I liked the idea (0.00 / 0)

That the trigger should be Medicare E.

USA: 1950 to 2010

---

by: richjensen @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 18:11:37 PM UTC

re: trigger (4.00 / 1)

So, if they oppose the public option in any package, why should we believe that they would ever support a trigger that would result in a public option?

because that trigger will never get pulled

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 18:13:57 PM UTC

We're Pissing Into the Wind (4.00 / 1)

Every time I find myself getting deep into the weeds on a complex policy issue like healthcare, I realize that without serious campaign finance reform we're just pissing into the wind.  The game is rigged in favor of the entrenched economic interests, and until we change that broader dynamic we're screwed.

---

by: global yokel @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 18:33:41 PM UTC

Serious campaign finance reform is impossible without (0.00 / 0)

a constitutional amendment.  I honestly think that there needs to be some buildup supporting a simple constitutional amendment allowing Congress to make laws on spending limits.

---

by: Valatan @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 19:13:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Serious campaign finance reform (0.00 / 0)

can happen if we focus on the demand side, rather than the supply side - public funding and free air time.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 02:25:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Such a system would be voluntary by necessity (0.00 / 0)

and as such, would have the same drawbacks as our current system of voluntary spending limits.

---

by: Valatan @ Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 16:25:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Free air time (0.00 / 0)

need not be voluntary. As for public funding, it wouldn't necessarily have all the same drawbacks as the current system. Letting people chose to join a public funding system would significantly level the playing field - if your opponent (for example, an incumbent) enjoys the support of corporations, it would make sense for you to join the system, which would make many seats competitive that previously were not.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 22:10:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We might go backward before we go forward on this topic (0.00 / 0)

The Supreme Court is right now considering a case that would overturn the McCain-Feingold act, passed in 2002, which restricts campaign spending by corporations. The issue was raised by the Hillary movie.

A story in the Los Angeles Times came up first on a Google search:
http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

Here's clip from it:

[Sonia Sotomayor] appeared skeptical of arguments by Citizens United that the conservative group's 90-minute campaign-era movie about Clinton ("Not a musical comedy," observed Justice Stephen G. Breyer) was protected speech. And she questioned [attorney] Olson about why he had abandoned a former argument -- that Citizens United was not really a corporation -- for a more sweeping one, that campaign funding restrictions discriminate against corporations.

---

by: Upward and Onward @ Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 22:20:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surely (4.00 / 1)

a Harvard-educated lawyer can see the fallacy in the arguments, right?

I think that [the trigger] could end up being the compromise because it bridges the differences between those who are for a robust public option and those who are adamantly opposed to a public option.

If one is "adamantly opposed" to the idea, how does a trigger change their mind? Is it just that they need time to readjust their thought patterns? Or, maybe they're not really all that opposed to a PO, and just trying to ensure their next campaign financing check from the insurers and pharma?

So, yeah, these Corporocrats raised the question with the President, but how did he respond?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 18:50:46 PM UTC

The Deal (4.00 / 1)

I'll take the deal only if the Progressive Block members get to write the trigger and public option legislation themselves.

It is obvious to anyone that those pushing the trigger are using it to kill the public option itself.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 19:07:33 PM UTC

Drop Snowe (4.00 / 2)

Now Snowe is asking for the size of the bill to be dropped to $800 million -- just because.  I agree with Ezra that Obama made a mistake using Baucus' $900 million number instead of the larger numbers from other bills.  (Will they ever learn that lesson?)

We need to get back to the 50 vote options.  Once again, the real blame isn't Obama or even Snowe or Baucus, it is the filibuster.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 19:36:17 PM UTC

Tie the trigger to individual mandates as well (0.00 / 0)

If there's no alternative to the shitty product that private health insurance puts out, then consumers should not be forced to buy it.

Anything less is political suicide for the hapless Dems.

---

by: Taylor @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 20:47:59 PM UTC

Health Insurance Purchaser's Bill of Rights (0.00 / 0)

or some such amendment.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 21:22:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point - I hope somebody in Congress thinks of that!! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Upward and Onward @ Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 22:24:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]