartisan” Senate Health Care Talks
September 2009: Strength + Weakness Signaled From Obama On Health Care
Please, keep the mythology coming. No doubt I’ll read at some point that I was in favor of the Iraq War and get my jollies from kicking puppies.
Oh please. You are quite adamant in lecturing us that criticizing Liebercare or hell, even questioning mandates without cost control, are a sure sign of crazy, fringe-hippy “PUMA”-ness. Hence your bizarre post on Jane Hamsher.
You were also at the head of the charge on the whole “Obama is no longer a senator thing, just a poor wittle dude with no say in what Reid and Pelosi are up to.” I know this because that’s exactly what you told me when I refused to jump on the “Realist, serious guys like me know we have to pass Liebercare in order to get real HCR.”
And now that I actually agree with the latter position, we still get these strange attempts from you to delineate who the “real” left is, as opposed to the hippie blogger overlords who apparently have mind-control powers over Obama.
Strange days indeed.
You are quite adamant in lecturing us that criticizing Liebercare or hell, even questioning mandates without cost control, are a sure sign of crazy, fringe-hippy “PUMA”-ness.
Really? When? I don’t mean in your imagination. Show me when I said anything resembling that. What I did critique were the cries of Hamsher and others that we should kill the bill and start over back in Nov/Dec when such a prospect was beyond ludicrous.
You were also at the head of the charge on the whole “Obama is no longer a senator thing, just a poor wittle dude with no say in what Reid and Pelosi are up to.”
Again, show your work. As I said then, Obama is to fault for not pushing hard enough but at the end of the day he’s not the boss of the senate. He’s the president. Reid is the majority leader. The congress is not subordinate to the president. You keep making this accusation of what I said and yet I never said it.
Ever notice that for all I don’t like about Pelosi I have rarely criticized her on the health care issue? Wonder why? She got her job done. She got the votes. Just like she did for cap & trade and the stimulus. The “leader” gumming up the works here has a name that sounds a lot like “Harry Reid”.
we still get these strange attempts from you to delineate who the “real” left is
Perhaps because there are attempts by some like yourself to claim that despite years of evidence, some of us aren’t liberals or progressives or whatever because we think the best course of action is to pass a flawed bill rather than no bill. Perhaps because people make baseless accusations where the only citations are imaginary.
Perhaps.
I think I’ve said at least five times in the past two days that I’m for passing the bill in its current state. And no, I’m not your Google-monkey. You know that you were bending over backwards to defend the crapitude that was Liebercare once it was announced. It’s only recently you’ve seen the light re: Obama has made some crucial errors of judgment.
Bitching about the imaginary super-powers of one Jane Hamsher and slurring the other bloggers at FDL won’t help get this done. Trying to slur any Dem who opposes the current bill might actually help in a tactical sense, but long-term it’s a pretty crappy thing to do to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party who are once again being asked to STFU for a watered-down bill that we might not even get. (That’s what slays me, honestly — Liebercare hasn’t even passed yet.)
Obama and Reid are both to blame for the current state of affairs. I just happen to think the mother-loving President of the United States of America has more power than you do, when it comes to using the bully-pulpit so to speak or when it comes to hiring staff members who aren’t so incredibly incompetent re: handing the keys over to Lieberman so early in the game. And unless Obama is a great big liar, he’s been effusive in his praise of Reid on HCR. Maybe that’s some sort of maneuver, or maybe it’s an acknowledgment that it wasn’t Congress that screwed the pooch on this one, but Obama himself.
I know, right? Which is why HCR has already been passed!
You’re on fire Donna!
I dunno, you’d have to ask Jane Hamsher!
I keed Oliver, I keed.
My favorite part of this whole debate was definitely Flood the Zone, which lasted all of about 24 hours. Effective!!!
I agree with Olbermann and Howard Dean: Kill the Bill.
And no, I’m not your Google-monkey. You know that you were bending over backwards to defend the crapitude that was Liebercare once it was announced
Thank you for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts. Don’t make baseless accusations you can’t backup and respond with “you know”.
Farris,
Howard Dean does not say “kill the bill” anymore. That was back in November/December, if not later. He is NOW saying, pass this bill — and keep fighting so that, later, a public option or Medicare expansion is passed.
That’s Dean’s vow — “I will fight for a public option until we get one” — and, as always, I stand with Dr. Dean.
Pass this bill, then get to work for health care reform.
Why not start over?
The republicans want reform of the insurance industry, including pre-existing condition fixes and selling insurance across state lines (to drop the cost and increase competition). You could actually draft a bill that improves some of the biggest problems in the health insurance industry and do it with bipartisan support.
Of course we would have to give up the “Chicago Way” boodle, no extra millions for nebraska or LA. No union kickback deals…but hey, I think even democrats would go along with that. Well, democrats that aren’t trying to toady up to the white house so they get the occasional invite to “exclusive” white house events…..
You know that you were bending over backwards to defend the crapitude that was Liebercare once it was announced.
That’s just bullshit, Jaim. Oliver was very upfront in his criticism of the bill; he just realized like a lot of us, that we’d reached a point where we needed to take what we could get in this go-round.
Now, you’ve come to the same realization. Bully for you. But Oliver was way ahead of you, and Jane Hamsher, on that score, so just put a lid on it for pete’s sake.
What, you mean Farris’ link doesn’t mean what he says it does? Shocking!
The republicans want reform of the insurance industry…
No they don’t, i.l. If they did they would have done something about it in the eight years they controlled the whitehouse prior to 2009, and in the twelve years they controlled congress prior to 2012.
If they did they would have worked on including their ideas in a compromise package with the democrats instead of trying to create Obama’s Waterloo by obstructing anything and everything.
This is why we cannot start over. If we start over the republicans will not act in good faith and will delay and obstruct as long as they can. Nothing will ever get done, and by the time it becomes obvious to everybody that health care costs are devouring our economy, reforming it will be like doing a 360 in a bathtub with the Queen Mary.
sorry, …prior to 2006.
The Republicans will not act in good faith in any case, so that’s immaterial. And this bill does nothing to control health care costs; it simply forces everyone to give more money to the insurance companies (and hey, I’m sure they’re perfectly happy to cover people with pre-existing conditions in exchange for that crap-ton of cash). Pass it or don’t pass it, either way it does not fix the problems with health care in this country.
And what it does do, is give cover to those Dem legislators who will now say “let’s just wait until after 2014 before we take a look at whether this ‘reform’ we passed is actually doing what we want.” So we’ll kick the can down the road 4 or 6 or 10 years, and in 2020 we’ll be faced with doing this all over again; with the added “benefit” that “the Dems tried reform in 2010 and look what happened, they can’t fix it.” Bonus.
Kill. The. Bill. Start over, yeah it’s gonna suck, but it’s the President’s fault for letting the industry and conservadems get their grubby paws on the process. Suck it up and do it right this time. Say to the Republicans, OK, we’re gonna start over like you ask, but this time you really will be shut out of the process. Completely.
Yes, he is. But the last time I looked, people didn’t dream about one day being elected Majority Leader. The Majority Leader is not elected by all the people. The Majority Leader is not considered to be the leader of his party. So if you’re going to try to give the President a pass because he’s just helpless in the face of the rotten leadership of the Majority Leader, you’re just reaching for an excuse. There’s nothing stopping the President from rolling over the Majority Leader in order to push his legislative agenda, except this: if he truly doesn’t care about the issue, or if he agrees with the Majority Leader’s position. If President Obama truly doesn’t feel strongly about the public option, which is counter to what he campaigned on, then I can see why he’d be content to let Harry Reid do whatever he wants.
However, I do feel strongly about the public option. I want the President to fight for it. I don’t want “reform” to include a mandate unless there is a public option. If the legislation proposes a mandate without a public option, I’m going to advocate that the legislation be defeated, because I think it is bad legislation. It’s sad that that also means forgoing the good things in the bill, but those don’t in my opinion outweigh the badness in having a mandate without a public option. Indeed, they strike me as tidbits cynically inserted into the legislation to try to make it hard for me to oppose it. Those good things could also be done in legislation that creates a public option, so I don’t give them much weight. The lack of a public option is a deal-breaker. It is not “insisting on purity,” it is my philosophical principle and I am not willing to compromise a core principle. Kill the bill.
Regarding that “imperfect pony” that Democrats are frantically trying to shove down America’s throat:
The CBO has revised their estimate to indicate that ObamaCare will now only result in a $118 billion defit reduction over the first 10 years. Unfortunately, that’s a little more than half of the deficit that the Obama, Reid and Pelosi budget gave us just for the month of February alone.
So let’s recap: The “savings” that will theoretically result from the imperfect-but-must-be-passed-immediately ObamaCare legislation were wiped out in just 15 days.
Can we drop the charade that the Democrat “adults in charge” know what in the hell they’re doing?
January 2011 can’t come soon enough.
The Majority Leader is not elected by all the people.
The majority leader is elected by the members of the senate who are elected by the people.
The Majority Leader is not considered to be the leader of his party.
If we could pass health care reform at a DNC meeting you *might* have some kind of point there.
There’s nothing stopping the President from rolling over the Majority Leader in order to push his legislative agenda, except this
Really? How? Show your work. Give us historical examples of a POTUS ordering the majority leader of the US senate around.
For bonus credit, ask Bill Clinton how it worked out when he tried to push the congress around on health care.
I’ll give you a head start: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution
People don’t like my characterizations of others on this issue, but when you insist on a completely unrealistic usage of presidential power it’s hard to take you guys seriously.
Say to the Republicans, OK, we’re gonna start over like you ask, but this time you really will be shut out of the process. Completely.
So what will be different? Republicans were shut out of the process, completely, the first time around. Which is why Democrats own this crappy legislation 100%.
I’m gonna note that for the records, just so we don’t have a repeat of the GOP trying to take credit for the economic boom under Clinton.
Unfortunately, that’s a little more than half of the deficit that the Obama, Reid and Pelosi budget gave us just for the month of February alone.
Wait. Now any legislation that doesn’t eliminate the entire deficit is no good?
Latest Democrat approach to passing ObamaCare: Pass It Without A Vote?
Unfortunately, there’s a pesky thing call the Constitution (specifically Article I, section 5 subsection [3] which states “…and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.”) which gets in the way of this plan.
As long as 90 Republicans in the House call for the Yeas and Nays (which you can bet they will), a recorded vote “SHALL” be taken, because the House Rules Committee cannot impose a rule that denies House Members their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to demand a recorded vote.
The failure of Democrats to read (or understand) the Constitution doesn’t mean that somehow the Constitution can be ignored.
I wonder what our “Constitutional scholar” President thinks about this maneuver?
You don’t have to worry about the GOP claiming credit for an economic boom under Obama… there won’t be one. And you can note that for your records.
Yeah, I read the GOP House leadership’s blog too.
Considering this is the same GOP that all voted against Clinton on economics, I’ll take that bet.
Here’s something that continues to irritate me, and you know I’m largely with you, O. I’m getting tired of people apologizing for supporting the bill. Every time you defend the bill, Oliver, you go out of your way to point out that it’s not the perfect bill.
What bill, in the history of this country, was perfect? Come on?
This is one of the many things that we just continue to not get compared to the right when it comes to politics. We continue to apologize for good things.
Let’s see, over thirty million more people will be covered under this plan. Insurance companies won’t be able to turn away preexisting conditions, and we’re going to save money at the same time? Screw apologetic language and caveats. I don’t see why someone left of center, such as myself, should have to qualify, apologize, or mitigate my support for something like that. It’s ridiculous.
“Regarding that “imperfect pony” that Democrats are frantically trying to shove down America’s throat:”
Dave willfully does his part to spread the talking points “down America’s throat.”
Good boy, Dave. Good boy.
I use the Kristol Method. Anything Bill predicts, bet the opposite happening. I am never disappointed.
we’re going to save money at the same time?
You almost had me going there …
Insure 30 million people.
Stop Insurance companies from paying claims on preexisting conditions…
AND
Save money at the same time ?
It can’t be done, and that’s why … wait for it … IT’S A BAD BILL !!!
Frank, it’s been clear since Day 1 that no matter what the Democrats proposed, you and all your Republican jackass friends were going to oppose it. Deflect, obstruct, deny, delay, delay, delay. You would be calling it a bad bill no matter what it said or did.
My guess is that you don’t even know what is in the bill. Since you knew you would oppose it before it was even a reality, why would you waste your time reading it and understanding it?
I’m sick of you and your kind. This isn’t a fucking game. There’s only one party that even seems to give a shit about helping out the American people right now. It’s just too bad that they seem to suck at this whole governing thing.
Pass the fucking bill already.
And you’re going to be sooooo upset if you’re wrong, aren’t you? Because even though the country will be doing better, that means that your party will be in the minority for a while longer.
And we both know which of those two things is more important to you.
[...] Of them, Oliver Willis’s personal blog is one. Today, though, I left the following comment to this post on the ongoing healthcare reform battle: Here’s something that continues to irritate me, and you [...]
Are you saying that the boom while Clinton was president was due to him, and the GOP had nothing to do with it?
New CBO analysis says the Senate bill reduces the deficit. Still.
Show my work? How about using common sense? Does the President not have a phone that he can pick up at any time and call any Senator’s office any time he wants? Does he not have a staff who can also do so? Does he not have a domestic policy advisor whose job it is to spearhead his domestic policy planning? It’s not a separation of powers issue, the President isn’t just unilaterally passing his own legislation. But the President also isn’t just another schlub with no influence and no ability to lobby the Congress. Don’t be disingenuous. If the Majority Leader is a problem, the President can go around him.
As far as historical examples of the President pushing the Senate Majority Leader around, the point is he usually doesn’t have to. Usually the Majority Leader doesn’t stake out positions contrary to what the President of his own party is advocating. That’s why I said it makes sense that he’d let Reid alone if he truly wasn’t committed to the public option and real, effective health insurance reform. Which is counter to what he campaigned on, what people voted for him for, and what people want.
Frankly I could care less about the deficit. What I care about is people getting the health care they need. Now, this is from November of last year so maybe something has changed, but when I read this:
…it starts to look less and less like real reform and more like “reform.” I.e., something we can point to at election time and say “see, we passed health care reform! Yay us!” I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough.
Submitted too soon. Here is my link: Washington Post article
I have already expressed my opinion on medical care in this country…
Millions of people who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid don’t have it… A few simple steps could bring it to them.
Many people between say, 21 and 35 , don’t get sick often enough to want a medical plan. They are willing to pay for medical care out of their pocket. Let them .
I am terribly concerned about children until they are aged 16, or possibly 18; and pregnant women trying to carry their babies to term.
Nearly everyone else can be covered by expanding Medicare and Medicaid.
If you can’t write the right kind of bill, resign your seat and go home… Congressmen and Senators are supposed to craft legislation. If they can’t do it, fire them.
BTW, don’t even try to tell me you know what’s in that bill — I’ll bet even the CRS doesn’t know what’s in that bill .
The pony is off to the glue factory.
Put the uninsured and folks with preexisting conditions on medicare, raise medicare taxes on everyone, and be done with it.
Oh, absolutely. Running huge deficits to bankrupt the Communists or blow up Iraqis is fine, but start talking about helping Americans and all of a sudden it’s ZOMG THE DEFICIT!!!!!!!!11!1!
And they harangue liberals for their “situational ethics,” with absolutely no sense of irony or shame. Reprehensible people.
Let me get this straight: because Republicans were shut out of the health care legislation process in 1993 (which is untrue but let’s assume it), therefore the 2009-10 health care legislation which incorporates many Republican proposals, was partially written by industry lobbyists, and which the Democratic leadership literally bent over backwards across the aisle trying to get even a single Republican vote in support (fruitlessly) is 100% on the Democrats?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Sigh.
If the Majority Leader is a problem, the President can go around him.
HOW. Explain yourself. Ask any president how easy it is to just order senators around. As I said, ask Bill Clinton. Hell, ask George W. Bush on the Dubai ports deal. Congress doesn’t just go “how high” when a president says “jump”. It’s never worked that way.
I have already expressed my opinion on medical care in this country…
“I got mine, so fuck you.”, right?
Nearly everyone else can be covered by expanding Medicare and Medicaid.
So why do you oppose medicare buy-in?
Yes, Oliver. Reducing it (over 10 years) by the amount of BRAND NEW deficit that the Democrats added in just 15 days in February.
Hurray for Democrats!
Sorry we have to spend to get out of the hole Bush dug. I’d rather not, but hey.
“Hole?” Trying yawning abyss. That ignorant dipstick screwed us over for generations to come.
“I got mine, so fuck you.”, right?
No – why do you just make things up?
How about this? “I will feel so good knowing that the Health Care Bill passed, that I don’t if it ruins our health care system, and puts us into the hole for the next fifty years,” right?
So why do you oppose medicare buy-in?
Of course you know, I never said that, and please don’t tell me I said it four years ago, but you can’t link to it because Oliver’s archives don’t go back that far.
No, but the President is certainly able to wield influence and apply pressure in ways not specifically listed in the sections of the Constitution describing the powers of his office.
I know. That’s never happened before.
“It’s all Bush’s fault”. How shocking and unexpected.
Of course you know, I never said that
Care to make your stance on that here and now?
I did explain myself. You pick up the phone (or your domestic policy advisor does, in your name), call the other 56 Democratic Senators and start lobbying for your legislation. You tell them back my play or you don’t get help from this White House. Did you not watch The West Wing? That’s what Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman did almost all the time; that was his job. And don’t tell me “that’s just TV,” they had consultants who had actually worked in the White House advising them on that show.
I’m not saying it’s a guaranteed win. But the Dubai ports deal wasn’t killed simply because the Majority Leader was against it; it was killed because most of the Congress was against it, in a truly bipartisan way. Here we have a case where many if not most of the Democratic Senators support a public option; it only was dropped because the President didn’t fight for it and the Majority Leader wanted to try to get Republican votes to avoid a filibuster. He compromised it away and got nothing in return, and it shouldn’t have happened that way. It wouldn’t have happened, if the President had truly wanted to fight for the public option. Since he didn’t, and he campaigned on the public option, he was either lying about wanting it or he was lying about how strongly he wanted it. There is no third option there. And I’m disappointed in him for that.
Yeah, remember that massive budget surplus that Bush left Obama, then the libtards were all like, “I hope we don’t pay off the debt too fast, that would be, like, real bad and stuff.” Remember that? That was awesome.
That ignorant dipstick screwed us over for generations to come
I’m sure that’s what future generations will be thinking about the $10 trillion in additional debt that Democrats are adding added on top of the $5 trillion that Bush gave us.
And yet how so very true.
Yeah, because the Republicans pitched a hissy-fit about raising taxes on the rich to close the gap. Can’t have that! Screw the poor instead!
herefore the 2009-10 health care legislation which incorporates many Republican proposals
That would be “several”, not “many”. And so what? There are parts of the legislation that poll very well, but overall the majority say “thumbs down” to the whole thing.
was partially written by industry lobbyists
I seem to remember those closed-door meetings meetings with industry lobbyists occuring at the WH without GOP participation.
and which the Democratic leadership literally bent over backwards across the aisle trying to get even a single Republican vote in support
You mean like the way President “I am open to your ideas as long as they conform to this existing bill we have already written without your input” really bent over backwards to accommodate the Republicans?
is 100% on the Democrats?
Yes.
Fuck the party. I would love to be wrong. I would love nothing better than for Obama and the Democrats to actually manage to turn the economy around and start reducing unemployment. I would like the economy to get better because, working in the private sector, I would like to keep my job beyond this year. And I would like unemployment down so that when my son finishes college in 2 years he actually has a chance at finding a job.
The Republicans were a disgrace and with all their deficit spending put this country on a path to economic ruin. What we needed were adults to step in and turn things around. Unfortunately, what we got with Obama and the Democrats were people even more incompetent who put rocket boosters on the runaway fiscal train.
So just how many polls that clearly indicate the majority of Americans don’t want this legislation in its current form did you have to ignore in order to make this ignorant statement?
Did you not watch The West Wing?
That was a fucking tv show.
That’s what Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman did almost all the time; that was his job. And don’t tell me “that’s just TV,” they had consultants who had actually worked in the White House advising them on that show.
It was a good damn tv show with actors. Seriously dude. You think these things get wrapped up in an hour with a Profound Speech From The President too?
With sincere apologies to Slacktivist: Play your weak-ass Family Feud if you will. We’ll stick to Jeopardy. Have fun with President Ken Jennings!
Oh, and sorry about that democracy and Constitution stuff you have to deal with. So unfortunate.
No, of course not. But I do think the President can get legislation introduced if he wants to (the claim of Josh Lyman in that episode IIRC) and certainly could influence things more than Obama has chosen to do on HCR.
That’s not saying he could just “order the Majority leader around”. But he could certainly have done more than he’s done.
You pick up the phone (or your domestic policy advisor does, in your name), call the other 56 Democratic Senators and start lobbying for your legislation. You tell them back my play or you don’t get help from this White House. Did you not watch The West Wing? That’s what Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman did almost all the time; that was his job.
On that show, when Josh Lyman was all done, did he call up the newspapers and some bloggers and say, “Know what? I really twisted some arms today! You shooda been there!”
I missed that part.
Now how on earth would you know what steps the White House has taken or not taken on behalf of their legislation?
Millions of people who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid don’t have it… A few simple steps could bring it to them.
Nice idea, Frank. Can you explain how we could get any one of the forty-one Republican senators to vote for anything of the sort?
“Insurance companies won’t be able to turn away preexisting conditions”
Actually, no.
The flawed bill hasn’t even been passed yet. I won’t “keep a lid” on anything.
Oliver’s pro-Liebeman position was hardly an act of political courage, it was a willingness to compromise on something we might not even get.
To clarify, it’s not clear if the current bill would actually accomplish this. Insurance companies will still be the final arbiter in cases of excision.
And that’s the bill as it is now — if (huge if) we get it passed, this is one of the significant details that could change, probably for the worse, before passage.
Apparently you missed this part of my comment, so here it is again:
“And don’t tell me “that’s just TV,” they had consultants who had actually worked in the White House advising them on that show.”
Sigh. Whatever. I’ve said what I wanted to say. Time to move on.