The Health Care Troubles

by: Mike Lux

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 13:54


Having been in the Clinton Health Care War Room, I knew that moments like this would come, times I would describe as "the troubles." Health care is such a massive issue, with so many land mines and pit falls, that the monumental effort to reform it will always run into panic inducing barriers. You just cannot transform 17% of the American economy without goring a lot of people's oxes, and generally ticking off lots of powerful people.

We are officially in that phase. Hospitals, doctors, insurers, powerful Congresspeople and Senators, and all manner of other special interests are screaming bloody murder at one thing or another. Nobody wants to change what matters the most to them, or pay anything more to get health care reform, or have their sacred dollars in the federal budget cut. And the media treats every complaint as an apocalypse, another sure sign that health care reform is doomed.

Well, to steal my favorite line from Desperately Seeking Susan, everyone "should take a Valium like a normal person." What, you thought this would be easy? Based on Clinton experience, this has all been highly predictable kabuki theater:

Mike Lux :: The Health Care Troubles
Step 1: Everyone comes together and professes support of common goals and a commitment to working together and staying at the table. (In the Clinton fight, we launched our health care issue campaign with a media event where about 1500 groups endorsed our goals and outline of our plan. After President Clinton congratulated me on the success of the event, I told him how few of those groups would actually help us when the tough times came.)

Step 2: Proposals and compromises get floated, some push back happens, but the special interests mostly hold their fire because they want to stay at the table.

Step 3: CBO announces that health care reform is going to cost money. Everybody panics, because this had apparently not occurred to them before.

Step 4: The policy teams start firming up decisions, and the cries of anguish and outrage begin.

All of this happened in the Clinton health care fight, and all of it was completely predictable. But there are a lot of differences between this time and that time, including the fact that we are doing this in the 17 months from the next election rather than in the summer and fall of an election year; the fact that Obama has a 67% approval rating instead of Clinton's 40ish% at the time of the 1994 fight; the fact that the head of the Senate Finance Committee is totally engaged and determined to get something passed as opposed to irritated and disinterested as Moynihan was; and most importantly of all, the fact that we only need 50 votes in the Senate this time rather than 60.

I think it's really important in all this to keep some perspective. There are five committee fights and two floor fights before this is all said and done. With President Obama making this his top priority, they are going to be able to negotiate a lot of things out and roll over the road blocks that remain. No single issue complaint, no single special interest has the power to single-handedly stop this thing. The interest groups today who are screaming NIMBY ("health care reform is great, but not in my backyard") will have their 15 minutes of fame in the process, but they can't stop health care reform unless the Democrats themselves lose their nerve. So to my friends on Capitol Hill and in the media: just chill baby, we're in the period of "The Troubles," but we will come through it if everyone keeps their head together and hangs tough.  


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I will confess to significant depression (4.00 / 9)
right now about this fight.

It just doesn't look very good in the Senate, and I fear that will be voted out of Committee and onto the Floor will not guarantee access, be increadibly expensive and not include much of a public compenent.  The time may be coming when liberals are going to have to sign onto something that will primarily help the insurance companies, pharma and doctors in the hope of covering everyone, or decide if we whould walk away.

I am very much in the get what you can camp, but I must say I am close to thinking we should walk away.


When the best case seems to be fixing it in coference, (4.00 / 1)
I'm slated to share your demeanor.

[ Parent ]
Same here (4.00 / 5)
I feel just as powerless and out-of-step with the government as I have for the last eight years and that is a bad sign because it means I did NOT get CHANGE - just more of the same.

This is making Nader look like a hero right now because all of his claims of the two parties being one in the same is being validated right now.


[ Parent ]
Me too. (4.00 / 1)

Sometimes the toughest thing to know is "which bridge to cross and which to burn". David Russell quotes (Scottish classical Guitarist. b.1942) ...

[ Parent ]
If They Screw the American People out of a Genuine Public Option. . . (4.00 / 3)
I predict they will create such outrage that a third party will come into being that will attract so many voters that it will blow away the current two party system and the influence peddling policy-makers who got elected through it.

There are now two watershed issues that Congress and the White House are handling so destructively for the American people that they have the potential to force a complete and spontaneous rejection of the elected officials and parties that are now governing the country.

The first is the single payer health care system, now bastardized as the "public option". The second is the bailout policies that are bankrupting the federal government and keeping the banking system and economy from recovering.

Congress and the White House may think that they can get away with sacrificing the interests of the American people to their campaign financiers from the business and financial sector on these two issues.

But I have news for them. They may succeed in the short run, but in the long run they will have sown the seeds of their own political demise and that of the corrupt electoral system through which they have bought their offices.

What is needed to kick over the tables on the status quo and spontaneously create a winning third party are just these two issues — because our influence-peddling representatives' disastrous handling of them victimizes the entire country of ordinary working people in just about equal measure.

I predict that this common victimization will suffice to draw a winning electoral majority of American voters into a democratically run third party that truly represents the will of the people on the health care and financial fronts.

If and when that Obama caves on the public option, which I am 99% sure he will, and Congress caves to its campaign financiers from insurance sector, the writing on the wall will be clear for all to see.

The huge majority of the American people who favor a single payer system, and the majority of the American people who have opposed the bailout, will now see that they have no option but to form a third party to defend their interests.  


[ Parent ]
The Power of Hope (0.00 / 0)
From your lips to God's ears, of course, but I think you've miscalculated, for reasons which you can find in David Mizner's perceptive posts below.

In short, I think you are underestimating the strength of our enemies, and to be clear, there should be no question that Obama has by now become exactly that.


[ Parent ]
parody trolls are the best! (0.00 / 0)
.

[ Parent ]
The Progressive Revolution and a Major Political Realignment are Unstoppable (4.00 / 1)
As I wrote earlier this week in Millennial Generation Poised to Spearhead a Progressive Revolution in American Politics, the conservative era, in which conservatives allied with turncoat Blue Dog Democrats to run the country on behalf of special interests, is over.

The current conduct of the Democratic controlled Congress and White House is part of this bygone era, which is in its death throes.

The American people are quite astute in continuing to abandon the two major political parties even after Obama's election, and recognizing that they are being betrayed as much by Democrats as they were by Republicans.

The refusal of the current Congress and the White House to put single payer health care on the table is proof positive to voters that the political system is controlled by these corrupt politicians in alliance with their special interest campaign contributors.

They will have no difficulty migrating to a third party that allows them to run and elect representatives who will enact their agendas into law.


[ Parent ]
I wish someone would troll kos under a sock (0.00 / 0)
and a write a diary called "Ralph Nader was right!"  I wish ten good writers would do this simultaneously during prime time hours. 4-12pm!

[ Parent ]
Nader was RIGHT! (4.00 / 1)
Absolutely!

Pushing for health care reform that isn't single payer is exactly like trying to privatize Social Security.  It is so fucking obvious I don't understand how no one can see it!!!


[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
Matt, you've done it to yourself this time, my boy, as if we think back just a little bit, Clinton did try and privatize Social Security.

[ Parent ]
why not? you do it here. (0.00 / 0)
.

[ Parent ]
I don't think that will be it (0.00 / 0)
I think the biggest potential watershed event would be dissatisfaction with the government taking an ownership stake in GM more than anything to do with banks.  I think Chuck Todd had it right on MSNBC (when talking about a recent MSNBC/WSJ poll that people see the bank and auto bailouts as part of the same package, but that the deal with GM is more of a "tipping point" because it is something more palpable since people understand what cars are more than they understand credit default swaps.  If the federal government has to pump more money into GM (one thing that polls as less popular than Dick Cheney), that will be a huge problem for Democrats.

If a third party movement emerges out of this, it will be a populist one that opposes both the auto and bank bailouts.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
that depends on the future of GM? (0.00 / 0)
if GM bounces back, auto bailout dissatisfaction will evaporate

[ Parent ]
That's why I called it a "potential" watershed event (0.00 / 0)
I'm not convinced it will happen, but I do think it more likely that the government will be asked to help GM again rather than the banks.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
You may well be right (4.00 / 1)
and that is very frustrating, and not just because I live in Detroit.

The GM bailout is chicken feed compared to the money lavished on bankers.  As much as mismanagement brought GM down it was the global economy tanking (thanks to financiers), the credit crunch, and legacy costs because the feds refuse to address health care.  That is, GM as a single entity was less responsible for its mess than the financiers receiving orders of magnitude larger bailouts were for theirs (and ours).

GM was forced to restructure considerably, with plants shuttered, assets stripped, and the union compelled to offer additional givebacks, after having already offered major concessions on wages, new hires, and health care in the last several bargaining periods.

A federal oversight board, lead by a financier, is positioned to influence and direct continuing change in the auto industry.

And saving GM is directly about saving middle class jobs and a key element of America's industrial infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the trillions to Wall Street are essentially blank checks, with only toothless requirements, no restructuring, no oversight, no reduced pensions for CEOs, almost nothing at all required and little likelihood moving forward of significant oversight after Obama's tepid plan is watered down to nothing.

The total money directed to the auto companies - whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the policy - is the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the bank/insurance bailout and the Iraq war and the fat cat Bush tax cuts.  And these fat cats are the core problem.  Only in America would rescuing GM be the tipping point.


[ Parent ]
they'll understand well enough (0.00 / 0)
when the economy poops out some more and it turns out we have to cut services because of all the money we gave to the banks, and we are left in debt for the bad assets they gave us.

Look at what is happening in California.


[ Parent ]
Comedy gold (4.00 / 6)
Step 3: CBO announces that health care reform is going to cost money. Everybody panics, because this had apparently not occurred to them before.

Funny because it's true.


yes (0.00 / 0)
What in the world were they doing? Did they expect the CBO to hand out doughnuts? Unbelievable.

[ Parent ]
Will Obama lead and (4.00 / 3)
fight for real reform with a public option or will he roll and accept window dressing reform with no public option and use rhetoric to mystify reality?

So far, I see a real lack of leadership and a weak presidency.  I hope I am wrong, because if Obama cannot get what he wants now, at what likely will be the top of his popularity and with much politcial capital, then I fear he will be a weak president.

He has so much riding on this.  It is in his interest to force a public option on the Senate.  If he compromises with coops, then they will know they can walk all over him.    


P.S. (4.00 / 4)
Where are Rahm's threats to centrists on this?  Crickets.

But pushing around the Progressive caucus is just fine.

Is the WH deaf?  Or is trashing the base their strategy.  If so, when Obama's poll ratings go down, as all presidents do from time to time, the base may walk away.  See Clinton and NAFTA and 1994.

I see health care as the defining moment in Obama's presidency.  He put his chips on this instead of EFCA and Cap and Trade.

We likely are looking at 8, 9 or 10% unemplyment through November 2010.  

He needs the base.    


[ Parent ]
20 years ago (4.00 / 7)
Hedrick Smith wrote a book called the "Power Game".  Its central theme was that Presidents get in trouble when they lose thier base.

This has been a horrible week or so from the base's perspective.  We are witnessing conservatives take control of the health care debate, and watched Obama thumb his nose at the Gay Rights movement.

If this continues until 2010 the off year elections will be a disaster.


[ Parent ]
I don't think Obama will lose his base (4.00 / 2)
Because his support is so strong in some quarters of the base he's pretty much insulated from widespread, politically damaging revolt.

Besides, the base almost always come home to some degree. (As it did under Clinton.)

What he needs, to turn the economy around and thereby do well in 2010 and beyond, are the policies of the base.


[ Parent ]
I agree and disagree (4.00 / 1)
I disagree on the 'Obama won't lose his base if he doesn't pass health-care reform' argument. Every time I speak with some of my acquaintances, when the subject comes up on health-care the passion, the fire, and the anger is more, a lot more, than I expect. And I'm not talking about any dedicated progressives/liberals. Just plain vanilla democrats.

I agree on the 'health-care without a public option' point you made below though. I don't like it, but Obama himself doesn't need the public option. He can get by. But the money comes from the dedicated part. There will be damage there, yes?


[ Parent ]
His base isn't vanilla democrats (4.00 / 1)
His base is non-white Democrats who vote more because of identity politics rather than policy issues.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
part of it yes (0.00 / 0)
but the health-care part is bigger in my experience

not that it matters a lot how big the health-care part of the base is, what matters is that it is big enough to swing elections


[ Parent ]
huh (0.00 / 0)
can you explain this better? It seems that you are implying non-white democrats no nothing about policy.

[ Parent ]
Both parties have bases defined by demographics (4.00 / 1)
Certainly, Chris Bowers has posted a ton of stuff on that.  It's not that non-white Democrats know nothing about policy; it's that identity politics plays more of a role than an issues-oriented person might like among both non-white Democrats and white Christian Republicans (and other groups, too).  They're not ignorant, they just prioritize other things over policy.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
well (0.00 / 0)
I think the groups first start with policy and then go to identity. Taking your Christian Republican example. Both a white and non-white political figure would first have adhere to the values and policies of Christian republicans, then the groups would side with one or the other based on identity.

[ Parent ]
Once those identities become entrenched (0.00 / 0)
Then policy takes a backseat.  For example, it took decades for white Southerners to completely shake off the previous identity politics of the region and become Republicans.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I liked him (0.00 / 0)
Whatever happened to him? I always liked his PBS shows on trade, outsourcing, etc.

[ Parent ]
all the Obama bots have been telling us (4.00 / 1)
we should be patient on gays and efca because everything is riding on health care.  That being case, he should be judged on his failure!

[ Parent ]
What worries me (among a hundred other things) (4.00 / 5)
is that from a political perspective, at least short term, Obama doesn't need the public option. If he pushes through Comprehensive Health Care Reform, the media, the party leaders, and a good number of Obama supporters in the netroots and elsewhere will hail it as a major victory. And many Americans will agree--they will, anyway, till the reality of the plan sets in.

Tomasky gets at this in the NYRB.

As distasteful as some of these compromises will be to many in the Democratic base, it seems unlikely that Obama will lose much support over them. If both of these bills pass, there will be hundreds of news stories and columns that will begin, "Not since Lyndon Johnson..." or even "Not since Franklin Roosevelt..." Discourse in Washington tends to reduce to headlines; the headlines will proclaim Obama hugely successful on the domestic front

I think that's right.

http://www.nybooks.com/article...


[ Parent ]
Case in point (4.00 / 3)
The new bank regulations and financial rules Obama is proposing are being described as "sweeping" by the press. They're really anything but.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, the built-in PR advantages (4.00 / 3)
of the presidency are astounding. If you there's a decent economy a president really have to fuck up to lose support. (But we don't have a decent economy, of course, so we'll see...)



[ Parent ]
News stories are transient (4.00 / 1)
The mess of a bad plan won't be.  By the 2012 timeframe the news stories will be long forgotten and the voter discontent will be there for the exploiting.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
I don't see what the big problem is (4.00 / 8)
I don't understand the problem with the CBO number. There's nothing that prevents the dems from floating a number from a study of their own. Shout the number of savings for Pete's sake.

Like Bill Maher said, bush managed to start the war with iraq when there was no real appetite for it, and the dems can't pass health-care with a democratic president with a 60% approval, 59/60 dems in the Senate and an 80-seat majority in the house and the public wanting it? Give me a freakin' break dems.

Look at the numbers. The people want health-care reform. 75-80% of Americans want a public option. The thing they don't want is to tax the health benefits. What's the problem Harry & Co.?

Get it done. I'll do my part but if you don't get this done dems, there will be hell to pay. No votes, no money, nothing. I almost had a heart attack yesterday when I heard Daschle spewing his nonsense: "We have come too far to let one little thing derail us." It's not a little thing Tom. In fact if you don't pass a strong public option, what's the point of passing anything? To enrich your buddies at the insurance companies?


forgot this part (0.00 / 0)
the exact number is 76%, here's the exact question

34a.  In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan
administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance extremely important,
quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

Extremely important ..........................   41
Quite important .................................   35  
Not that important .............................   12  
Not at all important ...........................   8  
Not sure ..........................................   4  

so, how do you pay? raise taxes on those earning over 250k. here's what the poll says

33.  Experts currently estimate that this proposed health care plan will cost one trillion dollars over the next decade. I am going to read you some proposals for how the plan could be funded. After I read each
statement, please tell me whether that proposal is acceptable or not acceptable.  

Acceptable, Not Acceptable, Not Sure  

Require everyone to have health insurance coverage.  Those people who can afford it would buy their own health insurance, while people with low and moderate incomes would receive government assistance ... 62  31  7

Raise taxes for people with incomes over two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year ... 62  33  5

Require all but the smallest businesses to either offer health care coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll to the government ... 55  37  8

Reduce payments to doctors and hospitals for the services they provide to patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid, which are the government health programs for the elderly and low income ... 47  46  7

Require people with expensive health plans with more generous benefits than a standard plan to pay taxes on a portion of that plan's costs ... 33  59  8

Require all people to pay taxes on the cost of their private health insurance plans ... 23  70  7



[ Parent ]
What Is In The Best Interest Of The American Citizens? (0.00 / 0)
The politicians have no authority beyond acting in a representative capacity, representing the citizens of this country.  Not the businesses (they don't vote).  Not the corporations.  Not the hedge funds.  Only the people of this country are its citizens, and entitled to undivided loyalty from their elected politicians.

Therefore, on this issue as well as all others, the first question every politician should be required to ask him or herself is:  What is in the best interest of the American citizens.

The answer clearly is that our citizens want and deserve affordable, comprehensive, good-quality healthcare.  I would include dental in that since dental health can affect other aspects of health, such as heart.

Then the question becomes how to accomplish that.  Note that we do not ask whether, by ensuring our people get healthcare, we might cut into somebody's profits.  That's not one of the questions to be addressed.  "Profits" is not a Constitutional right.  Loyalty, agency, responsibility to the citizens is the mandate for our politicians.

The politicians should simply let Americans join Medicare if they choose.  Maybe phase it in.  For example, start with anyone over 50.  People over 50 are more likely to be thrown out of work (and replaced by cheaper employees), and the cost to them of buying private health insurance can be prohibitive.  I read about a 59 year old man who was self-employed, had health insurance, and was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.  His premiums went from $300/month to $1200/month, which he could not afford, so he no longer has health insurance.  People over 50 are at higher risk to be cancelled or effectively pushed out.  So help them first.

Also bring in any kid under 21, if their parents choose.

Then gradually open it up to other age groups.

People who are employed or have means (assets above a certain level) should be required to buy into the system.  Let people decide for themselves whether to go into Medicare or stay with some other private insurance.  Anybody who wants to stay with private insurance can do so.  All employers who have more than 10 employees should be required to pay into a fund for part of the costs for their employees who go into Medicare, which still will likely be less than what health insurance costs now.

The insurance industry has a monopoly.  Let them compete against a government-provided system.  Don't they all scream about "free markets," let the market decide, competition?  As always, they want a monopoly for themselves, with consumers forced to buy insurance (current proposal), but them free to gouge at will.  

Doctors have a monopoly too.  They deliberately limit the number of medical schools in this country, try to restrict the number of people who can come into the profession, so they can keep their fees artificially high.  Doctors in my area are making $500,000+ per year for the most mundane types of practices.  Because they can get away with it.  I'd build more medical schools and let anyone with the aptitude and inclination go, at public expense, then work in a clinic part-time for ten years to pay us back.  Bust the doctors down to reasonable incomes.  They're as bad as Hedge Fund Scum with what they charge.

Drug companies:  find out what they charge in Canada, and only agree to pay the same for any patient in Medicare.  And hold it to current rates, or maybe rates as of 2000, to prevent them from raising prices in Canada to justify a price increase here.

If the insurance companies go out of business, I guess they'll just have to join the auto workers which, you notice, nobody in Congress was crying big crocodile tears about.  They don't really care about throwing Americans out of work.  They only care about the bribes, kick-backs, and corruption of the current healthcare system, a huge source of money to our corrupt politicians.  

I don't accept any of these excuses and rationalizations by our politicians for their unwillingness to stand up for the people they are supposed to represent.  Their refusal to help us is all based upon bribery and selling their votes.  The excuses are just cover for the sad truth of their betrayal.  


Doesnt the cvourage and dedication of the people on the street in Tehran mean anything? (4.00 / 2)
It l;ooks difficult so:
but I must say I am close to thinking we should walk away.

When the best case seems to be fixing it in coference,   (0.00 / 0)
I'm slated to share your demeanor.

Will Obama lead and   (4.00 / 1)
fight for real reform with a public option or will he roll and accept window dressing reform with no public option and use rhetoric to mystify reality?

So far, I see a real lack of leadership and a weak presidency.  

I have for some months now said; the point is to get into he street, get our constituency into the streets, get your organizations organized.

Perhaps the protesters should not have gone quietly from Baucus's committee room.

SPINE UP!

This is a democracy, and you can't have what you want, ever?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


Excellent Analysis (4.00 / 1)
There are so many vested interests in health care that this is going to be difficult.  It is clear to me that Obama learned a lot from the mistakes of the Clinton Admin.

I think one of the big differences when push comes to shove is going to be the health care team that Obama has assembled.  Having true health policy people like Nancy Ann DeParle and Jeanne Lambrew (amongst others) running this effort as opposed to Ira Magaziner, a political novice and management consultant, will make a huge difference.

I am very hopeful that a bill will pass but it is not going to be easy.  When you are dealing with 17% of the economy Obama will have to thread the needle.


Great! (4.00 / 5)
...they can't stop health care reform unless the Democrats themselves lose their nerve...

Oh, well, nothing to worry about then. It's in the bag!

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

Sure. We'll get some kind of health care ... (0.00 / 0)
..."reform," but obviously some Democrats are already losing their nerve. Hanging tough for us hoi polloi is easy, but we have to have some Reps and Senators willing to hang tough for us. Do we have enough? It certainly is unclear at this stage.

What is just shocking to me is how short-sighted these guys are (4.00 / 1)
Bill Kristol was 100% correct when he told Bob Dole that Republicans would lose the house for a generation if the Dems passed real universal health care.  So while I can sort of see someone like Nelson or Baucus waffling, I am shocked at how little safe Dems like Harkin, Durbin, and Schumer are willing to fight for this.

They truly live in a bubble where not pissing off the wrong people (read big money lobbyists) is more important than passing a better, cheaper, saner health care package.


[ Parent ]
When gas guzzling Mikulski is shilling for the Right's agenda.. (0.00 / 0)
.. this bill will ultimately suck.

Taking one of the lead roles in the bill's creation, she's shooting her mouth off constantly, pushing AARP's talking points over all others.  
Just like she pushed the automakers talking points when fighting against CAFE standards.
She's not there to fight for 'quality' of care for patients as she was tasked to do, but rather for her lobbyists quality of life.

But worse she actually cut off Senator Sheldon Whitehouse when he railed at the Rights continued efforts to impede legal remedies for patients injured by physicians.  He's a powerhouse in protecting the civil rights of everyone- but particularly the 'little guy'.  
And she didn't much like it.  B**&^$.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
Sen Sanders is posting stories (0.00 / 0)
He requested responses from his entire list and is hearing back from people all around the country about their horror stories and lack of health care coverage. One that stood out for me was from a Vermonter who had been on the Vermont Health Access Plan, and found it demeaning. Not sure just why that was so, but his humiliation was apparent. The thank you I received stated that the senator is going to read some of the stories on the floor. Take a look if you like.

Sen Sanders was on with Ed Schultz again tonight. Maybe he's becoming a regular guest - that'd be great news!  


[ Parent ]
Dont' forget to sign the Single-Payer petition (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Done. That's why I was thanked. (0.00 / 0)
Those who haven't signed may visit his website and click on the button to read and hear the arguments.

[ Parent ]
I think its pretty clear (0.00 / 0)
Most likely the democrats opposing it are going to lose their nerve.  Right now is an uncertain time and they are really going out on a limb by opposing this while Obama is pushing for it.


http://transgendermom.blogspot....

[ Parent ]
I think its pretty clear (0.00 / 0)
that a lot of 'em never believed in this to begin with, and nerve has nothing to do with it.

For my .02, I still think we're in good stead as long as the House stands strongly behind a progressive bill, and acts first. Doing nothing is not an option for Senate Dems, who will be caught between hammer (public opinion; the dire necessity of overhauling health care) and anvil (House progressives). There is no alternative, which is why they're having such a helluva time on this bill...they can't figure out how to get away with doing nothing. I've never seen an issue where there was such scrambling for something-anything-to paste together and call "reform". These people can barely conceptualize single payer or a real public option-its against the entire political system as it has existed for the past 30 or 40 years. For many Dems, single payer's wipe out of revolving door careerism (at least when it comes to the health care industry) negates the whole point of public office.

But again, they are just tying themselves up in fits trying to figure out an alternative. I read somewhere that HELP has something like 388 amendments-mostly by Republicans-to consider...obviously a tactic to slow down the process. Please, make it 1,000! Don't hold back! Let the House pass a progressive bill, and then let the Senate feel the heat to snap to the House's framework...

Too bad Obama won't man-up and point-blank tell his supporters to hound Congress. I was pretty young during the first Reagan admin, but I remember him openly appealing for the country to help him face down Congress. He did it in his Oval Office and SOTU addresses. And it often worked.


[ Parent ]
sorry, i can't afford a Valium (0.00 / 0)
What is clearly Obama's "top priority" is to get a bill through that he can describe as "health care reform". It is not his priority to actually reform health care. Thus we end up with garbage like the latest Bipartisan Consensus bushwah from Daschle et al. I think Scarecrow sums it up pretty well:

So what do we have left?

1. The insurance companies get the federal government to mandate that everyone must purchase insurance. (Insurance companies 1, consumers 0)

2. There are only private insurance plans available. (Private Insurers 2, consumers 0)

3. The federal government gets states who feel like it to create an exchange to help consumers shop for -- and insurance companies sell -- their private insurance. (Private insurers 3, consumers 0) [And insurance companies get an extra point in states that don't like federal intrusion]

4. The federal government then subsidizes consumers to help them pay the full premiums charged by the private insurance plans. Insurers win! 4-0!


Condescending reassurances that everyone should just "chill" because the wise Democrats will do the right thing are not exactly going down real well right now. I am almost convinced that we will be better off doing nothing than putting some fool nonsense into place that actively blocks real reform. (Not quite, not yet, but almost.)

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

Didn't Clinton try the reconciliation? (0.00 / 0)
It's something weird if I remember correctly - that Clinton tryied to use the reconciliation bill to make it easier, and what a scolding he/she got by Robert Byrd, Sen. Constitutional Scholar, for the unprecedented audacity of tacking something so huge onto reconciliation.

I was reminded of this when Daschle last year floated this great "new" idea and everyone applauded (even though Hillary had been roundly trampled the spring before for what an uncaring rhino she had been trying to stomp and shove this through Congress).

So it seems a little unfair to just leave it as "Obama's using reconciliation for 50, Clinton didn't", ignoring that Obama gets a pass on a lot of things others couldn't. I do agree about getting it out the door first year, which is tough with the economic mess Bush left. Don't recall why Clinton waited. Anyway, we'll see.


The difference (0.00 / 0)
is that the Repugs used reconcilliation to get their tax cuts.  In so doing they created a precident that did not exist in 1994.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search