Contractors? (4.00 / 2)

Do we have to keep using the right-wing euphemism for these guys? Most of these guys are mercenaries. Yes, some of the casualties are actual contractors who build stuff or drive things, but a lot of them are in solider-type jobs that should be filled by regular uniformed military.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:59:06 PM UTC

Christie (0.00 / 0)

Christie is complaining about being called fat.  Can't take it?  Move to a wimpy state.  The man's problem is a fat head, not a fat body.  Close an $8 billion tax deficit by ... cutting spending by $300 million.  That'll do it.  Then add another billion to the deficit for roads.

Fat head Christie:  he doesn't add up.

Yes, a normal Republican instead of the hyped up caped crusader who just fell into line for Rove would have this locked up.  Somebody like Frank LoBiondo, Chris Smith or Rodney Frelinghuysen.  Chris Christie is manna from heaven.

And after years of adulation the media is just catching on here.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:30:06 PM UTC

What's the matter with Virginia? (0.00 / 0)

  Old Dominion voted for Kaine four years ago. It voted for Obama last year. The Republicans are running one of the ugliest right-wing nutballs possible.

  And the right-wing nutball is going to win.

  Is Deeds THAT inept a campaigner? How did he win the PRIMARY against much better-funded opponents?

  I'm afraid the Democrats will learn the wrong lesson from this pending loss, as they usually do, and conclude that the only way to win is by lurching right. (As if Deeds weren't already a conservative.) How do we prevent this?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:42:31 PM UTC

I don't think they'll conclude from a Deeds failure that they have to lurch right. (0.00 / 0)

Don't worry about that one.  Deeds' problems are in NoVa, and with black voters.  And with himself, for being a lackluster campaigner in public (fundraising seems to be fine).

The obvious lesson is that you can't win when your base is indifferent.  So obvious that even the DC Dems can't fail to miss it.  If anything, that's a good lesson for them to learn.

Given how far right Deeds was already, I don't think they'll conclude they need to go farther right.  His attempt to blame "the noise in DC" for his problems went over like a lead balloon.  Fear not.  

---

by: texas dem @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:47:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your usually-helpful drive for hard evidence may be cutting against you here. (4.00 / 2)

(The opt-out thread from last night is dead, so I'm reposting.)

Chris Bowers, in a comment:

"I am not arguing with discussing it, what I am arguing with are the claims that the opt-out plan is now superior in terms of its ability to pass and in terms of the public option is offers, even though there is no evidence it is either."

My reply:

It depends on what you mean by evidence.

The opt-out directly neuters Kent Conrad's argument against the public option, which is, that reimbursement at medicare+5 would bankrupt the hospitals and providers of his state, because medicare rates are too low in North Dakota already.  

Cantwell tried to address this argument by proposing a change to the medicare reimbursement formula that rewards more efficient states more, but that's a crapshoot; there's no guarantee that a given state will outperform other states by that metric indefinitely.

Allowing North Dakota to opt-out of the public option kills Conrad's sole remaining argument for why he should withhold his vote.  It also preempts Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln from making an argument that they voted against the public option "because it would hurt their states."  Regardless of whether that argument was ever valid or not, the opt-out takes it completely off the field.  Removing arguments that allow people to vote against you is powerful politics.

And the reason advocates and reporters have consistently described the new idea as "a robust public option with an opt-out" is that by mooting so many of the arguments against a public option, this "compromise" allows you to pass a stronger public option than you would have been able to otherwise, all else being equal.  The response to "this will bankrupt my state!" can be either "well fine, we won't use medicare rates we'll use negotiated rates" or "well fine, your state can opt out."  You don't need to offer both compromises.  The opt-out is a replacement for the level-playing-field compromise, not an addition.  Or at least, it could function as a replacement and not an addition, since it addresses the same rhetorical concerns from the same people.  It remains to be seen whether the 51 (55?  I haven't kept track since 51) senators who endorsed a level-playing-field PO are also willing to endorse a robust PO.  It's possible they won't; the robust PO is stronger stuff, and there may or may not be 51 senators willing to compete with insurance companies that aggressively.  But the opt-out gives any fence-sitters in this category the same argument: "if our state doesn't like it, we can always leave."  By neutralizing various arguments against a PO, and replacing them with an argument for a yes vote ("we'll try it, and our state can always opt out"), the opt-out obviates the need for these other compromises that have been considered.

This is why the reporting has consistently described the compromise as "a robust PO with an opt-out," because the opt-out is designed to address the same concerns that the original compromise (level-playing-field, Rockefeller vs Schumer) did.   And many pro-PO people think it will also deliver better outcomes, because as with the stimulus, very few if any states will actually wind up opting out, and even if they do for a short while, an opt-out instead of negotiated rates delivers a better proposal for the rest of us.  

It is true that no hostile senator has yet raised his hand and said "the opt-out wins my vote."  These are the people with the strongest negotiating positions; even if it's true they won't say so on the first day.  But it's clear that the opt-out completely annihilates Kent Conrad's stated reasons for opposing the bill, as well as several other stated reasons that Nelson, Lincoln, or Baucus could try to offer.  That's why people are excited about it.  It has the obvious potential to win votes, even if Conrad didn't immediately surrender to it on TV.

---

by: texas dem @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:43:32 PM UTC

Opt-out is a very bad idea. (0.00 / 0)

I'll skip the morality argument.  I'm sure you know that by now.

Instead, I want you to consider the precedent this sets, and all the future bills and amendments to current law which this could lead to.  Abortion.  Hate crimes.  The list truly is endless.  It's the states rights argument made manifest.

This is a very bad idea.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

---

by: Gabriel D @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 22:45:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precedent Already Set (4.00 / 2)

For example, Medicaid is optional

State participation in Medicaid is voluntary; however, all states have participated since 1982 when Arizona formed its Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 23:21:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The whole point of states rights (0.00 / 0)

is to say that states don't have to abide by federal laws.  That each state may pick and choose which laws to follow.  Medicaid is not precedent for that.

Medicaid is an opt-in program.  By law, it is managed by the states, not the federal government. The CMS regulates these independent state programs, but only if those programs are to receive federal matching funds.  If the programs don't seek matching funds, the CMS has no reason to regulate them.  Or to put it another way, any state could offer similar services, but if they want the matching funds, they have to abide by the rules of the CMS.  I.e. opt-in.  Thus, Medicaid is fundamentally a group of individual state programs with additional federal funding and oversight, not a single federally-based program.  Beyond what the CMS mandates, the federal government has no say in how each state manages their Medicaid programs.

Contrast with Medicare, a federal program.  Do I need to point out the obvious?  Really?

The PO follows Medicare, not Medicaid.  The PO is a single plan funded at the federal level.  The federal government would manage it and so would be responsible for it in its entirety.  The states would have no say in how it's run, nor do they provide any funds for the program.  Therefor, the states cannot deny US citizens the opportunity to partake in the program.

Unless we decide to grant them that right, but that would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and Democrats would never do that.  Not in a million years.  Nope.  Never.

(Besides which, we're looking at a PO that likely will only be available to a small percentage of the population based on income, lack of health insurance, and who knows what else.  How small does the pool have to get - and how stagnant - before we recognize that the plan is to kill the PO through any means necessary.  If you want the PO to work, you need a large pool of healthy people, not just the sick and needy.  Stop accepting "compromises" that will effectively kill the PO.

Sorry for the tangent.  Back to the point.)

The fed still has to abide by all the other regulations and laws which normally apply to it.  While there may be issues for which the federal government may discriminate based on geographic location, no rational argument can be made that who is given access to the PO is one of those issues.  That means the eventual law has to apply to all Americans, not just those in states who agree to it.  Just like with Medicare.  To say otherwise would be to argue that states have the right to ignore federal law.

While the SCOTUS has in the past ruled in favor of states' rights, the fact of the matter is, the arc of rulings have gone against such an argument. There is no reason for us to put into legislation something which is a) very, very bad for us, and b) something on which the courts have traditionally sided with us.  This is an issue we've actually won, are winning, and will continue to win.  And yet there are people who are actually considering forfeiting the fight because they think it might possibly get them a slightly less watery PO?  Maybe?  If the wind blows just right?  Pretty please with a cherry on top?

If this is how the Democratic base fights, no wonder the leadership capitulates so easily all the time.

If we're going to make it optional, I want it opt-in, and I want medicare for all.  The states that would have been on board anyway won't have any problems opting in, and the states that aren't in at the beginning will eventually get on board, just like they did with Medicaid.  Win-win.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

---

by: Gabriel D @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 04:22:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The King Is Dead, Long Live the King. So, (0.00 / 0)

the old guard is assaulted by the new blog-to-pia guard with their coooooooooooooool expensive glasses, their cool mac laptops ... and the new gang turns into the old gang!

what a f'king shock.

How many of these people getting on board with the latest fucking sell out have EVER relied on unemployment or ...

HEALTH INSURANCE!

Guess what happens in state capitols!

WE THE PEEEONS GET FUCKED!

No! Wait! All of a sudden there will NOT be a race to the bottom as the bottom feeders of state legislatures rise to their noble calling!

Yeah - whatever.

the trustafarians who've crashed the gate, and are now part of the in crowd, can kiss my ass.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 02:50:11 AM UTC

I'm sure Chris and Natasha will be thrilled to learn they have a trust fund somewhere! (4.00 / 1)

LOL.  

And I'm pretty sure Chris has been uninsured for most of the last five years.  

---

by: texas dem @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 11:18:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

YAWN. Look At ALL The National Bloggers AND (0.00 / 0)

you got a bunch of people who give a conference and all kinds of big shots come to pay respect.

AND, now the big shots start to sell yet ANOTHER sell out FUCKING over the 160,000,000 making under $50,000 a year ... and the new gate crashers are worried about their access and their relevance and their position on the secret email list and the secret phone tree!

ha ha ha.

glad you REALLY haven't a clue, AND took my intent in the wrong direction!

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 13:21:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]