One of the reasons the conservatives are able to beat you (4.00 / 4)

is that they are just much more willing to go over the cliff than you are.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 14:46:46 PM CST

I'm reminded of a quote (0.00 / 0)

from a notorious foreign politician of the ultra-right-wing persuasion:

"The illusions of the left are only empty slogans."

Day

---

by: limpidglass @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:37:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeap (4.00 / 4)

It is hard to win at negotiation if everyone knows your underlying point of "no, I am leaving the table" is an empty threat (or slogan).  IMO, saying "I am willing to let there be short term suffering for longer term gains" is not in the progressive constitutional makeup, and, at least in terms of negotiation, it puts Chris and others at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiation. It is unthinkable to imagine making such a sacrifice: You have to be willing to walk away.  But, everyone knows Chris and progressives will give in because progressives are expected to be the adults in the room who will do the right thing. Thus, making it easy for the conservatives to simply wait us out. Deep down we all know this to be true. So, we get a bit here and bit there.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:53:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm reminded of a quote (4.00 / 3)

from a notorious foreign politician of the ultra-right-wing persuasion:

"The illusions of the left are only empty slogans."

Day by day, the Democrats are proving the truth of his words. For what else are "hope" and "change you can believe in", if not empty slogans?

Day by day, a policy the Democrats claim is most important to them is being watered down, watered down, watered down until there's nothing left of it.

And even the so-called progressives are choking down this shit and telling themselves it's filet mignon, and yelling at anybody who points out the truth. That is the height of delusion.

The hard truth is that no one, even in the self-proclaimed liberal blogosphere, really wants to fix the problem. Really, all they only wanted was the credit for having good intentions, while still being able to pass the buck.

And that is exactly what that politician was talking about.

---

by: limpidglass @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:45:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Very true (4.00 / 1)

If we're thinking of the same politician, probably his most convincing point when he was appealing not to his base but to the apolitical masses was that "the left" had had all the power it needed to enact its policy.

What had it done with that power? Nothing. It squandered the opportunity; it was utterly hapless and weak; it had abdicated and left behind nothing but failure, insecurity, instability, depression, and chaos.

Unfortunately that analysis was somewhat true then and it looks like it's going to be far more true today. (The big difference is that back then the Right truly was powerful, whereas in 2009 it has been completely impotent, able to do nothing other than what the Dems allow it to do.)

Obama and Dems seem resolved upon recreating every last one of those same conditions, right down to rejecting what should be their own base.

http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 04:47:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Going over the cliff (4.00 / 1)

is their usual goal - not a strategy that Democrats can match.

---

by: kanzeon @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 18:56:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't buy that Reid won't use reconciliation. (4.00 / 1)

As a minimum, he has to keep it as a threat. The fact he publicly stated otherwise means he's feeling confident about the 60.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 14:58:38 PM CST

His statement today was very present tense (4.00 / 1)

Ben Nelson's statement from last night seems pretty believable.

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:25:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If/when he finds there's no path to 60 votes... (4.00 / 1)

...he'll be singing a different tune. For now, talk of reconciliation (in public anyway) prior to an impasse unnecessarily concedes uncertainty and lack of confidence in 'Plan A.'

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:58:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

again, I ask why I should support a bill that will force me to buy insurance I can't afford? (4.00 / 4)

possibly from a private company, no less

the public option is limp, and while this will help some people it will leave many people actually worse off than they were before the bill was passed

I fall into the demographic you describe, and frankly I don't really particularly want my life saved if it will mean I still go in to crippling debt (or owe exorbitant fines every year)

at this stage Obama is the president I thought Clinton would be, and I can't see why "well we accomplished SOMETHING (even though it is terrible)" is any reason to feel differently

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:18:35 PM CST

$95 (0.00 / 0)

For $95 dollars you can pay a penalty instead of buying insurance.  In exchange, you are allowed to buy insurance at any time you need, regardless of any pre-existing condition.

Say you get cancer or get some other serious illness.  Today, you are dead.  With this bill you will be able to buy insurance and have your bills payed.  That 95 bucks buys a lot.

And remember, if you really can't afford it, much of the cost of coverage is paid for by the government.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:12:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"have your bills paid" (4.00 / 2)

In 2007, 62% of bankruptcies in the US were due to medical costs and roughly three-quarters of those filing had health insurance.

---

by: jeffweinberg @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:41:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Limits Banned (4.00 / 1)

Then you'll really like one of the laws that takes place immediately (from the Q/Hs):

Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:57:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Mark (0.00 / 0)

That's good to know. That quote appears to be from Ezra Klein's column here.

But, given that Wendell Potter, former executive for Cigna, says, "I don't think this is an industry that is honest enough to ever be regulated as it should be," I'll remain skeptical.

---

by: jeffweinberg @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 18:34:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh, Matson, you scamp (4.00 / 3)

the $95 is only the first year, it's been projected to quadruple within 3 years

"if you really can't afford it, much of the cost of coverage is paid for by the government"

the federal poverty line for a single person is $10k

between you and me if you make 150% of this, you're still broke as fuck

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 21:45:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

there are two reasons for opposing the bill (0.00 / 0)

neither of which sways me personally.

One is political.  This is the one that has me worried.  Far fewer people will die and far more people will have care.  That's why I agree with Chris that it should pass.  However, tens of millions of people will continue to see their premiums skyrocket because the bill essentially has no cost containment.  Millions will be forced to buy crappy insurance.  Some of the real benefits don't kick in for 3-4 years.  The dems will quite rightly get blamed for this in the next two elections.  As I've posted other times, my main concern can be summed up in two words "President Romney".  I only hope that either the economy turns around (not likely since the stimulus was about a third as stimulating as it needed to be) or the Republicans nominate Palin.

The second reason I buy less.  that's the argument that the bill is a net negative.  For the reasons Chris stated,  Idon't see that.  I could possibly believe it would be a net negative before it gets out of conference, but neither bill right now is a net negative. Some argue that if it passes we won't get another shot for 1-2 decades.  That is possible except for one thing.  Right now the situation is so bad that it can't go another 1-2 decades.  Either the bill is going to improve the situation or we'll be forced to deal with it again in the next 5-10 years.

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

---

by: egtalbot @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:54:05 PM CST

Cost containment (0.00 / 0)

Actually, the Senate bill has the tax that economists near-universally believe will contain costs.  The addition of a medicare based public option would save much more money, but it isn't quite accurate to say "the bill essentially has no cost containment."

Otherwise, I agree completely.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:15:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Put it on the DSCC (4.00 / 2)

Tell the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that you won't give them another nickel until the Senate passes a health reform bill with a strong public option, because you don't want your money going to any faux Democrats who won't vote for health care reform.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447
Fax (202) 969-0354

For general information email info@dscc.org

---

by: jcullen @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:37:12 PM CST

Prediction: Ben Nelson will be on board (0.00 / 0)

if I am right, I will leave you to chew over the philosophical implications.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 19:11:43 PM CST

No reconciliation? (4.00 / 1)

Can't figure out why Reid is taking that position, because all it does is empower the conservadems.  If reconciliation was a real possibility, the Dimwit 4 would have to worry about a couple of things--

1 - A landmark piece of Democratic legislation would pass with them standing    on the sidelines looking irrelevant and small-minded

2 - A bill passed via reconciliation would possibly be a much more progressive version of the legislation

Taking both of those threats off the table seems like a bonehead move to me.

---

by: global yokel @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 21:53:05 PM CST

The reconcililation threat wasn't credible anyway. (0.00 / 0)

Reconciliation is for bills that have strong support from the base. This bill is a total corporate giveaway. Don't look at numbers because the numbers can and will be changed. For instance the $95 mandate penalty becomes $750 two years later and--if Massachusetts is any guide--the penalty will be increased to whatever it takes to keep the number of insured in line with government models. What you should look at is the basic structure of the plan. Money is taken from the middle class via the Cadillac tax (increasing at a rate of 15% per year) and redistributed to subsidies for the poor and working class. This money doesn't go directly to poor folks, mind you. Instead it's filtered through our medical-industrial complex which has boutique prices for even the most basic services. Meanwhile the rich are largely unscathed, as the $420 billion House millionaire tax has been watered down in Reid's bill to a measly $55 billion Medicare tax. This is not progressive reform. I respect your decision to support it, but I will not be joining you.

---

by: bmull @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 00:31:09 AM CST

Well, I Tend to Agree with Robert Reich (4.00 / 1)

He writes on Huffington Post:
"It's a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word "public."
and:
"Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us."

 

---

by: lefttown @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:20:49 AM CST

a question (4.00 / 1)

if this 'health reform' gets signed into law, and single payer advocates manage to somehow get single payer more noticed in congress next year [or next congress], say, even to the point where a groundswell of public opinion might get it a floor vote, would you be willing to work as hard for that as you have for the 'public option' here?

or would you ignore it and go on to work on other issues, secure in the thought that one day the 'public option' might morph into single payer and therefore no more work on that front needs to be done?

---

by: hipparchia @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:29:55 AM CST