Thanks for posting the progressive side. (4.00 / 2)

The sheer volume of for-profiteer propaganda from the White House, Congressional leadership, DLC, Dem Party partisans and apologists, and the for-profiteers themselves, being hammered out by their corporate media mouthpieces...nauseating.  

---

by: nasrudin @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 19:58:28 PM UTC

Passing a Bill, debating policy, pushing form the left, being disappointed, working with what we have. (0.00 / 0)

   God grant me the serenity
   To accept the things I cannot change;
   Courage to change the things I can;
   And wisdom to know the difference.

I know, its pablum. But lets add in the comments from the admittedly knowledgeable dedicated research based policy analysts that Bill Moyer invited to this excellent discussion about Health Care policy reform cited here. I like their intents, I respect their health policy knowledge, and I want Single Payer. Lets look at the portion, not about policy, but the Bill(s) themselves the bill(s) passage and legislation.

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: It's really a political calculation. And I think that they believe that they have to act quickly, because it might not happen. Because the sooner you have the special interests going back home, during the August recess and holding town hall meetings and talking to people in coffee shops, they're going to find that maybe this isn't something that people really want or have doubts about.

MARCIA ANGELL: Well, I think we are in a hurry. I think that President Obama's worried, that what happened with the Clinton plan can happen with him. And I do have a feeling of Déjà vu all over again. That this is like 1993. That the opposition is having a chance to mobilize. To march out these Canadians who say they had brain tumors and had to die. Or these ads that say 20 percent of Europeans drop dead.

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: And Harry and Louise are back

MARCIA ANGELL: And I think he does. He is right to worry about that. And he is right to want to do it in a hurry. The problem is he is not doing the right hing.

Ok we get this, this is easy and simple to understand and I want to move toward literally putting Health insurance Companies out of business.

Although let us admit, a system that retrained and employed the massive numbers of people employed in this business, in other work, preferably one that actually produced something, unlike their present work, which produces nothing except the denial of service to those in dire need. I have written before about the fact that in the United States, the billing dept.s of Hospitals are other buildings full of workers, possibly more workers than working in the hospital, whose only job is figuring and keeping on top of the many places and people responsible for paying bills, and the fights between those ducking responsibility. And that is the health providers. In Canada, it is not another, bigger building beside the hospital, it is part of one floor, in the hospital.

The Insurance 'industry' has a similar number of people whose job it is to wack away the requests for payments like flies at the junk yard, paying the requests when it can't be avoided, delisting services, delisting the insured, enticing people to sign up, advertising their product to people, breaking unions in the industry and of course sending the profits remaining to voraciously greedy suck holes of blood lust whose gargantuan weight of sheer luxury dwarfs successful nation states.

This massive 'industry' is one sixth of the economy. One sixth of the economy. All right? Canada's health system, including both sides of the above equations is 7% or about one fourteenth of the economy. So that means, that profit, (which is huge! HUGE!(this is not sarcasm)) and the two sets of employees, in the billing/ administration/ fundraising part of the health provision sector, and the service denying/ rippingoff/ paying/ advertising/ billing portions of the Insurance 'industry' make up about 8% of the economy. So if we implement Single payer tomorrow we add more than a little to the unemployment rate already sitting at 9 to 11%.  But that's just an aside.

Lets get back to the quote from Ms. Angell's and Ms. Lieberman's discussion with Bill Moyers. They admit "we are in a hurry" and "what happened with the Clinton plan can happen with him" and "have to act quickly, because it might not happen" because "march out these Canadians who say they had brain tumors and had to die. Or these ads that say 20 percent of Europeans drop dead." "And Harry and Louise are back" and finally "He is right to worry about that. And he is right to want to do it in a hurry."

On these things, we completely agree, we all know, and I have been re-iterating, and others have been re-iterating here and elsewhere. So what is their response?

The problem is he is not doing the right thing.

Great! Now we get to the new part. Now we get the meat. The discussion on what to actually do!! (this has been asked so often it has its own section in political science dept's and even books) How do we get from a sick, demented, soul destroying, mother killing, child wasting profit tunnel to hell, to a: life enhancing, economy saving, people loving, bankruptcy preventing, worry ending Single Payer system.

Lets read their answer:

I think we have to start all over on this. I really do. I think we have to go for a single payer system. You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state. You could do it decade by decade. You could improve Medicare. That is, make it nonprofit. But extend it down to age 55 and age 45 and age 35. It would give the private insurance industry a chance to go into hurricanes, earthquakes or something. To get out of the health business. It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done.

And now, besides "starting over" what is the different in the approach suggested by these policy analysts:"You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state." I thought the gradualism was awful? And I thought the most vibrant version of the Bill moving out of the House HELP committee had an Amendment, passed bipartisanly, that makes provision for, makes the rules allowing, gives permission to: States Implementing Statewide Single Payer Systems.
They continue:

"It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done."

So except for "starting over" - they are in complete agreement with the present process. I think they want a title on the final Bill that says "We are moving to Single Payer, dont be too patient or in too much of a hurry" But otherwise, despite their trepidation, they have a descriptive laying out of congress's and the administrations arm twisting, panderer molifying, greed distracting, regionally diverse and constantly attacked plan of action, as it appears to moving through the tunnel of that resembles Hunter S. Thompson's description of "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

What they want is so close to what is happening as to be merley a description, whose only addition, is that we:

start over

Now on the pablum quoted above:

the wisdom to know the difference

Just on the point of what needs to be done to change what is happening now. I think a little wisdom needs to be applied on that.

Second ( I always have a second, its a style flaw, I don't write well, shoot me) Is there wisdom in their knowledge about what can be changed, in order to achieve this thing they have said needs to be changed because "hes not doing it  right"

Starting over. Is this a wise thing to do? Well, no. leaving aside the fact that demonstrably there is no reason to start over. A gradual, section by section, state by state, introduction of structural change is being made into law. Giving up and doing it again with a new name, or something.

So leaving aside the fact that it doesn't need to be done, according not to me, not to the greed/corruption addicted powermongers in congress, but to the policy experts. No. No their suggested path says, but not their suggestion says.

Should we stop? Should the Obama administration stop moving forward with this bill?

To accept the things I cannot change;

When  would we bring a newly named bill back? In the fall? What would be different then? Would one vote in congress have changed? Would any new members be elected? Is there a process were we could use our money (and organizing) to counter the Billions and Billions of health insurance "industry" spending showing dead European Harry and Louises' begging from the grave that we protect our defenceless children from the satanic but well meaning plans of that failed politician Obama (who really wasn't ready to run the country, nor was he born here, you know)?

Biden shocked the world when he said that Obama would be tested in the first months of his holding office. Well now he is. This the test that

Republican Senator Jim De Mint proclaimed: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

This is the test Billy Bloody Hands Kristol writes:

With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. There will be a tendency to want to let the Democrats' plans sink of their own weight, to emphasize that the critics have been pushing sound reform ideas all along and suggest it's not too late for a bipartisan compromise over the next couple of weeks or months.

My advice, for what it's worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill.

So in the opinion o' the rightwing think tanks the only path back to power comes from:

starting over

Should we wait till after the mid terms? Should we ask Clinton? Bill? Hillary? Will a democratic party, having given up on a reform program that formed the deep basis of Obamas promise and election, increase or decrease the number of Democratic Party candidates?

Shall we take all the promises made, shall we abandon all the campaigning being done now, shall we give up on all the negotiations done to date, shall lessen all the approval ratings still extant, shall we tell all the families waiting we're going to come back to this, later, because while we wont be stronger, while we tried and failed once, while we promised action, while there seems to policy analysts no real change in actual policy needs to be made... we are just gong to give up.

God grant me the serenity

So what can we do?

Courage to change the things I can;

We can work on the greed heads in the congress. Attack them in their comfort. Let the public know,who is blocking the gradual implementation of a system that will provide the right to healthcare, even its flawed state because they are greed heads who take money from Health Insurance "industry" bloodsuckers who will do ANYTHING to keep their levels of profit, their economy destroying, system of cash diverting, care preventing vampirism.

We can promote the bill, that we helped the progressive caucus demand, with a "line in the sand" commitment, to defeat any bill that did not meet, what they analysed, was the best path forward, and not a sellout. Promote while knowing it is gradual, like social security was, like CHIP was, like civil rights legislation was, like the constitution was before the bill of rights, like emancipation was and like the voting rights acts were.

We promote it saying that a public option is a first step, and not a complete solution, a way of judging the public opotion, of getting used to public coverage, a way makinbg single payer an American, made by Americans, way of providing the right to health that all of us who arent Rush, Steele, Kristol or Rove, need for ourselves and want for each of us.

A step toward the right to healthcare, like a right to fire protection, like the right to an education, like the right to be free despite your poverty, like the right to freedom of speech despite a lack of advertising dollars.

I  know who I stand with. I know what I support.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 19:59:39 PM UTC

Wait A Second! (4.00 / 1)

Sadly, I don't have time to respond to this all (those diaries don't write themselves, no matter how much cherry pie I try to ply them with).

So I'll just focus on this:

This massive 'industry' is one sixth of the economy. One sixth of the economy. All right? Canada's health system, including both sides of the above equations is 7% or about one fourteenth of the economy. So that means, that profit, (which is huge! HUGE!(this is not sarcasm)) and the two sets of employees, in the billing/ administration/ fundraising part of the health provision sector, and the service denying/ rippingoff/ paying/ advertising/ billing portions of the Insurance 'industry' make up about 8% of the economy. So if we implement Single payer tomorrow we add more than a little to the unemployment rate already sitting at 9 to 11%.  But that's just an aside.

First off, no.  Using a unified accounting process, the OECD data I provided earlier this week shows the US spending 16% of GDP in 2007, compared to 10.1% in Canada.  So that's 5.9% of the economy, not 8%.  Next, one can't just take chunks of GDP and assume they're equivalent to employment.  You have to look at the actual numbers involved.  There are enormous profits in insurance, and they don't make those profits by paying top dollar to vast armies of employees.  In fact, I remember Obama during the primary campaign using a similar excuse and arguing that 2-3 million insurance industry jobs were involved.  Wrong by about an order of magnitude, it turns out:  

NAICS
code	Industry title....                              Paid employees....
                                                        Total   
....
524114  Direct health & medical insurance carriers....  422,102

Thre are others employed in medical insurance, but this is the largest chunk by far.

So, it's a lot of people, but nowhere near 5.9%, much less 8% of the US workforce, even if you double the amount to take in all the folks doing paperwork on the hospital/clinic/doctor side of things.

So what happens if we get single-payer?  Well, these people have to get new jobs.  And guess what?  With tens of millions more people now getting medical care, there's a lot more jobs need filling for nurses, medical technicians, and the like.  It makes sense to include a retraining provision that gives first priority to the people displaced to get retraining for these jobs.  Will everyone be taken care of?  No, we can never guarantee that.  But we can come damn close--and it's only a temporary transitional consideration.

In short, this is simply a bogus argument, one among many, many others.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:12:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DO NOT WASTE ANY CHERRY PIE! (0.00 / 0)

I dont disagree with your corrections to the portions of the economy dedicated to each, but I didnt say that the 8% reperesnted an eight per cent increase in the unemployment rate I said

So if we implement Single payer tomorrow we add more than a little to the unemployment rate already sitting at 9 to 11%.  But that's just an aside.

On the other hand I do not concede the difference in the sizes of the economy dedicated to the provision (and in America denial) of Health Care as you have laid them out. I don't agree that Canada's health sector is that large. And I am looking for the last figures that I saw, showing a lower figure, forgive my uncited numbers.

But (again) that has nothing to do with the necesary nature of a transition time that soaks up the avauilable labour without  a, at this juncture of recession, devastating drop in demand and employment. Yes yes?

I think bogus, is a little harsh, and unfair and untrue, and I'm sure you do too.

BUT (look at this guy with the buts!) It was an aside. I was not demanding the a transition was necessary anywhere in the argument. As i said

But that's just an aside.

What I made an argument about, was the best way to get from where we actually are (Look see here's the map)  to where we both want to go (draws his finger across the mountains of greedy lobbyist cash, across the valleys of lefty despair, through the thicket of Health Insurance industry thorns, beside the rivers of weeping parents and off the map to place just north, unseen, but holding proof its rock solid reality in the form of healthy, never paying for healthcare citizens, smiling encouragingly about the need for steel spined work day in and day out, in the fields of democracy)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:47:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Data (4.00 / 1)

International economic comparisons are always tricky becaue of a variety of factors, which is why it's always best to do comparisons from the same data source, which takes care of as much of the standardization work as possible.

My diary is here.  The OECD data release is here, and the Excel spreadsheet is here.

But the main point is that we don't expect to shrink the health care sector of the economy.  We expect to reallocate it, away from insurance and related paperwork, and toward, you know, health care.  Everyone pretty much understands that this is argument for Medicare for All. This was very explicit here in California with Sheila Keuhl's bill, which twice passed the legislature, only to be vetoed by the Gropenator.

The fact that you're using circuitous reasoning to try to obscure this fundamental point--playing up transitional costs that are relatively trivial in the long run--all that does indeed strike me as bogus.  And the bogosity is only compounded, not alleviated, if you then say, "Nevermind, that's just an aside."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:04:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have three bogi in the yard and they dont make as much noise as you'd expect. (0.00 / 0)

It is an aside. And as the point is not how the Reconciliation process will have a plan for soaking up a few employees from a changing health industry, because they won't, it was an aside about the fact that there will be a transition, described as decades by the Single Payer advocates in the Moyers interview, and decried by people criticizing the Bill moving through the two houses of congress.

And because this IS the way it IS going, and because there have been improvements, lines in the sand, arms twisted, people convinced and votes held and opposition exposed and single payer promoted. So that as we do more than watch and worry about the bill, it might behoove us to act as strongly as we can, as the Nurses organizing Ctte is, as Moveon is, as SEIU is, as many others are. Because stopping the imperfect Bill is not an option, and work on it, including its passage, will make the eventual single payer system come sooner, and the transition less painful.

And then I want this administration and congress to work on lots, lots, more things, for which they will need victories and public admiration to achieve.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:35:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shorter HouseOfProgress (4.00 / 2)

Shorter HouseOfProgress: The midterms are coming, and Obama's got to have something, anything to run on!

* * *

I thought you were a wannabe politician, and I guess I called it. You write:

And then I want this administration and congress to work on lots, lots, more things, for which they will need victories and public admiration to achieve.

Your bottom line is that success. I care about getting people care through single payer. You're OK with an inferior policy that's going to kill lots of people before 2013 and leave $350 billion on the table as long as Obama gets admiration.

Good to know.

* * *

One more reason to reboot on this bill. I didn't think I could trust "progressives" with my health, and now HouseOfProgress has made me 100% sure of it.


I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:34:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who will you get to vote for your favourite bill lambert? (0.00 / 0)

Who do you think co-sponsored HR 676?

How do you think Bills are passed?

What do you think is a good way to push?

After pushing, depending on the answer of how to push, what coalition of disparate viewpoints and greed do you have for the next program? Did you think that a national health care plan will save American citizens when climate change sends the price of food through the roof, or do you think Single Payer will bring 100% employment, or will Conyer's HR 676 produce a foreign policy that promotes peace?

I do not want to stop the drive toward public option. I want to start people pushing together. There needs to be a majority coalition both in the voters,  and in the houses of congress to make these programs happen.

Just as one must learn in school, when you want something, crying screaming and falling to the floor in sobs isnt the way to have your class study dinosaurs now, screaming you all suck!!!! isnt the way to have math period end. And unfortunately for us all, the readers here are not the ones that are going to vote on the bill, it is the jelly bean collection of people, some wonderful, some flawed, some nuts, some dim, some greedy, some nasty, most egotistical who sit in distinct chairs in Washington. That is the way the country is designed. That is the way it will be for decades to come. The voters in America want their constitution, they want health care. So both things have to be thought of when we agree to start pushing in the same direction.

You may think you and a small group of friends have figured out what needs to be done, and you hold your breath, and scream loud enough, the rest of America will all suddenly see the logic of your enlightenment. Which might happen. But they still have to elect people to grasp the levers of power. Because the levers of legal power are in only one place. The levers of power in America really are ONLY in the hands of elected women and men.

You can not do anything without that. So I don't want you to stop pushing for the Bill you like, which is, like all Bills flawed by the way, is to figure how to make that happen. At least figure out enough not to actually hamper it from happening.

BTW the grand majority of the people who co-sponsored the Bill you like are part of the progressive caucus. And if even the progressives in America are too far right for you, who the hell is in your coalition? Or are you of a different political stripe completely?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 13:47:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ho hum (0.00 / 0)

Like I said, a politician. Good luck in Versailles. Your other points, if any, are addressed above (except for the points that you attributed to me, but which I didn't write).

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 18:00:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's HouseofRegress for you... (0.00 / 0)

You called it straight down the line.  For such as him, politics isn't about helping people; it's about power.  That's all he cares about.  Never mind that this horrendously bad bill shall, if passed and signed into law, not only fail but kill any chance of passing single-payer for a generation or more.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 23:23:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Classic (4.00 / 2)

"progressives" had a chance to take step 1 a long time ago, by advocating for the policy that even today they know is the best one: Single payer.

One reason we're up the creek now is that they didn't do that. And so Obama is left holding the bag for a policy that, as Angell points out:

1. Nobody can understand, except for one thing:

2. It's doing the same thing while expecting a different result.

Well done, all.

And yet "progressives" still want to lecture folks on how they understand the process better. Unbelievable. Or not.

Shorter HouseOfProgress: Lay back and enjoy it.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 20:15:11 PM UTC

God knows why I am asking a question of someone who never talks about policy or moving actual legislation forward. (0.00 / 0)

Nor offers suggestions on motivating activists to anything except opposition, nor any plan to alter votes of recalcitrant congress critters and varmints. Nor any way of moving forward the demands of the public for the solution he proposes.

So despite that.

Which of the policy researchers suggestions, from the article you like, for graqdual implementation do you want? Adding only those 60 years old to the 65 year old cut off now. and then in a decade by decade addition of 55 years and older, 50 years and older, 45 years and older? until we get to not covering those between 15 years old and 35 years old after some decades? Despuite as I am sure you know and have researched, this represnts what portion of the policy still not covered in what number of decades, as described by the researchers you admire, is it 5%, is it 13% is it 35% is it 50% of the population that you want to wait decades and decades till they covered. I thought you were angry that the Bill wouldnt cover 3% of the population OMG!!!! and not start an (untrue) four years?

Please dont be an ass and MERELY call me names and say I am a bad person or in the employ of the White House. Note I said merely, as I have been too descriptive of your work to not get a return level of sarcasm. But I do want an answer.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 20:49:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Rosenberg is calling a disaster (4.00 / 1)

is of "progressive"'s making.

The "progressive" quarrel is with Angell, and possibly with Rosenberg, not with me.

"Progressive" inability to accept responsibility for past strategic failure is why they should have no credibility now.

Ditto their inability to legitimate and leverage pressure from the left.

Deal with it, Mr. Hope Enforcer.

Oh, and did it ever occur to you that those who have been excluded from your precious process and censored might have better insight into its nature than wannabe insiders?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 20:57:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To put this another way: (4.00 / 1)

Wannabe insiders want to be politicians.

That's OK, we need politicians.

I'm not a politician. I'm a citizen. It's my job to advocate forcefully for the policy that I believe -- and can show -- is right.

Politicians and elected officials work for citizens, and not the other way round. And when they don't do that, they should suffer pain, which is the only way to get their attention.

So don't tell me to do the politician's job for them. Why don't you take a shot at doing that job? I've got enough work on my hands trying to track the bills and counter "progressive" talking points and disinformation.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:07:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sigh (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you had noticed, we live in a democracy that is defined by the systems of the elected people in the houses of the legislature as laid out in a constitution.

I'm not a politician. I'm a citizen. It's my job to advocate forcefully for the policy that I believe -- and can show -- is right.

Good so you want single payer, but YOU NO IDEA how to get there. and you just to  "advocate forcefully" but don't want ot hear how

a democracy that is defined by the systems of the elected people in the houses of the legislature as laid out in a constitution.

works. So do nothing but oppose, the actual process of at least a large segment of those most progressive people who we have elected.

I guess you hope for something other than:

a democracy that is defined by the systems of the elected people in the houses of the legislature as laid out in a constitution.

to get what you want. From the people who would rather personally die than have some clueless dork throw away their constitution some he can get what he "advocates forcefully"

Did you think .. a national referendum? Do you have a plan to pass the laws necessary to create a referendum passing system, then hold a country wide contest, then force congress to make the law the way the referendum lays out? Or maybe and I know you'll like this one a "general strike'? Were all the 'workers' rise up and sit down till the rich people give us what we want? Oh goody, that won't be hard to organize. And the organizing committee will be ..wait for it..
lambert!


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:29:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reboot (4.00 / 1)

You want to be a politician?

Then spare me the prolix lectures about what you can't do. And the potted notes on how our system works. Then again, if you're just an enforcer to get the "progressive" bait and switch passed, then we're both wasting our time, aren't we?

* * *

Like I said, I'm not a politician, or even an aspiring one. My job is to articulate the best policy as forcefully as I can. That said, I think Bruce Dixon's got the best one: Reboot. That we're even talking about a so-called "public option" that doesn't kick in until 2013 and covers only 9 million by 2019 is a massive strategic failure by Democrats and their "progressive" enablers. They should take a break and regroup before they do any more damage.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:45:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If we are trying to push a car uphill my friend (0.00 / 0)

and I tell you though you want to help, getting under the car is a bad way to start, it is not a potted remark. If you are standing beside the car, shouting obscenities at the people pushing, you are not pushing the car uphill.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:10:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stop that. (0.00 / 0)

Don't call those pretenders progressives.  They're no such thing.  They use the label because they're afraid of being called liberal or, "worse", socialist.  REAL progressives refuse to take "no" for an answer.  REAL progressives fight for what they believe in.  REAL progressives actually believe in something more than mere power.  REAL progressives believe in using government to better society, and making corporations operate by a set of rules so that the rights of all are protected.  REAL progressives don't seize every chance to crush dissent or strongly worded progressive arguments by labeling them "extreme."

These phonies are a disgrace to the word.  They use it to attack us from within what passes for our movement.  I call them what they really are: right-wingers ashamed to admit what they are.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 23:32:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

This summer, because am a dual citizen, residing in Canada, I am a delegate at the NDP convention, beyond ensuring the provision of single payer, by public providers only, we will debating measures to eliminate poverty, which was in our last platform. We won the second highest number seats in our history, more than we had when we forced the Liberal government to first set up National Health care, and social security. The last time we had the liberals in minority position this party voted down their 5 billion dollar give away to bank tax reduction, and instead made the 5 billion into social housing, student grants, buses and transit.

I am just saying that I have seen it done, and it was introduced in one province first, it it was gradually introduced, the population demanded it. Thats the avenue to winning. Making the voters say that its time.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 05:06:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I asked you a question. (4.00 / 1)

And I had criticisms.

Yes all the bad people are bad people.

Wow that is so deep.

God knows why I am asking a question of someone who never talks about policy or moving actual legislation forward.   (0.00 / 0)
Nor offers suggestions on motivating activists to anything except opposition, nor any plan to alter votes of recalcitrant congress critters and varmints. Nor any way of moving forward the demands of the public for the solution he proposes.

What, besides clueless wanking opposition, do you suggest? What plan, implemented how in what stages, voted on by whom, after what process, do you think congress is capable of creating? Do you a different model to legislation holy holy purist of gimme what I want now?

Perhaps:

Perhaps Obama should dissolve congress and just write a single payer bill and pass it in the Rose Garden. There are few seats in the Rose Garden, and there have never been any obstructions to passing bills there, so it seems perfect. As I count them, there are only one votes there, so getting a filibuster proof voting majority, would require, let me get my calculator, umm... one vote. That seems doable.

The present, or should I say former, members of the two houses of the legislative branch will then be able to have their August Recess, and tell to their families and friends that they haven't been fired, just having a longer than expected 'break.'

I wonder could you write the Press Release for the dissolution of congress? I'll start working on the Press Release for the vote in the Rose Garden where Obama, having seen the brilliance of no longer fighting with Republicans and Blue Dogs, will use all his time voting in the great ideas sent to him by email.

Annnd this is the best part, no longer having to cover the 600 elected people in Washington struggling to overcome greed, inertia and differing political goals, the press corps can start covering Obama's discussions with himself.

This really is easier than I thought, thanks so much. What shall work on now that we've solved that? I'm thinking voter registration. What about you?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:11:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What on earth are you talking about? (4.00 / 1)

You're quoting things that I never wrote and responding to them.

Let me try and simplify it down for you:

1. I'm not a politician, I'm a citizen.

2. My job is to advocate forcefully for the policy that I know and believe is the best.

3. Politicians work for the citizens, not the other way round.

4. It's the politician's job to get stuff passed -- representative democracy, see?

5. If you're a politician -- and it's my reading from the enforcement work you do here that you are -- then you work for me, and it's your job to figure out how to get stuff done. In general, and rightly, asking me for the plan is like asking the homeowner to do the blueprints. That's the architect's job; it's the homeowner's job to express the requirements.

So, don't ask me to do your job (assuming my reading about is right).

* * *

That said, there are two good single payer bills: HR 676 (John Conyers) and S703 (Bernie Sanders). Advocate for them.

There is also an amendment from Kucinich to allow single payer experiments by the states. Advocate for it.

Failing that, reboot. Don't pass a thing. Since the disaster that is the public option doesn't kick in 'til 2013, we've got time to do the right thing.

And while we're rebooting, the "progressives" could (a) admit their own strategic failure of not pushing single payer when it would have made a difference, or, heck, (b) have a conversion experience and advocate for the policy they know in their hearts and minds is right.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:03:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Citizens should know how the country works. (0.00 / 0)

1. I'm not a politician, I'm a citizen.

Yes you are. Everything is political. Some people get elected. You are not elected, but you are a politician. If you are advocting, if you want to be successful, you should know to push, and what to push, and what the consequences are, and reflect that in your advocacy. If only to convince people that you have any idea at all what you are talking about. It would be nice if what you advocate would actually do what you say you want.

Merely stipulating support for an outcome, does not make your advice about that outcome worthwhile. For example you could say: I support single payer, we must all set our hair on fire! That does not make your advice worthwhile, see? Or you might suggest delaying and starting over, or voting for republicans.

You see, stating you have the same goal, does not make your advice worthwhile.

3. Politicians work for the citizens, not the other way round.

4. It's the politician's job to get stuff passed -- representative democracy, see?

Impressive.

1. The sky is blue.

2. Babies are cute.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 14:33:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with Lambert (4.00 / 2)

It's not his job to figure out the mechanics of passing a bill. It's his job to advocate for the policy he wants.

When a pol says he can't do something, it's time to remember that "pols do what pols do". They aren't on your side, they are on the side of power and money. We can't compete with the insurance companies with money -- they have way more than we do. We can compete with power by making the pols afraid of losing their jobs.

Enabling their craven instincts to take money from the insurance companies by accepting crumbs (or the promise of some crumbs to be specified later) doesn't do us any good.

And I don't agree with the argument that some people will get insurance that didn't have it before with a "public option" (tm) so any bill is good -- it's the same argument that the Iraq war was okay because it deposed Saddam Hussein. At what cost needs to be considered.

---

by: cenobite @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 19:20:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no cost, as in doing nothing will not in any way add people to coverage. (0.00 / 0)

The stipulated outcome that is planned is 98%, with a robust public option. Comparing the provision of health reform to the Iraq war is bizarre.

I do not want lambert to stop pushing for single payer. I have pushed for single payer. I think the whip system developed by in no order of importance: this site, FDL, the progressive caucus, Pelosi and Chris Bowers etc, to be one of the strongest pushes toward a real health reform package that exists so far. Compared to merely screaming and insulting, compared to blaming progressives, compared to saying that "the only thing all politicians do is rip you off dude" it is a shining star of effectiveness and assistance.

I want more "whip" level push projects forf the process, not less.

Obama was challenged for his apparent suggestion that third party attacks on foot draggers, moveon's ad etc., and challenged rightly so. The fact that less than ten days later, he brought the weight of the DNC and Organizing for America into making ads against not just the Senators, but memebers of the House as well, means he listened, and understood and acted. This is effective advocacy.

lambert contends that it is "his job to advocate" - but "It's not his job to figure out the mechanics of passing a bill"

Advocate is not altering the process for passing bills, advocacy is not insulting.

altering the process for passing a bill, or the timing of a bill, of the removal of a bill is nothing but "the mechanics of passing a bill"

so I want advocacy The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48active support; especially the act of pleading or arguing for something

And I want smart action shoving legislation, which ius the act changing the laws, and we are a nation of laws, so that the law gets better. You can say don't tell me about legislative niceties, but then argue about how to cancel a bill, or change legislative actions. Well you can but you will get people who are interested in such things arguing with you about the best way forward.

You cannot then, say I was just advocating, which is arguing and pleading for a cause, and not legislative niceties.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 21:32:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressives (0.00 / 0)

advocated for single payor for a long time.  The question now is if it's not on the table, do they settle for and get behind something lesser which still might save some lives.

---

by: Ian Welsh @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:11:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressives did (4.00 / 2)

"Progressives" did not. The time to do that was at the very latest 2008. It didn't happen. And the suppression of single payer by "progressives" was of a piece with its suppression by our famously free press and the Obama administration.

Big, messy strategic failure.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:04:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is your point about progressives? (0.00 / 0)

You dont like Obama, you dont like democrats and you dont like progressives. Hmmmm. May I ask lambert, who do you like?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:01:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He likes progressives just fine. (0.00 / 0)

It's you phonies he has a beef with.  You pretend to be what we are, and we see through your cheap mask.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 23:57:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 04:33:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

save some lives? In what year? (4.00 / 3)

the choice, Ian, is not between passing this bill to save lives, and nothing.  

remember.  the obama bill does not cover a portion of the uninsured till 2013.  leaving aside the question of motivation for such a strange timetable, we could let this stinking broken  thing die this year and try to pass something, either single payer or a REAL public option next year with a shorter timetable and SAVE more lives.

the choice is between letting this thing die and getting something with a much shorter timetable next year, before the midterms that takes effect in under a year.  if they could do that for millions of seniors back in the sixties before computers, they can do it now.  but if we won't fight for it, it will never happen.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston

---

by: bruce.dixon @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:28:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure they (0.00 / 0)

can do it now.  Different president, different Congress, with a very can't do attitude as Badtux puts it.

This may be the best we can get out of this bunch.

---

by: Ian Welsh @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 07:17:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Teacherken Has A First-Hand Account Of The Remote Area Medical Event Posted At DKos (4.00 / 1)

Here.

A taste:

I thought I had some concept of the healthcare crisis.  Having written about this annual event, in a diary titled This may break your heart - and it should, I thought I was prepared for my volunteering.

I was not.  Today I spent from 7 AM to 5:30 PM - with only about 3 minutes off - working in dental triage with outstanding dentists trying to process as manhy patients as possible.  My heart was broken time and again, and my spirits were lifted by the dedication of all who volunteered.

And I was angered and ashamed at what I saw, which is the only reason I am attempting to explain in this diary.

I saw people in their twenties coming in to have multiple extractions, as the only way to stop the pain that they could afford. I saw people in their 40s and 50s asking for all their teeth to be pulled, in the hope that eventually they might be able to get dentures.  

Let's stop.  Before we go any further, there are cultural issues, where people consume large amounts of Mountain Dew, use too much tobacco, do not do basic dental hygiene. I know all that.  But in Wise County the average income in around 13,000/person.  There is no public transportation to get to a dentist, even if you had dental insurance, which most people do not.  And the dietary issues that contribute to poor dental health are readily visible in other ways, such obesity, Type II diabetes, and other problems.  

Health care in this nation is not merely an issue of getting insurance for everyone.  There has to be access to care.  There has to be basic nutritional education, and basic nutritional support, or we will be dealing with serious medical and dental problems downstream that are far more expensive to treat, and which rob us of the productivity of many who should be in the primes of their lives.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 20:28:25 PM UTC

What a shame they have to wait 'til 2013 (4.00 / 1)

And by "shame" I mean a disgusting shame and a disgrace. And whoever's going to lecture me now on the intracies of CBO scoring, please don't.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:00:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do think we'll get a different outcome when we have the same system? (4.00 / 5)

In 2009, we have virtually the same special-interest driven political system that defeated Clinton's health care reform efforts using virtually the same strategies and tactics to derail health care reform yet again.

Nothing has changed except that the Max Baucuses who populate Congress have multiplied their numbers and gotten even more money from the private insurance industry. More legislators are on the take from moneyed special intersts than ever before.

Isn't insanity defined as expecting different results despite repeating the same causal pattern?

When do we accept the reality that we are living under a system that is no longer a democracy but a plutocracy driven by wealthy special interests and influence peddling politicians?

We will not get different legislative outputs until we change the system, re-invent it, if you will.

If you have elected representatives who block the popular will for a single payer system even as 20,000 people die every year for lack of medical care, why do people think that working within the system that puts these corrupt, insensate office holders in power will result in legislation that honors the will of the people?

I really don't get it.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 20:32:06 PM UTC

Definition of insanity (4.00 / 1)

Doing the same thing, and accepting a different result.

This time, it's the Democrats and their enablers in the "progressive" blogosphere doing the insane thing, since they didn't advocate for good policy when they had a chance and now want us to eat the shit sausage of their making, and smile while we're doing it. No thanks.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 20:59:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And by the same system he means, voting in congress. (0.00 / 0)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:13:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, no (0.00 / 0)

Trivially, because I didn't use the words "same system."

Less trivially, because I hope this turkey doesn't come up for a vote, so, no, I don't mean "voting in Congress."

And less trivially, why on earth would you think that by "system" I mean the process of passing legislation, as you seem to think I do?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:18:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

because holding your breath is not passing a bill (0.00 / 0)

Because voting in the houses of the legislature is how the law is made.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 14:58:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So stop making excuse and start getting stuff passed. (0.00 / 0)

You're the one with aspirations of being a politician.  You start making suggestions as to what we can do to get single-payer passed and signed into law, and how we're going to do it.  Don't give us excuses for why it can't be done until you've tried all possible means.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 00:04:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have no aspirations intent or possibility of being elected (4.00 / 1)

If nominated will not run, if elected will not serve

There is only one thing that is important to work for in America and that is an engaged citizenry, knowing it's rights its constitution and dedicated to democracy.

Tell people to contact their reps and senators and demand that the legislature aim the medical system toward single payer by recognizing the right to healthcare.

Veterans are covered in health care because their right to care is assumed, its obvious.

The economy deserves medical care, because businesses, small businesses are getting bills for insurance at $1,400 a family for each employee, every month. And its climbing at twenty % a year. A public option, single payer, reduces or eliminates that cost to every small business in the country.

Amercans and American small businesses have a right to healthcare.

Mom has a right to healthcare

The veterans administration doesn't use private medical insurance, because they can't afford to waste that much money, and because their commitment to veterans health, their promise of caring, won't let them be treated the way insurance companies treat their 'customers'

Americans have a right to healthcare

because we can take care of each other, better, much better, more cheaply, much more cheaply as a nation, and with real care, even love

Americans have a right to healthcare

millions of people are ruined, ruined financially by the arrival of a devastating, or even commonplace medical emergency, that is as rare in Canada and Britain as it is common in America.

americans  have a right to  healthcare

because president Roosevelt said we had a right to freedom from fear, and millions of americans live in fear of what is covered, what will be denied, what will be delisted, what bill will be returned unpaid with coverage lost. What procedure wont be offered, fear of choosing which hand to save because he cant afford both.

Anericans have a right organize their society so that health is a right of every mother and son, every business and school and every city and state

Louisiana has right to healthcare. New York has a right to healthcare, Minnesotta has a right to healthcare Alabama has a right to healthcare

If everyone knows that they are citizens in a democracy, if everyone knows they have a right to demand, if everyone knows that their child and their father have a right to be cared for, and if they say that it is time; it will happen just as bills get paid, just as taxes come, and babies get born, it twill be time to deliver

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 04:21:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you don't plan to run for public office... (0.00 / 0)

...why, then, do you act like you do?  Why do you couch everything in terms of political gain or loss, and seldom (if ever) in terms of how policy affects people?  Why, if you've no aspirations of political office, do you scold others on what you presume is a lack of ideas and never offer your own?

No, child, you are a politician - in spirit if not in practice.  You're part of the crowd of phonies that lay claim to the title of progressive yet behave like right-wingers.

NO ONE in America has a right to health care, not in practice.  That's why we need a strong, effective single-payer system.  Stop making excuses for why we should settle for less than nothing and start offering up ideas for how we can get single-payer.  Do not bother to reply to me on this subject until you've supplied some.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 14:44:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your anger is misplaced and to no effect. (0.00 / 0)

You asked what should be done. I delineated that. There are other lists, and I can find them if you like. This one, in part because, just as lambert proclaims, it is advocacy, and not legislative niceties, it could be part of what advocacy could, in some circumstances, look like. I would also point you too lambert's post yesterday on the nations article

Your thought that I might want advocacy to slow down, or focus on a different subject than the right to health is not correct. Your assumption that my criticisms of legislative suggestions means that I want something other than single payer for America is unfounded.

I am 57 years old.

Everyone in America has a right to healthcare, but the law needs to be changed to reflect that.

Everything I write is about how to9 get it. Everything I write is about the efforts of other dedicated people trying to achieve that and what might work better and what is wrong headed, and why. And what others are doing that fits their goals but works more effectively, in my humble but loquacious opinion, to achieve that.

It is not pushing to spit on someone. Screaming is not necessarily the best thing to do, right now. Though of course, it sometimes is. There will be a transition, it will not happen all at once. That is a hell of a lot more than a prediction. It is a law of physics. Let me point you to articles on inertia if you like.

While it may be politically useful, and factually correct, to denounce someone before acting in ways to achieve a goal, but denouncing is not the end of the needed action. And sometimes it is among the more counter productive things to do. It feels good, like punching soemone in the face in a bar fight, or at least it seems like it will feel good. but that may not be the smartest, most progressive, most effective way forward.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 16:15:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Nancy. (4.00 / 2)

Well, I was about to say, so what do we do?

But then I see you've provided a link to your free online book.  Good!

Then I read your book and the first part was the familiar litany of points, all of which I agree with but no prescriptions.

But I read on and then I came to your prescription.  Good!

I must admit having only skimmed and not read the whole thing.  Yet I think it is fair to say that your prescription is basically to expand on existing social networking internet technologies to supplant the existing political parties and build something new, something that will address the ills you so ably laid out.

No doubt there is more going on here than I knew about.  And clearly it has some potential.  But I hope you won't mind if I challenge you on a couple of points.

1) Emphasis on "the Millennials".  Clearly they now represent the future and the ones most comfortable with the technologies you are talking about.  Yet, it would seem that there is a generational conflict as well.  One particular example would be that it probably NOT the Millennials who are the most interested in single-payer health care (until a few decades down the road).  That has never been and probably never will be a young person's issue, for reasons that are obvious.  On that issue particularly, a heavy concentration on social networking may not deliver all the bang needed.

2) Can they take the Internet away from us?  China and Iran are potent recent examples.  If the threat we pose was great enough, why do we think they wouldn't just pull the plug?  Clearly we must take advantage of the Internet while we can.  But we need to be mindful of it.

3) There are still large numbers of people who aren't as tightly connected to the Internet as your Millennials.  The number dwindles every day, but it's still there.  These are overwhelming the people most screwed over by the current economy.  How are they to be incorporated?  A constant irritation to me is the cooptability of "Web 2.0 millennials" by the very corporations providing the Internet tools on which your strategy is based and a big gulf in understanding of the non-connected part of the masses.  

I'm not trying to trash your work which is very interesting.  But you would improve it if you addressed these points.  Please forgive me if you HAVE addressed these points, because they are a gut reaction for me after having only skimmed.

Anyway, thanks for some systematic thinking.

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

---

by: sTiVo @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:27:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, Thanks So Much (4.00 / 1)

for looking into my stuff. The Interactive Voter Choice System is the only mechanism I know about that has the capacity to empower voters across the political spectrum to organize their own socio-political networks at the election district level to directly set the nation's policy priorities for the first time in history and elect candidates who will enact them into law.

If you come across other mechanisms with this potential, please let me know.

On the topic of Millennials, let me share with you what I have learned about their progressive values, some of which is in my book. Since they have experience in political organizing, I think they may well reach out in face-to-face gatherings at the election district level and bring along folks who are just getting the hang of the Internet.

"A majority of Millennials share the critical views of the majority of all Americans who think the country is on the "wrong track." They think politicians are selfishly motivated, politics has become "too partisan", the political tone in Washington is "too negative" and elected officials do not share their priorities.

"However, young Millennials differ significantly from the generations immediately preceding them in that they are more actively involved in political campaigns, civic affairs and community-building, both face-to-face locally and virtually over the Internet using web-based social networking technologies.

"Even though they share other voters' criticisms of the nation's lawmakers and key policies they have enacted, Millennials have more positive and expansive views of what government can and should accomplish.

"Studies conducted prior to the 2008 collapse of the U.S. banking and financial system show that even then the vast majority of Millennials did not share the conservative view that government should not intervene in the economy and that unfettered free markets are sufficient to provide prosperity for all. They expressed the progressive belief that government should be a pro-active problem solver even if it means raising taxes to support expanded government services.

"As the largest and most ethnically diverse generation in history, Millennials also think government can and should and promote economic equality and prosperity for all, rather than just a few.

"Since 2003, Millennials have been citing jobs and the economy as their priority issues, presumably because they have experienced so many difficulties getting the jobs they have been seeking in an economy that has been rapidly contracting. Now that the limitations of the free market have been demonstrated, they want government to take a pro-active role in expanding the economy and fostering the creation of good jobs. They also want government to substantially increase its investment in higher education and health care."
                 

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:40:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The answer is simple (4.00 / 1)

you have to support candidates in the Democratic Primaries that agree with you.

The fact is that the nomination process is relatively open - if you have enough cash in Iowa and NH you can compete with anybody. I spent a significant amount of time collecting data to try and prove this point.

But first you have to support candidates who agree with you.  None of the three major Democratic Candidates supported single payer.  Yet millions went into their campaigns.  

The real story in all of this is quite simple: the major Democratic candidates didn't think single payer was a voting issue with primary voters.  In January 2008 they were right: Iraq was issue number 1, and the economy was number 2.  

I have written this before but I don't think people get it.

By far the single most important political fight in America takes place in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the Democratic Party is defined.

And I will now raise the question everyone is afraid to ask, but is the only one that matters:
If you are really this upset with Obama, who are you planning to support in the primaries in 2012?

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:36:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

First of all, unless the voters have a mechanism like the The Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) to define their policy agendas across the board BEFORE candidates are selected who pledge to enact them into laws, we will have turncoats like Obama who say one thing on the campaign trail and do another when once elected.

When voters have written policy agendas that they can use as mandates for elected officials and benchmarks to decide which candidates they want on the ballot, then we will have an authentic democracy rather than the sham we now have.

As to your claim that anyone can enter a presidential primary, please tell me how much the winners spent to win them and how insurgents without money can compete with them.

According to the analysis of the 2008 elections by the Center for Responsive Politics (see Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever, money is the deciding factor.

So with all due respect, I beg to differ with you when suggest that we have no choice but to get led down the garden path again in 2012.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:00:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama wasn't (4.00 / 1)

for single payor.  Anyone who read his position in 2007 knew that.  To argue he is a turncoat is to argue he supported something he didn't.

Presidential Primary History is full of examples of candidates who had little money but became significant players anyway. McCarthy chased LBJ out in '68, McGovern came from nowhere in '72, Carter came from nowhere in '76, Hart came from nowhere in '84, Tsongas had no money in '92, nobody had heard of Dean in 2004 when the process began, and money had nothing to do with his losing. Insurgents don't always win, but money is seldom the reason they don't win.  

Perhaps I was unclear here: but the place to change Democratic Politics is in Iowa and New Hampshire in the year of Presidential Primaries.  

You either support Obama in the primaries or you don't in 2012.  If you don't, then you have to find someone to beat him.

It's not complicated.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:52:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't say (0.00 / 0)

Obama was for single payer. But he definitely engaged in quite a bit of demagogue-ery when he was equivocating about what his plan really meant while making emotional appeals about his mother's fight with insurances companies while dying of cancer.

He made us think that he would fight to protect us on the health care front. But by allowing the private insurance industry to call the shots, he is leaving a lot of bodies of underinsured and uninsured dead in the road for all of us to see and remember when we measure his moral stature and legacy.

Back to your points above, to fight an incumbent like Obama who has already lined up the fat cat money -- in exchange for promises not to gore their oxen -- is a hopeless task.

So I don't know what you are proposing.

I hope you are not seriously arguing that an insurgent could snatch the nomination away from Obama in a primary fight. Or are you?

If so, this is a virtual impossibility, according to my crystal ball.

By shoving progressive policies off the cliff and catering to center-right conservatives within the Democratic and Republican parties, he is building a center-right coalition to assure him a second term.

I, for one, will not be a party to four more years of his caving in on issues like single payer which are life and death issues to millions of people.

Unless he gets out and really fights for single payer or an authentic public option that can eventually put the U.S. private insurance industry out of business, I will consider him a turncoat who has betrayed the American people.

My only hope is that popular outrage at the short shrift he has given to single payer -- which is THE PIVOTAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME -- will force changes in the system that brought Obama to power.

There are a number of possibilities, including my Interactive Voter Choice System.

But to avail ourselves of these possibilities, we have to think outside the box. Voters still call the shots and they can get control of government -- provided we progressive activists think outside the box and devise ways to bring down the special interest driven, two party duopoly that is ruining the country.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 16:37:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One thing you seem to leave out of the equation... (0.00 / 0)

I could be wrong, and if so my apologies, but isn't the biggest part of the process vetting candidates?  I took enough looks at Obama's record to know he's a Reaganite-Bushovik, and always has been.  I cast my ballot for Kucinich last year, first in the Ohio primary and then as a write-in during the general election.  I stand by my decision.

Here's a good web site to look at when evaluating members of Congress:

http://www.govtrack.us

That site shows how politicians actually voted on everything from bills to motions.  Make good use of it.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 00:10:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be blunt (0.00 / 0)

unless you take Obama on in the primaries, your ability to influence the debate is extremely limitied. Progressives are going to have to confront that fact.  Obama detailed what his plan was, and everybody knew it.  I heard him in both Iowa and New Hampshire: and it was clear he was not for single payor.

The history cited above shows that incumbents have been pressured in the primary process.  One was taken out (LBJ), and two others nearly were (Ford in '76, Carter in '80).  As I have noted, it isn't the money.

I don't think we have a prayer of challenging Obama, whose base among African Americans alone would make  a tough foe.

Having said that, unless progressives are willing to actually talk about their possibility, I am not sure in the end what we are hoping to accomplish.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 15:20:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, there is some movement toward economic issues on the part of the millennials (4.00 / 2)

No doubt due to the economic crisis we are now experiencing and my comments may reflect realities as of a year or more ago better than it reflects current realities.

One of the critiques I used to make about the "left blogosphere" as it used to be called a few years ago was that is was filled with people who knew they SHOULD support unions but were damned if they could explain why.  No personal experience or contact with "icky" proletarian types who may have liked guns or were politically incorrect.

This is all becoming somewhat less of an issue as it sinks in that we're all being screwed economically.

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

---

by: sTiVo @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 16:00:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I predict labor unions (0.00 / 0)

will make a powerful comeback on the American political scene within the next few years.

Stay tuned. . .  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 16:38:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At any liberal meeting I have ever been to (0.00 / 0)

I can count the number of American Cars on one hand.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 15:21:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Post Script (0.00 / 0)

You are correct that the Internet is under attack by greedy corporations and political predators who do not want people to be able to use the Internet to organize against them.

But I have heard that other more sophisticated versions of the Internet are in development abroad.

One of the motivations is to break free of U.S. authorities who are violating the privacy not only of U.S. citizens but of citizens of other countries who communicate with them.

Foreign governments are also wary of allowing U.S. government authorities to use the black boxes they put on top of the servers of U.S. telecoms to snoop on communications that involve them.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 00:41:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is where the hippies were when they co-opted out (4.00 / 1)

in exchange for student loans, easy access to higher education and inflated grades and diplomas and certifications.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:04:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BS (4.00 / 2)

Well, he says, let Congress do it. In their wisdom, they'll come out with something, and I will give you a few feel-good principles. And then we'll wait and see what happens. Because he doesn't want his fingerprints on it if it fails.

This is far removed from reality it undermines everything else this person says.  Obama will be judged by this health care bill and his ability to pass it.  He knows it and so does everyone else.

You can argue that his better strategy would be to present a bill up front instead of letting congress do most of the legislation.  That would be fair.  But this reasoning is pure bullshit.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:51:12 PM UTC

I Disagree (4.00 / 1)

I've long openly admitted to being baffled by Obama.  But one reason I say that is that in doing so I constantly remind myself not to assume a certain understanding just because it seems to fit, when there's so much uncertainty all around it.

Now, I agree with you that there are strong reasons to assume otherwise.  But Obama clearly has acted in ways that can be cognized as ambivalent and risk-avoidant (even when risk-avoidance actually increases risk--such as downsizing the stimulus), and thus, self-defeating.  This reading of Obama is consistent with such behavior, and other things she says seem well-considered.  I'm not going to disregard them because of this.  There could well be a germ of truth in what she's saying here.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:49:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

His strategy (4.00 / 1)

is the same as Reagan's. The Reagan people believed if the President got personally involved in the details of legislation, he ran the risk of diminishing his influence over the final legislation

Obama is following the same strategy Reagan followed: let Congress deal with the details, have the President should appear above them and talk about the big picture.  I have heard several Reagan alums talk about this strategy.

The contrast between this strategy and what Clinton did in '93 is obvious, and I think Obama is quite obviously trying to learn from Reagan in this respect.  

I agree with Matt: it has nothing to do with not wanting his fingerprints on the final product.  It is in fact the opposite: it is born out of the political necessity of appearing to have 'won' the fight.

We have had this argument before, but I think the Obama people think this strategy allowed them to get most of what they wanted on the stimulus package.

Now whether what is finally produced is good policy is another question.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:47:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the stimulus bill (4.00 / 3)

was almost exactly what Obama originally suggested, actually.  The House bill was far more liberal than Obama wanted, and the Senate "compromise" was closer to what he wanted.  People mistook him not asking for a liberal bill out the door as a tactical error.  It wasn't, there is no evidence he ever wanted a liberal bill, and as I observed throughout the campaign there is a ton of evidence that Obama LOVES tax cuts.  They were in the bill because he wanted them in the bill.  He just thought that the middle class should get their tax cuts after Bush gave the rich theirs.

Obama and his proxies have been very clear- they don't want single payer, and they don't want a public option strong enough to eventually turn into single payer. Unfortunately, a public option not strong enough to turn into single payer is probably not strong enough to reduce costs significantly either.

---

by: Ian Welsh @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:56:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is the point I have made before (0.00 / 0)

in discussing this with Paul.  Obama's strategy worked from his perspective on the stimulus package.

He will probably get most of what he wants on Health Care. Everyone knows he doesn't want Single Payor who paid attention during the primaries.

From his perspective the political strategy is working.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:35:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama does not think there are enough votes for single payer. (0.00 / 0)

And advocating for something that cannot happen does not earn you points, does not get you votes in congress, allows whoever does come up with the plan that will pass to be the "leader." Since we are making things up as to whats in his head, I thought I'd make my guess.

I make this guess because if he is half the politician LBJ was he would do what made the next project as successful as possible, because there is more than one project.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 14:40:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Leadership versus Followership (4.00 / 2)

If what you write above is true, then we have a follower in the presidency, not a leader.

Obama could very well travel to every election district of a blue dog democrat and hammer on the advantages and dire financial necessity for a single payer system.

With his oratorical skills and the facts at his command (namely that a private insurance system is ruining the economy in addition to fleecing the public), he could convince a majority of voters in each blue dog electoral district to support the blue dog if he or she holds out in favor of a single payer plan.

He would win this legislative battle if he was willing to be a one term president.

But he is too busy trying to build an electoral base for his second run for office by capitulating to the fat cats in the insurance industry and the wealthy and upper middle class who already have all the insurance coverage they need.

I predict he will go down in history as someone who failed to rise to the greatest opportunity of all time, that of giving the U.S. the same single payer system that all other advanced countries have provided their people, because he was more interested in his political prospects than the people.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:14:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes you may be right. He may be playing this to close too the bi-partisan lable. (0.00 / 0)

It will be better than Clintons attempt, and he too fell far short of what America needs. I don't know just how many votes any of these can get. That is a real quandry, like playing poker. There are only so many chips in the game, and Obama has to play his hand.

I do know that every lean, shove, argument of pressure against recalcitrant Dem is the only effective way to shove this left. David Sirota has decried the Presidential" nature of the American political system many many times, and while it may not be the way he intended to say it, it also means that maybe we can focus a little more on where the actual ability to make this happen lies. THAT is with the foot dragging votes in the Senate, and less effectively, the foot draggers in the House.

What we need to do is educate the public about the anti public option, single payer votes in the Senate, until we get the best damn possible bill in Reconciliation that 51% has the guts to vote for, or can shoved to vote for.

Obama, besides calling for public action and bully pulpit and arm twisting, is not where the rubber hits the road now.

Seven dollars spent on the last six votes to push a bill past 51% in the Senate is far, far better use of any resource than decrying Obama's leadership or lack of leadership.

One point however, if Obama is rallying people top the cause, and asking for people to commit to the a public option, and is not as has been suggested using a direct push sending out emails, as opposed to merely rallying people that come to his site, then he is making a big error, and pressure to do the direct emailing to his database must be applied.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 17:56:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stop, You're Both Wrong! (0.00 / 0)

HousesofProgress is right to point out Obama's explicit claim, repeated on various occasions, that he didn't support single payer because it didn't have the votes.  He also said it was clearly the best plan if one were to start from scratch.   We do not actually know what he really wants, of course.  But you are clearly contradicting his own statements in the past when you blithely assert that this is just what he wanted all along.  It may be true, of course.  But it can't just simply be assumed as obviously true.

The same is true regarding the stimulus.  He acknowledged that it was quite possible the stimulus was too small, but he wanted to avoid being too close to $1 trillion, and he (or aids, I forget the exact sourcing) said he expected that Congress might wll increase the size.

So, this is all we can say for certain about his strategy and desires: They're unclear.  And intentionally so.  This allows people to read whatever they want into them.  And Obama uses that heavily to his advantage.

That is not, btw, what Reagan did.  Regan defined things quite clearly--albeit abstractly enough that he could compromise when he needed to and still claim victory.

But that's precisely why HousesofProgress is wrong, too.  

Reagan advocated for things that could not happen all the time.  In many cases, his advocacy contributed greatly to changing what was legislatively possible.

He had notably less success with changing the laws of physics, however.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 15:29:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ex post facto logic (0.00 / 0)

For Obama to argue that he can't support single payer because it didn't have the votes is an outrageous cop out.

The reason single payer doesn't have enough votes is largely because Obama has failed to support it by coming out strongly in favor of it and beating the bushes in blue dog districts to drum up support and put pressure on members of Congress from these districts.

if LBJ were alive today, I bet he would regard Obama as a coward and a sissy. LBJ's legacy in passing the Civil Rights Act puts him at the tippy top of American political heroes.

If Obama had been president, the act wouldn't have been passed.

Turncoat Obama supported single payer earlier in his political career, and is on record as arguing that in order for single payer to be passed, we had to have a Democratic-controlled Congress and presidency. Now that we have both and he is the president, he has renegged on these views. What a wimp! What an opportunist!

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 16:49:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nancy lets stop using gender and heterosexist terms to define good and bad. (0.00 / 0)

Harvey Milk one of the most effective politicians of his time, was sissy. A wuss and a fairy. And he has a hell of a lot more of my respect than any butch dickweed you care to put up.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 18:03:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're probably right about that (0.00 / 0)

I never thought of the word "sissy" in a gender context before, but you're probably right.

Also, I am not up on what a "wuss" or a "fairy" are, either.

What I meant about Obama is that he appears to be lacking the courage and moral stature to do everything in his power to free Americans from the strangle hold of the private insurers who do not care one bit if they profit from sending sick people to early graves.

In my own defense, however, and remembering LBJ, I do not think it impossible that he would have thought of Obama as a sissy and even used that term, though I have no way of knowing whether he did or not.

Needless to say, with you to remind us of the many connotations and denotations a word like sissy can have, he would not have used the term in public discourse.  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 18:42:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You dont know what a fairy is? You have never heard someone called a wuss? (0.00 / 0)

I am amazed.

But, thank you for replying.

I will not get into whatever assumptions and conditioning President Johnson suffered from. However arrogance is certainly one of them. And bullying is only admired when you are not the one suffering.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Lester B. Pearson, and I am happy to say, and Daniel De Groot would appreciate me saying, was the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada. He prevented the American British Invasion of Egypt, and he criticized LBJ's war on the Vietnamese people, even when invited to speak in the United States. He was invited to the White House on one  speaking trip he had been invited to America for.

In the famous story he told upon returning to Canada, when Pearson entered the Oval Office Johnson strode up, but instead of taking his hand he grabbed the Prime Minister by the lapels and lifted him off the ground and said "You peed on my rug" in reference to Pearson's Vietnam War criticism. Canada was as amazed as the Prime Minister. Had he listened, been weak, and heard what Lester was enjoining him to hear, Johnson would have gone down in History as yes, the tippy top of all Presidents ever.

That Prime Minister Lester Pearson also had a soft high voice and a lisp only adds to my point. Lester Pearson is in my mind one the greatest Canadians ever, and one of the great builders of the United Nations and an example to all people hoping to become worthy in the eyes of their spouses, their principles, their friends and history.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 19:29:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My praise of LBJ (0.00 / 0)

was limited to the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

In that instance, he truly transcended his time and place of origin and, I believe, acted out of political courage to do what he knew had to be done despite the high political price he knew the Democrats were going to have to pay in losing the South for three decades.

What I meant is that I have never attributed to the term "wuss" a gender connotation. Nor did I ever understand the etymology of the word. Yes, I remember the term "fairy" being used, but more as a description than as a criticism.

Anyhow, I did not use either term today or ever. We got into this discussion because of my use of the word "sissy", remember?  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 20:01:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes Nancy, sorry if you feel singled out, it is not my intention (4.00 / 1)

I like your work, feel your invention has real promise, and you contributions to the discussion of progressive change are notable.

My comment about wuss and fairy were in reference to your reply, which had the sentence:

Also, I am not up on what a "wuss" or a "fairy" are, either.

and of which I was not critical, merely amazed. I am glad you lived in a house that didnt use those insults.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 21:02:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your contribution is impressive (0.00 / 0)

and I always look forward to reading your thoughts.

I did not feel singled out by anything you said, just a bit out of it in terms of terminology.

You know, I am amazed at how uncivil discourse has become in this country. By that I do not refer to the use of epithets or expletives but simply the head-butting that characterizes so much interaction in politics and the media by people who are using attacks and misrepresentation of people's ideas just to get publicity for themselves.

I am also put off by people who cannot muster up a kind word for the people they are criticizing. If no relationship of hail-fellow-well-met is established at the beginning, the person attacked just cannot avoid being on the defensive and then taking the offensive to even up sides.

Oh well. . . naive me. I just mentioned to an Open Left member on a telephone conversation that I had lived in Switzerland for 10 years, from 1969 to 1979. When I returned and started teaching at a university in Manhattan, my students claimed that my concern for those lacking opportunities was an indication that I was living in a bit of a time warp. They explained to me that theme of the era had changed to "me first" and that my views were both quaint and outdated.

Frankly, I think I still inhabit that space to some degree.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 22:51:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope you spread your feelings widely and disavow any connotations of quaintness. (4.00 / 1)

There are enough truly evil nasty people to use up all the  epithets available. When people merely disagree, when good efforts are merely found different from ones own, however, important, that we can find fellow feeling, and if not companionship, at least grudging respect, then progress becomes possible.

Pretending, in passion that some ally is a fool or satan or Geobles it bot only degrades the horror or real evil but prevents the coalition we will need to defeat the leviathans of avaricious control we face.

Thank you for your kind generous words.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 23:10:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, Of Course (4.00 / 1)

Obama isn't a leader.  He's an early adopter.

But not exactly a discriminating one.

I believe the technical term is a "mark."


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 18:09:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

? (0.00 / 0)

What's a "mark"?

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 18:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The prey of con men. (4.00 / 1)

The gullible one who is fooled by liars.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 19:35:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the lyinf con-man is Obama. (0.00 / 0)

We're the marks.  But you knew that already.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 00:19:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A mark (4.00 / 1)

Is the person who is swindled in a con job.

---

by: cenobite @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 19:35:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, Obama never supported single-payer. (0.00 / 0)

As the Boston Globe reported, Obama's record is of gutting health care reform, not supporting it.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 00:16:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now, an implementation date AFTER the next Presidential cycle... (4.00 / 2)

that would be not leaving any fingerprints.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:20:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I want to tell you (0.00 / 0)

I don't think Obama can mobilize a powerful grassroots force to change the dynamics in Washington, even if he wanted to.  He's a man, not a messiah.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:58:46 PM UTC

So what! He could go to West Virginia with these people and fuck his advisors (4.00 / 1)

He is pussy whipped and congress whipped.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:00:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But Obama is doing just that. he is running a national campaign. (0.00 / 0)

He is running his election and primary webiste  as Oragnize for America now, he is getting hundreds of thousands of people, a million people to take a pledge, who sole policy item, let me say that again, whose sole policy item, is a public option

President Obama has announced three bedrock requirements for real health insurance reform:
#  Reduce Costs - Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals and families and they must be brought under control
# Guarantee Choice - Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor - including the choice of a public insurance option
# Ensure Quality Care for All - All Americans must have quality and affordable health care

There si nothing here for people to pledge for, to get excited about, to demand: except a public option.

Susie Madrak at Crooks and liars says this
Bait and Switch LINK

The next best thing to single payer is structural change that really makes people understand and support the concept that health care can and should be accessible to everyone. This bill will do that, and we can improve from there.

I'm actually shocked to find the more I look at the long-term strategy here, the more I like it. The fact is, it will be a lot more politically difficult for members of Congress to vote against those future incremental improvements than to vote against the entire plan now. Once it's in place, and constituents start calling their elected officials with complaints about flaws in the bill, they're going to have to fix those problems - or at the very least, not get in the way of the solution.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:15:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I love that... (4.00 / 3)

Let me quote:

Once it's in place, and constituents start calling their elected officials with complaints about flaws in the bill...

Now let me translate:

Once it's in place, and constituents start calling their elected officials with because family members died after being denied coverage...

I mean, seriously, what are people going to be complaining about? The colors of the insurance company's brochures? No. They're going to call because they were denied care, or denied legitimate coverage.

In other words, the bill is great because now people can call their Congressman instead of Betty in Claims!

No courage by Democrats, and strategic failure by "progressives," so ordinary citiznes have to do "the heavy lift" by calling to complain again about a system everybody already knows sucks.

Color me extremely unimpressed by this pragmatist insight.

NOTE * Incidentally, they're going to be calling their Congressman because the ombudsmen in HR3200 don't have conflict resolution authority, unlike the typical Federal ombudsman.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:27:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes and they are killing people right now by talking about it, and Kennedy is kiling people from his hospital bed because he isnt already voting. (0.00 / 0)

In fact everyone except lambert is a murdererist.\

I am beginning to think that lamberts 'accusation' that Democrats are just doing this so they can get 're-elected'  is a reflextion of the more likely fact that lambert is doing this so Democrats dont get re-elected.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 14:45:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's really OK, HouseOf Progress. It's a first step thing (4.00 / 1)

You've said yourself that the best outcome for you is getting Obama "admired". So, none of this is about policy, principle, saving lives, or any of that. It's OK. The world needs politicians. Just don't forget that politicians work for citizens, not the other way round.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 18:08:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you incapbale of talking about policy? Are you incapable of criticizing without insulting? (0.00 / 0)

Or it that you entire purpose is to insult, is your hatred really the point of your writing?


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 19:41:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No. (0.00 / 0)

No.


I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 20:32:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 20:47:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama is an OREO cookie (2.00 / 2)

When is everyone going to realize that. Michelle wears dresses from the 1950's Ann Fogarty paper doll look, so give me a break. She straightens her hair. These people are white middle class, upper middle class from his book sales. Do not expect anything progressive from them.

He was charismatic enough to get elected and who else was? He is not a progressive in any sense of the word.

And he is not that fucking smart either.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 21:59:35 PM UTC

Do you want to talk about what's not progressive? How about the notion (4.00 / 1)

that the only legitimate black is a poor black? Or the brain dead notion that one can be black on the outside and yet white enough on the inside so as not to experience racism and comprehend privilege? How about the use of misogynistic terms like "pussy-whipped?" And how about defining a woman through her choice of clothing and hairstyle?

---

by: sb @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:30:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sheesh, that's so wrong (0.00 / 0)

How about we leave out the attacks on MO? Unless we want to turn OL into the left equivalent of LGF?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 20:35:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Instead of "starting over" -- (4.00 / 4)

-- just push for Weiner's motion to amend-by-substitution with HR 676.

Or Russo's bill from '93, or Wellstone's from '94, or any of the other single-payer bills quashed by the DLC and other corporate Dems.

For a look at the costs from GAO, CBO, and others:

June, 1991 General Accounting Office

"If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage" ("Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States," 10 pgs, ref no: T-HRD-91-35. Full text available online at http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/1...

December, 1991 Congressional Budget Office

"If the nation adopted...[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare's rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved." ("Universal Health Insurance Coverage Using Medicare's Payment Rates")
April, 1993 Congressional Budget Office

"Under a single payer system with co-payments ...on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend...more specifically, the increase in taxes... would be about $856 per capita...private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita.

The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative."

"Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average...consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan." ("Single-Payer and All-Payer Health Insurance Systems Using Medicare's Payment Rates" ref : CBO memorandum, 60 pages)
July, 1993 Congressional Budget Office

"Enactment of H.R. 1300 [Russo's single payer bill] would raise national health expenditures at first, but reduce spending about 9 percent in 2000. As the program was phased in, the administrative savings from switching to a single-payer system would offset much of the increased demand for health care serv-ices. Later, the cap on the growth of the national health budget would hold the rate of growth of spending below the baseline. The bill contains many of the elements that would make its limit on expenditures reasonably likely to succeed, including a single payment mechanism, uniform reporting by all providers, and global prospective budgets for hospitals and nursing homes." ("Estimates of Health Care Proposals from the 102nd Congress" ref: CBO paper, July 1993, 57pages)
December, 1993 Congressional Budget Office

S491 (Senator Paul Wellstone's single payer bill) would raise national health expenditures above baseline by 4.8 percent in the first year after implementation. However, in subsequent years, improved cost containment and the slower growth in spending associated with the new system would reduce the gap between expenditures in the new system and the baseline. By year five (and in subsequent years) the new system would cost less than baseline. ("S.491, American Health Security Act of 1993")
June, 1998, Economic Policy Institute

"In the model presented in this paper, it is assumed that in the first year after implementing a universal, single-payer plan, total national health expenditures are unchanged from baseline. If expenditures were higher than baseline in the first few years, then additional revenues above those described here would be needed. However, these higher costs would be more than offset by savings which would accrue within the first decade of the program."

Universal coverage could be financed with a 7 percent payroll tax, a 2 percent income tax, and current federal payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federal government insurance programs. A 2 percent income tax would offset all other out-of-pocket health spending for individuals. "For the typical, middle income household, taxes would rise by $731 annually. For fully 60% of households, the increase would average about $1,600...costs would be redistributed from the sick to the healthy, from the low and middle-income house-holds to those with higher incomes, and from businesses currently providing health benefits to those that do not.

"Even more important, greater efficiency and improved cost containment would become possible, leading to sizable savings in the future. The impediment to fundamental reform in health care financing is not economic, but political. Political will, not economic expertise, is what will bring about this important change."

"Universal Coverage: How Do We Pay For It?" - Edie Rasell, M.D. PhD).

---

by: nasrudin @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:09:39 PM UTC

Deal! I agree! Work for that! Please! This not sarcasm. (0.00 / 0)

I want you to work for that. I support that work. Please suggest, work for, write about, demand and call congress, write and email the Senate, call your relatives, your friends, your parents and suggest, cajole, entice and demand that people support that motion.

Please. And I am not kidding at all. And I think it will be helpful to getting single payer care in America. This not snark.

That's a damn good idea. I am a supporter of the bill, I have written about the Bill here on openleft and other sites.

HR 676 had a lot of supporters, almost 70 Representatives were co-sponsors, you can find my posts on this here on openleft.

Michael Moore has called for that Bill, he works hard for that Bill. I do not know what Conyers or Kucinich is doing with the bill right now, Kucinich made the motion to allow States to create Single Payer in their State Amendment, which passed bi-partisanly, to the Bill that came out of the HELP Ctte. in the House. So its still in, I assume.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:27:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me be clear, the Health Bill being discussed here by all of us. (0.00 / 0)

Has the Single Payer in a State amendment. Unless it removed, and we should demand that it is not, is part of the Bill moving to reconciliation.
If you suport Single Payer in a state, and that is the way it was introduced in Canada, then you must demand that it stay in the Bill in reconcilliation. I have seen suggestions that as many as 7 States would be capable and willing to move on this.

It could use the money the Federal government is giving states for its own Health Bill to pay the money the State would need.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 22:34:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so. Only one cmte out of 5 dealing with the bill has the Kucinich amendment. (4.00 / 1)

In the Senate, only 3 Dems voted for Sanders' similar amendment to de-criminalize state attempts at single-payer.

---

by: nasrudin @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:06:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree, and I am boosting the HELP Bill for this very reason. (0.00 / 0)

Calling it The Bill, is one way of making sure peole focus on these good aspects, and rallying support to insure its inclusion in Reconciliation.

I urge support, I want people to demand that if they can't have, what you demand, Single Payer, then do not deny a States' right to do it themselves.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:39:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks. Been doing it since 1970, and fighting the for-profiteers -- (4.00 / 1)

-- even though I've been covered by much more socialized health care since 1966: the military, then the VA. (Both of which are vastly superior to single-payer insurance in a private system. My preference is for truly, fully socialized medicine, from education to research to pharmaceuticals and equipment to providing care. Single-payer is a huge compromise for me).

More importantly, for just as long, I've been fighting for public financing of political campaigns, and for defining gifts and perks to politicians and Parties as what they really are -- bribes -- and prosecuting them as such.

Two amendments to the Constitution, if the courts won't back up legislation to these ends:

"Money is not speech."
and
"Corporations are not persons."

You said: "HR 676 had a lot of supporters, almost 70 Representatives were co-sponsors..."

It "has," not "had" -- 85 Representatives are currently (not "were;" NONE have withdrawn) co-sponsors. "Facts straight," and all that.

---

by: nasrudin @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:01:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes yes, but the co-sponsors list, as one good person, (0.00 / 0)

let me know, is old, Udal for example is a listed sponsor on the House Bill, but is not any longer a member of the House, having since become a Senator.

I also think, like you, there is a ways to go, even in the single payer systems in Canada and the UK and France. Health advocates in canada talk about the "determinants of health" which refer to the conditions under which people can move toward and insure actual health, and the large degree of failure that governments have shown that prevent health in people. Adaquate food, income, housing social respect.

http://wellesleyinstitute.com/...

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:17:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I get my info on co-sponsors from the Librarry of Congress. (4.00 / 2)

I don't know what your source is, but it's wrong. The 85 co-sponsors are all from the current Congress, and signed on either when the bill was introduced 1/26/2009 or since then.  

---

by: nasrudin @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 23:53:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right you are! (0.00 / 0)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...

The link you refer to.
And yes, it no longer has Udal or others no longer Reps on it, as the version I saw did.

Very good. Excellent. I am hoping that this means that Kucinich's Amendment, at the very least, stays in Reconciliation.

And I think it was Thomas too, even the government has website updating concerns. But wonderfully, right you are.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 00:02:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So if you know this... (0.00 / 0)

... then why the blankety blank blank are you screaming at me for a plan? Do your own advocacy for pity's sake!

And while you're at it, the Senate bill is from Bernie Sanders, S.703. No co-sponsors, of course.

Personally, I hope Bernie does a genuine bring-in-the-cots type filibuster on single payer in the Senate. He's got my vote in 2012 if he does.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:14:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More errata (0.00 / 0)

"...And I think it was Thomas too..."

No, it wasn't. I was paying careful attention at the time, while Conyers waited to introduce his bill when it would get the same number (HR 676) as it had in several previous Congresses (including the 110th, where Pelosi and the D leadership -- naturally -- prevented hearings on it, much less a floor vote).

It was posted the day it was introduced, with the list of then-current co-sponsors from the 111th Congress.

---

by: nasrudin @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 14:29:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are we arguing for arguing's sake? (0.00 / 0)

A few weeks ago I posted a long post about the Conyers single payer bill, quoted similar numbers that you did for co-sponsors, I was corrected by another poster here, about the age of the list, and specifically about Udal being a Senator now etc. and in checking I determined that this list did contain Udal's name, and I said "I think it was" Thomas too.

Searching openleft old posting is hard the search engines dont search the Content Management System that store the posts. While there are many hits getting all posts doesn't happen.
But honestly this is what happened.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 14:55:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We aren't (0.00 / 0)

Nasrudin's correcting you on the facts, and I'm giving you some of the planning for good policy you keep screaming at me for in other comments. Calm down.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 20:39:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank yopu for the advice about being calm? (0.00 / 0)

If you imagine me grinning or frowning thoughtfully you would have a stronger sense of my writing tone. I occasionally slap my head, and raise my eyebrows in shock. In general I try to avoid anger. It is generally not a useful emotion.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 21:13:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

very late.... (0.00 / 0)

but wanted to say a big THANK YOU to paul for this wonderful post!

---

by: selise @ Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 01:14:59 AM UTC

another way (0.00 / 0)

A salute to the volunteers for health care. How about physical care? I suggest a basketball strength training for kids to divert from drug addiction. A better life they deserve.  

---

by: billyjones @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 14:22:00 PM UTC