One More Step

by: Mike Lux

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:00


Health care reform was always going to be tough as hell, as difficult as any issue that could ever be tackled. As I learned from the agony of the 1993-94 Clinton attempt at health care reform, this issue is so massive, so complicated, so unwieldy that it is prone to be derailed by lobbyists pulling on any one of the hundred hanging threads and unraveling the whole thing. Culture war issues like abortion and immigration combine with issues peculiar to individual districts like having a medical device manufacturer based in a congressperson's district, and all of those things combine with bigger worries about overall ideological and political concerns back home.

When people over the weekend would ask why getting the votes for the health care bill was so hard, I would have to say: it just is - it is the nature of the beast. Every step along the way will be tough and painful and decidedly not easy. Every time we complete a step, like we did on Saturday night, it is easy to look at how hard it was and say, "Oh my God, the next step is even harder, how we will ever get there?"

Determined leadership can find a way through. In the 1993 budget fight, every step of the way was complete torture, and at numerous times it looked like we were completely done for. But we kept battling, took on one step at a time, and we got it done.

Speaking of determined leadership, Nancy Pelosi deserves enormous credit for finding a way to get this done. Like all progressives, I am deeply unhappy with the abortion language that was allowed to be voted into this bill. That language is unacceptable and has to be changed in conference committee. But I was looking at the vote count on Friday night too, and we really were done unless that vote was allowed. There were literally no good choices at that moment, because to let the bill fail or pull the bill from being voted on would have caused everything to get unraveled. We still have a very good chance at stripping this terribly restrictive anti-abortion language in conference committee, and need to keep fighting to do that.

On the final vote, the whipping process was intense and impressive. Democratic leaders I have known in the past have rarely played this kind of hardball, but some kneecaps were broken Saturday night to get these votes, and the Speaker did a masterful job of doing every little thing that needed to be done. She gave no passes to people, and she was very clear there would have been consequences to all who voted no. She got the job done.

I also wanted to commend the congresspeople from tough districts likely facing very competitive races who did the right thing on this vote. It was a good political move on balance because it will help them turn out the base in the 2010 election, but when you are getting hammered by the big money forces against this bill, it never feels like a tough vote like this is going to help you. As a strong progressive, I give more conservative members of the Democratic caucus a lot of flack sometimes, but these Democrats from tough districts deserve a lot of thanks:

AZ-01 Kirkpatrick, Ann R+6
AZ-05 Mitchell, Harry R+5
AZ-08 Giffords, Gabby R+4
CA-11 McNerney, Jerry R+1
CT-04 Himes, Jim D+5
FL-08 Grayson, Alan R+2
IL-08 Bean, Melissa R+1
IL-11 Halvorson, Debbie R+1
IL-14 Foster, Bill R+1
IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad R+8
KS-03 Moore, Dennis R+3
MI-07 Schauer, Mark R+2
MI-09 Peters, Gary D+2
MN-01 Walz, Tim R+1
NH-01 Shea-Porter, Carol R+0
NV-3 Titus, Dina D+2
NY-01 Bishop, Timothy R+0
NY-19 Hall, John R+3
NY-24 Arcuri, Mike R+2
NY-25 Maffei, Dan D+3
OH-15 Kilroy, Mary D+1
OR-5 Schrader, Kurt D+1
PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathy R+3
VA-5 Perriello, Tom R+5
WI-08 Kagen, Steve R+2

On the other hand, there are some Democrats I am appalled by. As a 30-year supporter of single-payer, and with full knowledge of the imperfections in this bill, I am angry that single-payer supporters Kucinich and Massa were happy to let any hope of health care reform for a generation die because the bill wasn't everything we hoped it would be. To let another generation go by where tens of thousands of people die every year from being under-insured, and have the insurance companies continue to be allowed to screw people over pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and recessions is just wrong.

Then there is the large collection of Blue Dogs who care nothing about the President or the Democratic Party's top priority, let alone all those people without insurance. After all that Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi did for these reps in the 2006 and 2008 elections, all the money and time and staff and consultant help they gave them, for those Blue Dogs to walk away on the biggest issue, when they were needed the most, is a sign of their selfishness. These are Rahm's people, recruited by him and supported by him at every step of the way, and they don't care that they are making him look terrible by leaving him out to dry. They are also dumb about their own political fate: if Democrats don't deliver, Democratic base voters will walk away in massive numbers, and it will be the people in marginal districts that will suffer the most.

The health care debate was always going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight, with every stage a harrowing journey to get through. But we survived another big step on Saturday night, and are alive to fight for another round. We will figure out how to win this one way or the other, making history when we do.
Mike Lux :: One More Step

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
One More Step | 119 comments
what makes you think (4.00 / 8)
there is any chance of the Stupak language being removed in conference? Senators are already demanding its inclusion in the Senate bill. I don't for a second believe the Progressive Block will vote down this bill because of the Stupak language, and why should anyone think that?

Obama won't stick his neck out to get the language removed--look at the signals coming from the White House today.

I will bet $100 against your $1 that the Stupak language or something very similar is in the bill that comes out of conference.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Obama actually already came out against it. (4.00 / 1)
No offense but everyone who talks about "White House signals" is out of touch with reality.

That being said I think the conservative democrats were trying to kill the bill and it blew up in their faces because the bill wasn't killed.  My guess is you see them backtrack after they see their numbers tank for 2010.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

[ Parent ]
It doesn't sound very conclusive to me: (4.00 / 5)
http://www.americablog.com/200...

"There are strong feelings on both sides," and his goal is to ensure that "neither side feels it's being betrayed."

This is not the kind of man I want in my foxhole.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
He's against the Stupak amendment like he was for the public option. (4.00 / 7)
Color me crazy, but I'm just not getting hopeful vibes, here.

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
[ Parent ]
the words "a woman's right to choose" (4.00 / 6)
never escape his lips.

He doesn't want to restrict women's "health insurance choices," but remains agnostic on restricting the constitutionally guaranteed right to have an abortion.

Fierce advocate my ass.

[ Parent ]
Not only "strong feelings on both sides," but (4.00 / 3)
he goes on to explain that "what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

Say what?   I mean really? What the hell is he saying here?  Is this in reference to the Hyde Amendment?  To abortion in general?  WTF?  Can't manage one clear-as-day answer in support of THE core Democratic constituency.  Repugnant.  

[ Parent ]
There is a chance (4.00 / 1)
because it's stupidly written law.

Even if the Senate really cared about abortion (no one really gives a shit), their legislative vanity would compel them to at least take a crack at writing the Stupak Amendment better.

The same legislative vanity also gives us a chance to have a better bill in general:

Penalties for not buying insurance?

That's not good law.

[ Parent ]
The Progressive Block will vote this down (0.00 / 0)
if enough of their supporters make them. The right to choose has become part of the Democratic base's DNA. I think it's more likely the whole thing goes down in flames than that the Stupak language makes it into law.

McCaskill has already backtracked on Stupak.

 

[ Parent ]
thrilled (0.00 / 0)
I would be thrilled to take that bet. This is something I am fairly sure of, for all kinds of reasons.
[ Parent ]
Forcing people to enhance the profits... (4.00 / 8)
.....of the insurance industry is the kind of history I'd like to avoid, thank you. And as soon as people catch on to this you will see a backlash.  The only way mandates would work is if people had the option to buy from a lower cost federal plan but since a robust public option is off the table, we are left with a plan that is destined to fail with or without the horrendous coat hanger amendment.


What is your secret for continuing on? (4.00 / 4)
I am completely demoralized and think I will never vote again for anyone.
I read about the self-immolation of Europe (0.00 / 0)
and realize that unless we "continue on" it WILL happen here.
[ Parent ]
Thus the Wingnuts win. (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Come join us (4.00 / 1)
on the libertarian socialist side! ;)

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.
[ Parent ]
Already there! (0.00 / 0)
Man I love the Wikipedia series on Political Philosophies. I've been contemplating my feelings towards the State recently though. I feel like effective environmental regulation is going to need a strong state apparatus to administrate them...

Agitate.Liberate.Create.
[ Parent ]
The only wasted vote (4.00 / 1)
is one not cast in conscience.  Don't blame Nader for Gore's loss.  Blame Tipper and her stickers.
[ Parent ]
More optimistic. (0.00 / 0)
I am more optimistic, partly by nature, but partly by seeing this up close. It's rarely so awful as what the media makes it out to be, and we are making progress on some things. The American system hates change, but you can sometimes make small steps forward.
[ Parent ]
thanks for the informed commentary (4.00 / 2)
it's helpful for me being on the sidelines (or the populace in whose name all this is being done, if you prefer :)

I take issue with just one aspect of the post.  You say you are appalled by Kucinich and Massa but you give Kudos to Pelosi for allowing the Stupak amendment to garner votes, even though it is a hideous amendment that is, to use really understated language, inhumane, classist, and sexist.  My question is this - was there nothing that could have been offered to Kucinich, Massa, and whowever else to secure their votes without dropping the others? Secondly, what is an appropriate place to draw a bottomline and simply oppose reform, even if it's done by Democrats and comes infrequently and faces so many institutional barreirs that it's almost impossible?

I basically agree with your assessment - if only because they've manageds to alienate you by their votes and that's bad strategy for people further ot the left - but I wonder what an appropriate stance would be in your mind and whether or not the leadership of the House bears any responsibility as well for losing those votes.

Again, many thanks for this.

Amy Sullivan thinks so... (4.00 / 4)
Anatomy of a Health Reform Deal

....Despite the fact that anyone who has followed U.S. politics over the last thirty years could have told you that abortion would be a controversial aspect of health reform, no one tried to preemptively address the concerns of pro-life Democrats by sitting down with them early in the process. The White House didn't reach out to some of the more good-faith players on the pro-life side until early September. And Pelosi didn't sit down with Stupak until September 29. This despite the fact that 19 Democratic members sent her a letter in June expressing their concerns with abortion coverage in health reform.

I know many in the Democratic caucus tend to see their pro-life colleagues as a pesky but ultimately insignificant faction. But this sort of leadership strategy isn't just inexcusable, it's malpractice. It appears that Pelosi thought Stupak et al were bluffing and would come around in the end rather than oppose health reform. That assumption also depended on a scenario in which the Catholic bishops may not have supported health reform but also didn't vigorously oppose it.

It became very clear by late last week that this assumption was a mistake. Instead of staying neutral or remaining quiet about their concerns, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a grassroots campaign to oppose health reform, sending out bulletin inserts and fliers to every diocese in the country and urging priests to speak out from the pulpit last Sunday. In addition, every bishop was urged to contact the congressional members in their diocese and insist that they vote against health reform. And when the Democratic leadership whipped the bill late this week, they found they didn't have the votes to pass it. Which is how Stupak and representatives from the USCCB ended up in the Speakers' office last night and emerged with a deal that gives them everything they wanted.

It's hard to know for sure, but my best guess is that it didn't have to come to this.


[ Parent ]
Amy Sullivan has misjudged the religious right before (4.00 / 3)
During the election, she presented Rick Warren as a kinder, gentler, evangelical. But when you get right down to what Rick Warren believes, he's just as hard-line on most issues as Sean Hannity or James Dobson.  So I'm not as convinced as Amy Sullivan that these anti-abortion democrats would negotiate in good faith, especially since the Hyde Amendment already addresses their concerns.  But I do think you raise a good point about foresight on Pelosi's part.  And it's not just Pelosi that didn't plan for this.  
[ Parent ]
Sullivan (4.00 / 2)
is not a trustworthy source. She has been trying to sell us out for years.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Kucinich would've been nailed down with the Kucinich amendment (4.00 / 3)
I saw Kucinich say in a TV interview that if the Kucinich amendment protecting states' right to set up single-payer systems had been preserved, Kucinich would vote for the bill.  Once that amendment was gone, he felt there was nothing of value left in the bill.

I don't understand why this amendment couldn't have been preserved.  It passed with bipartisan support!  Isn't that what everyone likes?  Bipartisanship?  Or do they only like it when it fucks over the American people instead of helps them?

[ Parent ]
B. Mull (4.00 / 9)
According to Pelosi, Obama told her to strip Kucinich's amendment because it broke his promise that "you can keep what you have." (If you need to vomit, use the toilet not the sink.)
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the explanation (0.00 / 0)
and excellent advice regarding the vomit.
[ Parent ]
Kucinich and Massa (0.00 / 0)
They were both offered multiple policy ideas, but were both absolutely dug in on issues that would have cost us 30 votes. They just didn't want to vote yes.
[ Parent ]
is it more important to have a good bill, or just to pass any bill (regardless of how awful)? (4.00 / 1)
because I'm getting the impression you're of the latter mindset
[ Parent ]
So you say. (4.00 / 5)
I think this is a big sell out of 51% of the American population and is now so flawed that it is not worth doing at all.

Stupak is a deal breaker and your criticism of Kucinich and Massa does you no credit.

Sell me some more fairy dust.  Clap harder.

Democrats hold White House and Congress (4.00 / 3)
there is no excuse.

and this is not the Clinton Administration.

Clinton would've stood up for us. (0.00 / 0)
That's the difference. She knows how to fight.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Bwaahaaahaa!!! (4.00 / 2)
And I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn... she said right out that she'd compromise anything to get a bill passed.  Her public option would have been thrown away immediately.

She bears the scars of her failed reform effort... She would not have stood her ground this time around...  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Yeah I agree (4.00 / 1)
that's why I preferred Obama over Clinton, though I supported and voted for Edwards (and seeing how Obama's doing now, have never been happier with that decision).

I thought the whole point of picking Obama over Clinton was that we wouldn't get the Clintons.  But it seems like that we have all of the worst of the Clintons in Obama, from their whole network of stooges (and Hillary herself) to the same timid, this-is-a-center-right-country style of governance.

(I will concede that Obama is more liberal and is doing better than Bill Clinton ever did.  But given what's going on in our country and the majorities we have in Congress, we need something a lot more than even that.)

[ Parent ]
When all it takes is Lieberman threatening a filibuster (4.00 / 4)
to kill health reform, it sure makes that super majority look pretty weak. It may not be a center right country, but with every red state getting two senators no matter what, it's going to take a huge progressive wave to even the score.  
[ Parent ]
True (4.00 / 2)
but Obama has created a culture of timidity and appeasement that invites the sort of shenanigans we see coming from the ConservaDems.
[ Parent ]
Lieberman, et al can't kill health care reform. (0.00 / 0)
If the conservadems try, we just go to reconciliation process.
[ Parent ]
david axelrod is a very good marketer (4.00 / 3)
I thought the whole point of picking Obama over Clinton was that we wouldn't get the Clintons.

if you'd been paying attention to who his policy advisors were during the campaign you would have known that you were going to get clinton redux.

dennis kucinich and mike gravel were outside the mainstream. bill richardson was a governor and therefore outside of washington at least somewhat. but john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton, chris dodd, joe biden were all senators and all basically interchangeable. dodd would probably have been better on fisa, hillary would probably have been better on women's rights [and on privacy], edwards would probably have been better on poverty, but they were all just slightly different faces on the same ideology.

[ Parent ]
Yep. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
david axelrod is a very good marketer (0.00 / 0)
I thought the whole point of picking Obama over Clinton was that we wouldn't get the Clintons.

if you'd been paying attention to who his policy advisors were during the campaign you would have known that you were going to get clinton redux.

dennis kucinich and mike gravel were outside the mainstream. bill richardson was a governor and therefore outside of washington at least somewhat. but john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton, chris dodd, joe biden were all senators and all basically interchangeable. dodd would probably have been better on fisa, hillary would probably have been better on women's rights [and on privacy], edwards would probably have been better on poverty, but they were all just slightly different faces on the same ideology.

[ Parent ]
Clinton is pro-choice. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is pro-whatever. He's not on our side, he will not stick up for us.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
lobbyists are people too (0.00 / 0)
the words of history's greatest progressive, right?
[ Parent ]
actually, they are (4.00 / 2)
teachers, nurses, environmentalists, lots of groups that progressives love do hire lobbyists to present their case to our congress critters, yanno.
[ Parent ]
because that's totally who she was referring to (0.00 / 0)
100%!  also, clusterbombs
[ Parent ]
predator drones (4.00 / 1)
william lynn
[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
That's why Hilary quit the Senate before the fight.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Yes, Democrats do (4.00 / 1)
not Progressives and old-line Liberals.
[ Parent ]
Thought (4.00 / 7)
Its interesting how, in America, the only way to help the disadvantaged is to make the rich, richer... Amazing wordsmiths, these people. Sophists of the highest degree. Nothing passes for good policy here unless it opens a new market, deregulates an old market, or screws over the working class.

We're so good at this Democracy deal...

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

Are you sure there was no catch-and-release on this bill? (4.00 / 1)
Why wouldn't there have been?

Random Pallone staffer says there was some catch-and-release, so some of the no votes were actually prepared to vote yes if Pelosi needed them.  

And as the next commenter points out, there's no way Pelosi went into a vote with only 220 possible yeses.  The vote wouldn't have been scheduled if there was any chance of losing it.  Pelosi must have had ten more votes than the 220 she finished with.

Yes. (0.00 / 0)
There were some votes in reserve.
[ Parent ]
Does Nancy Pelosi get credit for destroying the Progressive Bloc? (4.00 / 13)
Funny, I don't read much anymore about the Progressive Bloc at OpenLeft. Cat got your tongues?

Also, isn't this a gross distortion?

I am angry that single-payer supporters Kucinich and Massa were happy to let any hope of health care reform for a generation die because the bill wasn't everything we hoped it would be.

(Emphasis mine).

Not only don't I believe this, I don't believe that you believe it. Are you sure you don't care to rephrase this? From Kucinich's Democracy Now interview

KUCINICH: And so, I made every effort, right from the beginning, as you know, as a single-payer advocate. We couldn't really make this bill single payer; that was taken off the table. But we did something else: We were able to get a bill in the committee passed that would protect the right of states to be able to have-to pursue a not-for-profit healthcare plan at a state level to shield it from legal attack. And that was taken out of the legislation after it had passed. It was taken out by the administration, which has whittled down the public option to the point of not having it truly compete with insurance companies.
So what you have here is people continuing to be at the mercy of the insurance companies, except in this case the government is going to subsidize the policies. People are still going to have premiums, co-pays and deductibles to deal with. And, you know, there's really a great deal of question here as to what in the world we're doing in creating a healthcare system that's really based on the premises of private insurance.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it's better than what we have now?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No. Actually, it's not, because it locks us into a for-profit system that the government subsidizes. It's not going to save money in the long run. It's not going to provide the kind of broad healthcare services the American people need. It's going to limit the choices that people have over a longer period of time. And people will have to buy private insurance. I mean, what's going on in this country? We're told that the only choice we have is to buy private insurance, and with the robust public option being gone, it makes sure that there's little competition with the insurance companies. This bill doesn't effectively moderate what they can charge for premiums or co-pays or deductibles. It just says people have to have insurance. Well, insurance doesn't necessarily equate to care, and care comes at a cost.
 

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org
dude! you need a vacation! (4.00 / 9)
most of the public wants real, true medicare for all. most of the public wants abortion to be kept legal and available.

in the words of the inimitable molly ivins: that is the center, you fools.

which means that the bill that passed the house saturday night is well to the right of what most people actually want. even so, a slew of congress critters opposed it from the right but you're appalled that 2 of them had the audacity [or more likely, the permission] to oppose it from the left.

What I gather from polling data (4.00 / 1)
Is that the preference of the public is that abortion be legal, but in fewer cases than currently.  I'd interpret the plurality in the center as generally wanting abortions that are medically necessary to be legal but abortions that are not medically necessary to be illegal, where "medically necessary" means that the mother's health is impacted but it does not have to be a matter of life or death.

On the other hand, about a third of the public claim to not care about abortion and perhaps 20% claim that abortion is a litmus test (combining both pro-lifers and pro-choicers) and not just one of several issues they consider, so it is quite possible that failing to pass health care because of objections to the Stupak amendment will piss off more people than passing a bill with it.

If you disagree with my analysis, show me some data that proves me wrong.

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

[ Parent ]
That's because you are pro-forced childbirth. (4.00 / 1)
You see what you already believe.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
what the people won't forgive is that "Progressives" sacrificed progress for abortion;

a trade that has cost the world so much in terms of peace, the environment, and the economy for three decades*.

If repeated, that would be a sin.

* since politically it allowed the right to peel off Catholics and Reagan Democrats from the Democratic coalition and basically run the show since the 80s.

[ Parent ]
>implying that women's rights aren't part of the progressive agenda (0.00 / 0)
oh you
[ Parent ]
polling data (4.00 / 6)
interpret to your heart's content, but keep this one in mind:

"Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"

6/12-16/09
Overturn 29%
Not Overturn 64%
Unsure 7%


[ Parent ]
Are you joking about Kucinich? (4.00 / 17)
I am angry that single-payer supporters Kucinich and Massa were happy to let any hope of health care reform for a generation die because the bill wasn't everything we hoped it would be.

There are four reasons that this is absurd:

1. Their votes weren't necessary for passage.  We don't know how Kucinich would have voted if his vote was critical for passage.

2.  The bill sucks, okay. The bill sucks.  We aren't talking about demanding perfection. We are talking about a bill that, in many ways, is worse than the current situation.  A public option that is too small and weak to drive cost savings is just as likely to shrivel up and die as it is to be expanded and improved.  The "camel's nose in the tent" theory of legislation is erroneously treated as gospel in some quarters.

3.  The idea that health care reform would be lost "for a generation" if the legislation stalled now is laughable.  This isn't 1993.  The system is in total crisis.  You think that if Congress fails now that the public is going to let them ignore the issue for another 15 years?

4.  Good negotiation requires credibility.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus drew a line in the sand, demanding a robust public option. They didn't get it. Then they voted for the bill anyway.  Way to flush your credibility down the toilet.  Maybe Lux doesn't have much experience in negotiation, but I can assure people that empty threats are a big no-no.

You are largely correct (0.00 / 0)
but you misconstrue the "camel's nose" argument.

The actual argument is that, having botched the overall governing strategy by putting health care reform so high on the agenda, a defeat here jeopardizes the entire agenda.

There is no choice now but to "win*" in some form.

Now that we are committed to "win", we can at least salvage the situation by turning a notional "win" into a real win IF AND ONLY IF Democrats retain the government and improve the law later.

If the GOP gets back in...

well, let's just not go there. It's too depressing.

* a "win" can actually be a GOP filibuster. They will take the mantle of "anti-change" from Obama, even though we all know better.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
The idea that health care reform would be lost "for a generation" if the legislation stalled now is laughable.  This isn't 1993.  The system is in total crisis.  You think that if Congress fails now that the public is going to let them ignore the issue for another 15 years?

The system was in crisis back in 1993, and people were in denial.  People are still in denial.. look at all the people who say that they are happy with their health insurance/care?

EVERY time someone tries to fix the system, politicians lose their jobs.  It happened after Medicare... it happened in 1994, and it will happen now.

Politicians will not touch this again with a 10 foot pole.  Without the health care reform attempt, Obama's approval would still be in the 60's and our congresscritters woudln't be so nervous...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure I agree he'd be in the 60's.  Definately higher than now, but the 10% unemployment rate is hurting more than anything.
[ Parent ]
don't agree (0.00 / 0)
It just can't be true that 85% are happy with their health insurance, and 60+% support single payer.

Also, as the % of GDP stolen by the insurance companies continues to raise unabated, the issue gets bigger and hotter. This increase projected not very far into the future amounts to more money than exists.

This issue, regardless if the curent bills (as they are now worded) succeed or fail, will come up again and again in shorter and shorter intervals between fights until the proper result is reached. That being some top to the % of GDP required for health care which still results in affordable coverage for the general populas.

If we can educate the voters as to which politicians blocked this attempt, then the elected officials responsible (party of NO) will be the ones the voters turn against. This will be MUCH easier if they are stupid enough to filibuster.

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that anti-Kucinich/Massa remark was a real misfire (4.00 / 5)
unless you totally don't support the Progressive Block idea. (And Kucinich and Massa didn't even stop the bill!  What are you complaining about?) If you care about "fixing it later", as the ones who opposed the bill from the left, Kucinich and Massa will be the spear-carriers in the effort to "fix" the health care law.

You really ought to rethink your criticism of these two.

[ Parent ]
They were hard no votes. (0.00 / 0)
They refused to budge or accept any compromise language language.
[ Parent ]
what compromise language? (0.00 / 0)
mike, your comment makes no sense whatsoever unless you tell us what compromise language they didn't accept.

as of now, i'm glad to have their "no" votes on this pos bill.  

[ Parent ]
Did the blue dogs really cross Rahm? (4.00 / 2)

  I can't imagine that Rahm's people would ditch him on the most critical vote of the year. Many of us here don't trust Rahm, and that of course colors my point of view on the proceedings, but if the blue dogs felt they had to please someone other than Rahm, I'm very curious as to who that was. After all, Rahm helped guide the hose to water down the bill, for the benefit of the blue dogs...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
Add me as one of those doubtful (4.00 / 1)
about the "no passes" claim. You got anything to back that up?

And if it's true, then our best strategy is to run third-party challengers in their districts.

[ Parent ]
I was in the whip count discussions. (0.00 / 0)
It is a fact.
[ Parent ]
They did and would. (0.00 / 0)
Rahm has done a lot of shitty things in this fight, I am not defending him. But if this bill went down now, he would have gotten a huge share of the blame. He was working it hard.
[ Parent ]
abortion will divide us (0.00 / 0)
I have pretty good insurance and I don't think it covers abortion...I need to learn more about the abortion language - to understand exactly what it says.
from NPR (0.00 / 0)
this explains abortion language:

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

[ Parent ]
The bill is a set back for health care reform and should not have been passed (4.00 / 12)
My sentiments echo those of Marcia Angell, M.D. Physician, Author, Senior Lecturer, Harvard Medical School, per her article on Huffington Post this morning:

"Well, the House health reform bill -- known to Republicans as the Government Takeover -- finally passed after one of Congress's longer, less enlightening debates. Two stalwarts of the single-payer movement split their votes; John Conyers voted for it; Dennis Kucinich against. Kucinich was right.

Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the House bill is not a "government takeover." I wish it were. Instead, it enshrines and subsidizes the "takeover" by the investor-owned insurance industry that occurred after the failure of the Clinton reform effort in 1994. To be sure, the bill has a few good provisions (expansion of Medicaid, for example), but they are marginal. It also provides for some regulation of the industry (no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions, for example), but since it doesn't regulate premiums, the industry can respond to any regulation that threatens its profits by simply raising its rates. The bill also does very little to curb the perverse incentives that lead doctors to over-treat the well-insured. And quite apart from its content, the bill is so complicated and convoluted that it would take a staggering apparatus to administer it and try to enforce its regulations.

What does the insurance industry get out of it? Tens of millions of new customers, courtesy of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. And not just any kind of customer, but the youngest, healthiest customers -- those least likely to use their insurance. The bill permits insurers to charge twice as much for older people as for younger ones. So older under-65's will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That's OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn't age be considered a pre-existing condition?)

Insurers also won't have to cover those younger people most likely to get sick, because they will tend to use the public option (which is not an "option" at all, but a program projected to cover only 6 million uninsured Americans). So instead of the public option providing competition for the insurance industry, as originally envisioned, it's been turned into a dumping ground for a small number of people whom private insurers would rather not have to cover anyway.

If a similar bill emerges from the Senate and the reconciliation process, and is ultimately passed, what will happen?

First, health costs will continue to skyrocket, even faster than they are now, as taxpayer dollars are pumped into the private sector. The response of payers -- government and employers -- will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments. Yes, more people will have insurance, but it will cover less and less, and be more expensive to use.

But, you say, the Congressional Budget Office has said the House bill will be a little better than budget-neutral over ten years. That may be, although the assumptions are arguable. Note, though, that the CBO is not concerned with total health costs, only with costs to the government. And it is particularly concerned with Medicare, the biggest contributor to federal deficits. The House bill would take money out of Medicare, and divert it to the private sector and, to some extent, to Medicaid. The remaining costs of the legislation would be paid for by taxes on the wealthy. But although the bill might pay for itself, it does nothing to solve the problem of runaway inflation in the system as a whole. It's a shell game in which money is moved from one part of our fragmented system to another.

Here is my program for real reform:

Recommendation #1: Drop the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55. This should be an expansion of traditional Medicare, not a new program. Gradually, over several years, drop the age decade by decade, until everyone is covered by Medicare. Costs: Obviously, this would increase Medicare costs, but it would help decrease costs to the health system as a whole, because Medicare is so much more efficient (overhead of about 3% vs. 20% for private insurance). And it's a better program, because it ensures that everyone has access to a uniform package of benefits.

Recommendation #2: Increase Medicare fees for primary care doctors and reduce them for procedure-oriented specialists. Specialists such as cardiologists and gastroenterologists are now excessively rewarded for doing tests and procedures, many of which, in the opinion of experts, are not medically indicated. Not surprisingly, we have too many specialists, and they perform too many tests and procedures. Costs: This would greatly reduce costs to Medicare, and the reform would almost certainly be adopted throughout the wider health system.

Recommendation #3: Medicare should monitor doctors' practice patterns for evidence of excess, and gradually reduce fees of doctors who habitually order significantly more tests and procedures than the average for the specialty. Costs: Again, this would greatly reduce costs, and probably be widely adopted.

Recommendation #4: Provide generous subsidies to medical students entering primary care, with higher subsidies for those who practice in underserved areas of the country for at least two years. Costs: This initial, rather modest investment in ending our shortage of primary care doctors would have long-term benefits, in terms of both costs and quality of care.

Recommendation #5: Repeal the provision of the Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. (The House bill calls for this.) That prohibition has been a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. For negotiations to be meaningful, there must be a list (formulary) of drugs deemed cost-effective. This is how the Veterans Affairs System obtains some of the lowest drug prices of any insurer in the country. Costs: If Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans Affairs System, its expenditures on brand-name drugs would be a small fraction of what they are now.

Is the House bill better than nothing? I don't think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right."


Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.  

Well done, (0.00 / 0)
but don't you think it is required to get across a threshhold before all of this can see the light of day?

You establish the beach head, hold your ground against the counterattack (2010) then you push outward (2012 and beyond).

[ Parent ]
Not every landing is Normandy (4.00 / 9)
This would be more like Gallipoli.  Invade, take heavy casualties, end up driven into the sea.  With the Dardanelles permanently in enemy hands.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Nothing Whatever Has Been Accomplished (4.00 / 12)
There is no new ground to hold.

The fight that has to be waged is to prevent our elected representatives from forcing the American people to buy insurance from private insurers who have bribed the representatives.

We need GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE.

That is the ONLY WAY to meet the needs of the American people and pay only what is necessary.

We cannot have a health care system that is primarily designed to profit health care insurers.

We do not need them in the equation and they need to be removed from it if we are to get health care costs under control and within reason.


[ Parent ]
Fuck You, Mr. Lux (3.47 / 15)
The Stupak Amendment is not symbolic.  It's the worst blow to women's reproductive freedom in over a generation.  So it may be no more than mere collateral damage to you, but it's my body and the bodies of 51% of the nation that are being played as a political football.  So to quote Ving Rhames in Pulp Fiction "I'm pretty fucking far from okay."

So really, fuck you and fuck the two bit fucking horse you rode in on.  You want eloquence on this subject, my husband jeff is the guy to go to.  I don't have it in me anymore.

It is the worse blow? (2.00 / 6)
In a generation?

2009 - 22 = 1987. Hmmm. You're totally wrong.

[ Parent ]
Uprating (0.00 / 0)
Some people need to stop acting like douche bags and learn to use the rating system correctly.
[ Parent ]
i don't know what that means (0.00 / 0)
but calling that trolling is like filibustering debate. I recommended it purely on procedural grounds.  
[ Parent ]
New guy chat (0.00 / 0)
Hey I'm kinda new here and I was actually wondering how to use the ratings system correctly? I have the little dropbox but the only options it gives me are "4" or "none". Surely there's a wider range of options?

I don't want to act like a douchebag

[ Parent ]
What a troll! (0.00 / 0)
Anyone giving this a 4 should be banned.
[ Parent ]
a troll? (4.00 / 9)
she is pissed off and offended.  

you might not like the style, but there are a lot of people seriously upset about the Stupak Amendment.  you can argue, debate, discuss, try to understand....but to think this is trolling?  WTF? are you clueless?

I recommended it b/c ignoring this anger will only hurt the Democratic Party.  

apparently I should be banned, good to know.

[ Parent ]
I never said it was symbolic. (0.00 / 0)
I said it was awful, said it should be defeated, and believe that it will win. And I fought hard against it on Fri and Sat, and am working hard to make sure we beat it in the Senate.
[ Parent ]
Indeed, I am the eloquent one (4.00 / 5)
The vote should have been no and that's all there is to it!  Some things are too scumworthy to countenance.

So crammit, good sir, and your scurvy equine mount!  And your dog and your parrot should you have such.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

so what IS your bottom line, then? (4.00 / 7)
is there any health care bill that you wouldn't wrap in the "long struggle" narrative and support?

triggers? opt-out? opt-in? inadequate subsidies? a hack of the exchange plan to allow insurance companies to exclude poorer people, masquerading as the kind of "reasonable" misogyny so beloved by chinpullers everywhere?

what's the justification for not allowing votes on the other amendments once it was clear that the Stupak amendment was going to the floor?

nobody really believed that the bill would be blocked from the left. well, except us, maybe. but we clearly got played.

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

or, as usual, What Digby Said (4.00 / 4)
All day long, I kept hearing the argument that pro-choice Democrats are going to have to compromise because Pelosi just doesn't have the votes otherwise. But the truth is that she doesn't have the votes without the pro-choice caucus either. Why isn't it just as reasonable to say that Stupak and his crowd should compromise? I hear people say over and over again that Democrats will prove they can't govern if they hold the line on this or that provision and risk tanking the bill. But these Stupak Democrats did it --- and they won. Indeed, many people are hailing the outcome as a triumph of legislative maneuvering. (All except for the women of course, but they're on their own.)

The dynamics working against liberals are fairly obvious: they are the ones who want to help a whole bunch of people in dire straits and nobody else gives a damn.



not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.
[ Parent ]
bottom line (0.00 / 0)
A public option. No Snowe triggers, no Conrad co-ops.

Regulations that stop insurers from fucking people over through recissions, pre-existing conditions clauses, lifetime caps.

No Stupak amendment in final bill.

[ Parent ]
no mandate (4.00 / 1)
no mandate, especially without insurance cost controls.

this is not an affordable bill (premiums and out of pocket expenses), according to the cms total costs will be increased with no control on rate of cost growth, it will further entrench the insurance industry making future reform more difficult.

this is a piece of very very bad policy.

right now romneycare is looking better than obamacare.


[ Parent ]
i'd certainly agree (0.00 / 0)
that if we can't even get that much, we need to walk away.

what i would add is along the lines of selise's point. if subsidies are inadequate, if there is a state opt-out, if the Federal insurance company - the little thing that's what's left of the public option - is set up in a way that its premiums will not be much cheaper than private insurance, then the only way that an individual mandate won't end up as a lever waiting for the right to pull and bring the whole structure down will be if the penalties for not buying insurance are extremely minimal. otherwise we're violating the most basic rule: first, do no harm.

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

[ Parent ]
Mike (0.00 / 0)
(as someone who has fought the good fight in "conservative" territory and knows how little sway Progressivism has in much of America)

Do you think that Open Left should excoriate Representatives who abided by the same "Progressive Bloc" strategy pushed so strongly by Open Left?

Do you think that the Difference between Hyde and Stupak outweighs the beach head gained on completing the safety net?

Do you think that the way Jim Madison wrote the Constitution effectively forces Progressives to join coalitions in order to have a voice in government?

Do you think that the best expenditure of finite activism would be on getting the bill through the Senate rather than punishing members of the Democratic caucus?

From my perspective the answers are no, no, yes, and yes.

You may know about politics (4.00 / 7)
but I know about health care. The bill is not progressive and progressives should not vote for it under any circumstances.
[ Parent ]
health care. (0.00 / 0)
I know a fair amount about health care. I worked on it for 2 years in the Clinton WH. I have diabetes and battle insurers every day because of it. One of my dearest friends died because he had no coverage.
We just disagree on what's good enough. I think this bill, if we can keep the Senate from destroying the best features, will be a significant improvement.
[ Parent ]
health insurance is not healthcare (4.00 / 1)
forcing people to pay for crappy insurance does not mean they will be able to afford the copays for healthcare.

this bill looks like it was designed by people who've never had to go without seeing the doctor or taking needed medication because of the cost of the copays.

"Republican populism is fake, but Democratic elitism is real"

http://openleft.com/diary/15477/

[ Parent ]
fouring this so hard (4.00 / 1)
You missed the thread last night where someone was insisting that $500 for an abortion is no great shakes for a working person.
[ Parent ]
good questions. (0.00 / 0)
1. No
2. No. Stupak must be stripped.
3. yes
4. I think we need to do both. In this case, we just have to.
[ Parent ]
Further eloquence (4.00 / 4)
Saieth Obama:

I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill, and we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

My building shakes even as I type from the massive wave of the multiple orgasms of gyrating liberals across the land.  Oh my god, oh my god, Obama is on our side, they ecstatically cry.  He is going to have Stupak taken out of the final bill.  See?

In my day, one of the requirements for graduating from the 6th grade was the ability to read.  So read it from the Stupak point of view.  "Federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions!"  And Stupak simply has to say that this is all his amendment is ensuring.

The problem is that any health care reform upsets the status quo.  Government is moving more deeply into the insurance field, regulating what my neighbors and family and I have available.  This is POTENTIALLY a good thing, but it raises complications.  In the real world, you can't make one major change without collateral change else where.  If I get any tax relief for buying insurance, then that relief is in fact a partial government subsidy.  If I buy abortion coverage for my family, well, Stupak has an argument that this would be government funding.

Do you have some sophisticated argument that this is not the case?  Guess what?  This matter is not being resolved in the realm of sophisticated argument.  By Stupak logic, which may not have wisdom behind it but has the muscle power of the teabaggers and the entire Republican caucus and the Blue Chicken Democrats.  They can mobilize thousands to DC at the drop of a hat, and progressives think all they need to do is out-logic them.  This opens the door to applying the Stupak Principle to any company receiving any federal subsidy or tax break.  And the right will use it.

Preposterous, you say?  Like it would be preposterous that our troop commitment to the Middle East would be growing?  Like it would be preposterous that Guantanamo would still be open?  That a Stupak amendment would have passed the House?  Like it would be preposterous that the military would still be operating under don't ask, don't tell?  And on and on as my fingers grow weary.

Obama's words have in fact endorsed the central Stupak principle, and we may be paying for it for years to come.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

I'm not convinced (4.00 / 4)
that it had to be so difficult. Medicare for all. How hard is that to fathom? How much easier would it have been to force the opposition to attack MEDICARE?? It's simple, it's already in place, and it's political teflon.
Again, the problem with the health reform debate was not the Republicans - it was the Democrats.
Really, the reason why HCR is always so "difficult" (4.00 / 7)
is because we're still under the oppression of Reaganist, anti-government ideology.  Imagine how easy this whole thing would've been if the people actually believed, as they do in all the other industrialized countries, that government had not only the right, but the duty to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.
[ Parent ]
But that was never the goal. (4.00 / 1)
The goal was to deliver us trussed and bound to the insurance companies, who are Obama's golf buddies and donors.

That goal has been accomplished, sticking a knife in the back of choice is just extra.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Not Buying Any Of It (4.00 / 12)

Just a month ago, my congressperson held a much-belated town hall meeting where she repeatedly assured nearly 1000 people in attendance (most of whom were there testifying, demanding, clapping and hooting on behalf of some sort of single payer/Medicare for all, by the way!) that we could rest assured about the House...the House was our friend.  The House would produce a bill with a truly robust public option...the House would counter the disappointment of the Senate and Baucus with a plan that would serve all Americans well.  The House would take care of the people--not big insurance, not big pharma--but the people by taking to conference the strongest possible public option.  

As I think back to that, I'm nearly shaking with rage at what has just happened--thanks to our "friend, the House."

And from you, we get the utterly offensive message --really gross as a matter of fact--that we should understand and learn to appreciate the most regressive sell-out of women in my lifetime (a sell-out orchestrated by the goddamn Democratic leadership--headed up by a woman from San Francisco no less--to rack up the last couple of votes for a bill that was called here last night "watered down, watered down, watered down") because it wasn't really a sell-out of women after all.  No it was just the necessary casting of women--especially poor, desperate women-- as political footballs to pass a lame bill that is, lest we forget is "watered down, watered down, watered down."  Hey, just the nature of the beast, you say.  

And then, as if all this wasn't enough the folks you actually manage to condemn the strongest, the ones you are truly "appalled by,"  are the two progressive House Democrats who actually, you know, voted as progressive House Democrats.  My god...I have no words for this.

At this point, Progressive Caucus is a joke.  The Democratic party is a joke.   And the Health Insurance industry is having the laugh of its life.  

This is the most infuriatingly obsequious post I've ever read on Openleft.  How utterly disappointed and saddened I am that you thought to post this.

Not a center-right country?? (4.00 / 1)
For all the postings since the election that this is not a center-right country as the pundits relate again and again, just look at the results the other night.  A near unanimous GOP bloc and what was it, 56 Blue dog Dems that were willing to throw the entire pro-choice efforts for the last generation under the bus.

Now, Ben Nelson quickly jumps on the bandwagon, looking for any way that he can do what he really wants to do, which is oppose the bill, just like freakin' Lieberman, who I personally want to disown from my Jewish heritage.  What bums, and corporate whores!!  I still can't believe he was a Dem VP candidate less than a decade ago.

I just don't see a path on how this bill gets done, but I'm still hoping something decent can come out of this because this is likely the best chance for some reforms of health care for at least another five years and I may have only full price COBRA insurance available to me after February.

Not a center right country, (4.00 / 1)
a center-right elite.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
what is the use of the progressive blogosphere (4.00 / 7)
if it merely echoes what the Beltway Democrats say and think?

If those who run those blogs merely mouth the conventional wisdom, what is gained? Only another voice in an already too-crowded echo chamber.

The only way these blogs can be useful is if they are informed and skeptical analysts of the stream of information/disinformation that our politicians shower us with daily. If they become simply another establishment outlet disseminating the same stuff, they become useless.

I appreciate your efforts on this issue, but this diary goes in the wrong direction.

Wow... (4.00 / 3)
So now we're turning into Red State and forcing EVERYONE to tow a specific line?    Your opinion is NOT the only one out there nor is it the only one.    Mike is looking at what he WANTS which is full Single Payer and the pragmatism of getting this bill passed so that 30 million plus more Americans have Health Care.     If you honestly expected that a few articles on Single Payer by front line bloggers was going to get that passed or that the Health Care Bill was going to be 100% what you wanted, then that was just being naive.    60 Democrats, NOT 60 progressives.   If it means that more people will have insurance, then I can swallow some compromises.  I don't LIKE them, some I absolutely hate.   Yes I wish more could be done.   But 1) we don't know what is being discussed between the politicians and 2) we don't have the lobbying money that the insurance industry has... so while its easy to say... PASS SINGLE PAYER... PASS MEDICARE +5%, the reality is its not that easy.

I'm not saying don't be disappointed in some of the main people.   I agree Obama and others could have fought harder.  But in the end, that still doesn't mean the Bill would be better and could be worse. (Yes I acknowledge that it COULD have been better if they fought harder... the point is we just don't know.)

[ Parent ]
Stupak (0.00 / 0)
My question with Stupak is this.   If it IS removed in committee, would it then cause the Bill to fail in the House?   Would Stupak block it?
I don't think so. (0.00 / 0)
But we have a lot of work to do. I think we can find the votes without it.
[ Parent ]
Don't hate on Kucinich and Massa (4.00 / 9)
Mike,

Criticize the Repugs and the Blue Dogs all you want, but please, don't criticize Kucinich and Massa for actually standing up for what they believe in.  I mean come on, do you honestly believe they "were happy to let any hope of health care reform for a generation die because the bill wasn't everything we hoped it would be"?  Are such harsh words really appropriate for progressive champions like Kucinich? The subjects of your scorn ought not to be Kucinich and Massa, but the dozens of other CPC members who broke their promise to you, me, and every other American to vote against any bill that did not include a robust public option.  Further, most of these folks have long been HR 676 supporters, but when it actually came time to stand up for single payer and fight to keep the Kucinich amendment in the bill, they just rolled over, acceded to the administration's wishes, and allowed it to be stripped.  Finally, as Jane Hamsher pointed out yesterday, only about 14 Progressive Dems needed to stand their ground and they could've been in a position to make some real demands,  given the 25 or so blue dogs who'd never vote for the bill anyway.  The administration needed Progressive votes to get this thing passed, they had real leverage, and they did nothing with it.

Don't people realize that unless the progressive movement decisively breaks with its slavish devotion to Saint Obama and the Democratic Party, we'll never get our country out of this mess? Now is not the time to congratulate these hacks, now is the time to get angry!  Thank you, Representatives Kucinich and Massa, for being examples to us all.  You are true patriots.    

Jimboz, so sorry for the "0" meant to give you a 4 and then some! (0.00 / 0)
Any way to remove the down rate?  Geez...should not sign on when what I really need is sleep.  
[ Parent ]
No worries, (0.00 / 0)
 hope you got some sleep!
[ Parent ]
Some of the CPC should be primaried (0.00 / 0)
And it should be made crystal clear to them (and all of the CPC) why that is a good thing.

Also, considering the final vote, don't you mean that we only needed 3 more members of the CPC to stand their ground, not 11 more?

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
You're exactly right (0.00 / 0)
Somehow I didn't even realize that, very good point!  I suppose that just emphasizes even more how much leverage just a few principled progressives could've had in this debate.  
[ Parent ]
The PDA disagrees (0.00 / 0)
Link. But I respectfully dissent.

I wish there was a proven game theoretic way to go about analyzing the question of who and how many to primary. Doubtless, it'd be a function of volunteer time and money. I have a strong suspicion that lobbying firms pay good money for just this sort of analysis. In their case, however, the goal is to make Congress fit their own agenda. If that agenda is basically selfish and hurts the public - well, too bad for us.

Maybe somebody with time on their hands could give some calls to poly sci professors at universities, and ask them to weigh in on this question? For that matter, maybe somebody with time and acting skills can investigate the question of whether lobbying firms are already using game theory to determine details of who to target in re-election campaigns. This could be accomplished by
1) posing as a business which needs lobbying services, and asking about "scientific" ways that the lobbying firm uses to optimize their cash expenditures
2) posing as a political game theorist, and then trying to sell your services to various lobbying firms. (This option requires some basic knowledge of the field; it also is advisable to have a math degree; or maybe a sympathetic poly sci professor will play the part)

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
ellsworth, dahlkemper and perriello (0.00 / 0)
voted FOR the most serious assault on women's reproductive rights since Roe. What are we congratulating here?

You know, it is really heartbreaking and just sad that women's fundamental rights are considered secondary and peripheral in a progressive blog like this.  

Not secondary. (0.00 / 0)
As I wrote above, I think the Stupak amendment is terrible and must be stripped. And I think it will be. But each vote is different and I was praising them for the final vote, which we needed to win to keep reform alive.  
[ Parent ]
how can the Stupak amendment be stripped? (4.00 / 2)
I understand that, but how can the leadership be pressured to strip the Stupak amendment without the Pro-Choice block threatening to vote down the final bill? It's not just going to go away. and how can they do that if they are not willing to actually vote no to the final bill if the Stupak amendment is not stripped (that is, to vote like Kucinich and Massa)?  
[ Parent ]
One More Step | 119 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox