I don't care if they call it (4.00 / 6)

the "Ronald Reagan memorial Islomafascist killing agency' if it is actually a real public health insurance plan that brings down health care costs.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:11:59 AM CST

Your writing tends to be very open end (4.00 / 1)

This is pretty simple: What mechanism exists in the bill that will prevent the system from collapsing under the weight of cost? I am interested to know whether a decade from now will we be in a better or worse place systemically or are we just punting that problem. The rest is just talk.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:32:09 AM CST

Hardest thing to know. (4.00 / 2)

The cost control piece of this legislation are the hardest thing to know for sure. There are a lot of things in these bills that will likely help control costs, but how much is really all theory at this point because the whole system is being re-jiggered. Hopefully as we learn more about what is working and what isn't we can do more of the things that are working.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 20:19:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Possible Deal (4.00 / 1)

Given the already weakened state of the PO and the steadfast dedication of the conservatives to stop it at all cost, why don't the public option advocates simply extract large concessions from conservatives on other priorities they have in the bill such as the generosity of subsidies, openness of the exchanges or strong regulations in the exchanges or implementation timing?  They can say, ok fine we will give up the public option but you have to give us in return a larger bill that goes into effect quicker, has bigger subsidies and has stronger regulated/more open exchanges.  I for one would gladly jettison the public option for a much stronger overall bill.  We are so dug in on the public option that the symbolism of us giving it up completely (rather than with meaningless triggers) would likely give the conservatives the cover they need to allow a larger much stronger bill.  They will have "won" on the public option issue after all!

---

by: supag32 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:33:50 AM CST

Because they won't accept the strong enough regulations... (4.00 / 2)

To make our system work as well as the Swiss or Dutch regulated private systems. In addition, we don't know if the Swiss/Dutch system will work as well in a country as big as ours. Their insurance companies are no comparison to Aetna or UnitedHealth. I really think the only way to check the power of Aetna, UnitedHealth, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, et al, is to give consumers more choices, including a public option.

Also remember that a number of these companies hold near monopolies on their respective markets, and that "co-ops" will NEVER be strong enough to offer real competition in states like Nevada where UnitedHealth probably controls about 80% of the market.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:41:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

or eliminate the antitrust exemption (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:43:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There are other cost-cutting reforms in the air (0.00 / 0)

Notably the 85% to healthcare in the House bill. That's actually a form of profit limitation, and while it's weak, it would be an improvement over the current situation which is about 82% to non-healthcare.

The Senate bill may also get the option to leave company insurance for exchanges, which would also be a big improvement.

The monopoly positions in many markets are a killer problem - and actually a public option with negotiated rates can't fix that - but dropping the insurance exemption from antitrust is, I think, in the current bill. Killing the antitrust exemption will probably help costs more than the current public option would.

---

by: FairEconomist @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:37:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The only way is to make insurance companies non-profit (4.00 / 1)

Many health insurance companies were non-profits, and even then they raked in the money. (See Blue Cross of California.)

There could be a way of regulating them simply and across the board: by legislating that all insurance companies must all become non-profit, as is the case in Switzerland. What do they do with their profits anyway, except to play risky financial markets and fund birthers and tea parties?

The main problem for Democrats seems to me to be the mandating of insurance coverage of up to 10% of income for people in the $30,000 to $40,000 range, just enough not to be helped with subsidies, and way too much for them to afford. I simply cannot understand this provision other than a pure gift to the insurance companies. All people I know in this income range are planning to take the $750.00 fine and be done with insurance.

If the Senate could just pass Wyden's amendment along with a PO that might solve the problem.

---

by: jjmm @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:13:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why compromise on health care? (0.00 / 0)

By which I mean, why not compromise on something that is not health care reform to win votes for a public option?  It's called logrolling.  I'd honestly be willing to talk about caving on Afghanistan if it would get a strong public option passed.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:49:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hopefully #6 won't take too long... (0.00 / 0)

Since it seems Reid is (wisely) taking this route right how while Schumer keeps #5 open as an option. Fortunately it so far looks like they're realizing that #2 will be just as much a loser for them as #1. Reid doesn't want to lose next year over a demoralized base here in Nevada, and I doubt Schumer is stupid enough to risk losing a number of seats, maybe even the entire majority, just to become the Senate Democratic Leader.

I can accept #5 so long as the public option and consumer subsidies aren't weakened any further. If it means more Katrina relief funds for Lousiana (which seems to do the trick for Landrieu) and aid for rural hospitals (or whatever else will make Lincoln and Nelson jump for joy), just do it. If the public option is thrown out or "triggered", then #5 morphs into #2 and I will oppose the sell-out "compromise" for "Presidents Snowe & Lieberman".

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:36:21 AM CST

Hopefully #6 won't take too long... (0.00 / 0)

...because Reid just isn't going to push his colleagues that hard before choosing one of the options more odious to progressives.  And that's from someone who believes more in his personal bona fides than most.

---

by: tdub @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 02:09:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps Progressives should shoot for option 6 (0.00 / 0)

And block weak legislation while keeping debate going so that the 2010 mid-terms become a de facto referendum on health care reform.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:43:53 AM CST

Why in hell would they want to do that? (4.00 / 1)

they'd lose.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:00:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Health care reform polls well and the base needs something to get excited about (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:06:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not polling well at all at the moment (4.00 / 1)

as a matter of fact, even the public option has gone from very popular to costing Democrats Independent voters.

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:35:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It would be great to see links to these polls (0.00 / 0)

that are showing that it is not polling that well, and what is being asked.  But, I don't expect it. It seems to kill the PO command has gone out.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:16:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here (0.00 / 0)

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

-There is a price to pay with independents if a strong health care bill is passed. Democrats lead 37-30 with them in general on the generic ballot, but they say they'll vote 44-37 for the GOP if a bill with a public option makes it through. Clearly some independents are sitting on the fence waiting to see what happens with health care before they decide how to vote next year and Democrats could push them toward the Republican side by passing a bill without bipartisan support.

-That said, the price to pay with those independents is not nearly as bad as the damage Democrats would do with their base by not passing a health care bill. Democrats get 86% with their own party on the generic ballot if a bill with a public option passes. They get 84% before health care is even mentioned. They get just 75% without a health care bill. They have to get something done in order to keep the party's rank and file voters in line for next year.

What's the big take away?

The political damage for Democrats of passing a public option is not as bad as the damage from doing nothing. But they would still be better off passing something that's not perfect than passing nothing at all. Most voters aren't following this debate really closely and don't understand the nuances of it all. At the end of the day voters are likely to see this as either a bill was passed or it was not. In some sense that should get the Blanche Lincolns and Mary Landrieus of the world in line- they're probably going to face just as much trouble back home whether there's a public option in there or not. But failing that Democrats would still be better off, at least for next year's election, with a weaker bill than no bill at all.

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:22:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps, I need to be more precise with you (4.00 / 1)

I am asking for overall numbers of approval/disaproval rather than cherry picking out independents (as the pollster defines it) from one poll.

Off year elections, which 2010 is, will not be about independents. We lost 2009 because the base did not show up in Virginia and NJ (go look at where the numbers in precints did not show up in 2009 in NJ versus 2005).   I would add 1994 to that, because we lost 1994 for similar reasons like NAFTA, but also that year was also a product of natural demographic shifts.

In that context, your argument is missing the point. You are not going to win next year because of what independents thought of the public option.

In 2010, if the economy is bad, we will lose independents. If it is good,t hey will vote for us regardless of the bill.

But, the real kicker is that even if it starts to recover, we will lose if the base of the Democratic party if that base is demoralized by bad policy judgment.

The base will be demoralized with a bill that creates a regressive mandate for the private insurance industry. No one is being plain in politico-land. The reality is that you are asking the base to accept a corporate giveaway. Good luck convincing folks you are different with that one. Especially considering all the other policies coming out of DC from people like Geithner and the Fed.

People keep talking around this by trying to spin, but at bottom- a mandate without a public option is guarantee to demoralize people who will show up not just to vote, but provide volunteers and money.

Once again: Next year will be a base year. Talking about independents when your base does not show up is a little like building the roof before you have built  foundation.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:54:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've been looking at numbers (0.00 / 0)

Not sure if DTOzone wants honest debate.  Crosstabs are here (warning: PDF)

Looking at the numbers, I think that passing a health care reform bill, even a weak one, shores up votes among non-liberal Democratic voters.  People confuse independents and moderates.  The Democratic Party has multiple bases, and one of them is self-described moderate and conservative Democrats.  Health care reform is something that will help activate that base, while painting pictures of birthers and wingnuts and a House full of Michelle Bachmann clones is one thing that will help motivate the liberal base to turn out.

Another Democratic base is non-whites and Hispanics in the poll did seem to prefer no bill over a public option, but that is 8% of the sample.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:22:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's screwy (0.00 / 0)

Hispanics vote 28% for Republicans if there is no bill or one without a public option, but then go 39% for Republicans if it has a public option.

This would imply that there's a strong anti-public option sentiment among Hispanics. Really?

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:36:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah that makes the whole thing suspect. (0.00 / 0)

Those are NOT real numbers, in fact I say its a set -up.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:54:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Small sample size (4.00 / 1)

Less than 100 Hispanics were interviewed.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 17:01:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the problem here is taking any one issue (4.00 / 1)

and thinking that it is just about THAT ISSUE. It is not. As I point out below, it is the overall picture. This is just one more really big straw that reminds people that Democrats are not there for them. Being "marginally better than the GOP" is not a winning campaign theme. I know there are different types of Democrats. I am referencing the ones that will  not show up next year. To win a base year, you don't have the luxury of ignoring the liberal wing of the party. For example, on the abortion issue, although it it not my issue, you lose a great deal of women Democrats. What genius did not realize that?  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:51:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

84% of Democrats vote for Democrats (0.00 / 0)

even if a bill has no public option, 86% vote for Democrats if it does, 75% vote for Democrats if no bill is passed.

The only thing the base cares about is a bill, not what's in it.

You want general healthcare reform numbers;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

48% support, 49% opposed

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:31:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What part of prior election cycles (4.00 / 4)

and demoralized bases don't you understand?

I am not simply discussing polls, but what any reduced base means in a base year election season.

You can not afford to build a foundation based on hoping fickle independents will vote for you. They will show up if the economy is good for them. That's why they are independents. They are fickle.

It is fool's gold to base decisions on an amorphous concept like independents in a base year election.

On the other hand, if you have 1/3 or even 1/10 less African Americans, for example, actually do not show up like they did not show up in 2009, then you got a problem with the base that will lose you the election regardless of the independents. It does not require all Democrats, just a significant margin in close base races. i am not sure what you don't understand about this?

Let me make another point plain that Mike and others seem to miss:

I am not arguing the base will be demoralized on this issue alone. I am arguing that the neoliberal policies coming out of DC (and in this cse regressive policies) will demoralized the base in total. determine it for them. I arguing that the overall environment with issue after issue being right of center will do that.

Point to a single piece of legislation that will energize the base right now. Certainly not President Obama floating trial balloons over freezing spending in the worse economic climate for jobs since the Great Depression.

in that context, given the weight that health care was given by the Democrats, this is just one more really big straw that will break the camels back for next year.

Right now, DC Democrats have very little going into next years election cycle to excite the base. The GOP is excite just by the simple fact they want to beat us and they are taken over by crazies.

The other aspect of this is that all these policies reinforce the idea that the party is captured by corporate interests. People look at Wall Street, at the public option (which despite your claims is overall supported 60 percent by the public), etc and they don't feel any connection that says "come out to vote for us because this is how we are contrasting in policies from the GOP." It is that emotional contrast that many of you seem not to get.

I mean- who ever thought allowing the Stupak vote to occur in the House, and for it to actually whine, should be sued for political ineptitude.

I really can not add more than repeating: You don't want to demoralize your base (even marginally so)  in a base year election. It is almost like some of you would rather lose next year than admit that you must give up some power to the base and what it wants. If we were the loony right requesting something unreasonable in terms of policy that would be one thing. But we are not. We are asking for affordable health care.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:45:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No where did I mention Independents (0.00 / 0)

The base will NOT be demoralized if a bill passes with no public option, that's what the poll shows. They will only be demoralized if no bill passes at all.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:49:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The poll references independents (0.00 / 0)

"There is a price to pay with independents if a strong health care bill is passed. "

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:52:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah, so? (0.00 / 0)

The party will not suffer a base problem if it passes a bill with no public option, so if next year is a base election, then there's really no reason to keep the public option and risk losing whatever Independents do vote.

The base issue only applies if there's a base problem with a bill with no public option, there isn't.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:57:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's why I am going to stop talking to you at this point (4.00 / 1)

"The base issue only applies if there's a base problem with a bill with no public option, there isn't.  "

You offer no evidence of this, and indeed, your first response had no link to what I first requested regarding overall public option numbers. You simply linked to a cherry picked poll about independents.

Like most of DC, you  are a conclusion in search of ways to justify itself. This is one of many reasons why I too may sit next year out for the first time in my adult life.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:08:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll say it one more time (0.00 / 0)

You offer no evidence of this

84% of Democrats vote Democrat next year if there is a healthcare bill with NO public option, only 2% more show up if there is a public option...a 2% difference is not a demoralized base.

here's the link;

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

Here's the quote;

the price to pay with those independents is not nearly as bad as the damage Democrats would do with their base by not passing a health care bill. Democrats get 86% with their own party on the generic ballot if a bill with a public option passes. They get 84% before health care is even mentioned. They get just 75% without a health care bill. They have to get something done in order to keep the party's rank and file voters in line for next year.

All the base cares about is a bill...the only way you demoralize the base is by passing NO bill...the public option is moot.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:15:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a lot of trouble believing this (0.00 / 0)

since it contradicts EVERY DAMN PERSON I KNOW.  Not to mention the fact that if the base didn't care about the PO, then why the hell were all three major presidential candidates debating the merits of their personal PO's during the primaries?  

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 20:02:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's going to be spun as one anyways (4.00 / 1)

Since Democrats are expected to lose seats.  Take charge of the narrative in a way that the corporate media can't ignore and fight a battle on our own terms.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly narratively give people a reason to feel passionate (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:53:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Very good point. (0.00 / 0)

"I am fighting as hard as I can against misinformation, against bad faith opposition and while we may suffer set backs, this is the right thing to do."

Sounds like base energizing to me.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:56:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the more things [yawn] change (4.00 / 3)

Yes, Harry Reid is a real "man of the people", isn't he?

In the tradition of campaign finance reform after the 2006 election, he and his Democratic colleagues marched like Sherman against the status quo in the healthcare industry. By the time Obama signs the bill it will hardly even be recognizable.

After all, Reid and the DLC Democrats never met a K Street lobbyist they weren't fully prepared to put in his place. This is a new era. The Republicans are no longer in charge of the revolving doors. The "liberals" are.

The two biggest dangers in all of this negotiating are (1) what concessions on other issues will Reid have to make to get some reasonably strong version of the public option, and (2) are we going to get better policy or be relegated to symbolic gestures?

A reasonably strong version of the public option?!!!! Two percent of the population will have access to it on or about 2014. I mean, how can it possibly be more "reasonably stronger" than that?

The only thing that "relegates" us to symbolic gestures is that we continue to elect symbolic progressives and expect them not to be.

This is the same old, same old mainstream media narrative in which virtually the entire focus of the analysis revolves around the phoney "Democrats" versus "Republicans" in doing the people's business.

None of this is going to be easy to stomach. Why Democratic Senators can't just do the right thing is an immense frustration. But Tully was right: you can't take the politics out of politics.

What in the world does this really have to do with crony capitalism and how it works to subsume the "audacity of change" into an ever functioning alliance between Wall Street and Washington?

---

by: george walton @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:46:24 AM CST

there is no progressive frame in this criticism (0.00 / 0)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:59:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good to see (4.00 / 1)

that according to your version of "progressive", being e.g. for campaign finance reform and against Wall Street corporatsim, lobbyists, the insurance racket, and crony capitalism doesn't qualify.

They sure as hell qualify in my definition.

http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 15:41:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Limp Reid deserves no credit at all, only blame. (4.00 / 2)

When has he ever shown leadership?  He won't even use reconciliation, probably the only way to avoid a filibuster, to pass the final bill with a simple 51-vote majority.  He's let conservatives within his party and in the GOP walk all over him, walk all over us, and walk all over the bills in committees.  What we end up getting will be horrible, and he, being in a position to take charge and twist arms, abdicated responsibility.

We are not getting decent policy.  All we're getting is more illusion masking more greed-driven corruption.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

---

by: Single-Payer Advocate @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 10:59:38 AM CST

Thanks for all your help (0.00 / 0)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:59:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are very welcome. (0.00 / 0)

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

---

by: Single-Payer Advocate @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:49:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What to make... (0.00 / 0)

Of this PPP Poll showing the Dems with an 8 point lead, but then only a 5 point lead if a Public Option passes?  Huh? Are most people responding favorably to the PO or not?  Very confusing...

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:05:48 PM CST

Public Option has become unpopular with Independents (0.00 / 0)

and Democrats are indifferent to it.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:23:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you just read what posted? (0.00 / 0)

Such as the PPP blog post you quoted?

Democrats are not indifferent.  "The political damage for Democrats of passing a public option is not as bad as the damage from doing nothing. But they would still be better off passing something that's not perfect than passing nothing at all."  While the shift that leshrac55 noted comes from a shift in undecideds, 46% of voters in that PPP poll say they would vote for a Democrat today and that they would vote for a Democrat if a public option passes, but only 40% say they would vote Democratic if no health care reform bill passes.


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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:33:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, they are indifferent to the Public Option. (0.00 / 0)

Democrats get 86% with their own party on the generic ballot if a bill with a public option passes. They get 84% before health care is even mentioned.

Only 2% is more likely to vote Democratic if a public option is in the bill. Since it's within the MOE, it safe the say tbe numbers are essentially unchanged. Democrats are more concerned with a bill passing then what's in it. There are very few who draw the line at the public option.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:36:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are either an idiot or a liar (0.00 / 0)

Why did you cut out the next sentence?  

Democrats get 86% with their own party on the generic ballot if a bill with a public option passes. They get 84% before health care is even mentioned. They get just 75% without a health care bill.

The likely explanation is that some Democratic voters are assuming that health care reform is likely to pass, but will get pissed if there is no bill (but perhaps not pissed, or not very pissed, if there is a weak bill).

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:52:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

because I was talking about the public option (0.00 / 0)

you're talking about a bill.

Of course Democrats are not indifferent to a bill, they want a bill, they don't give a flying fuck if there's a public option in it or not.

This takes the cards out of progressives, they can't threaten to kill a bill over lack of a public option because there's no one to back them up.

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:23:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This strengthens progressives (0.00 / 0)

If they can block things so that they force a choice between a bill with a public option or no bill at all, that puts other Democrats in a bad spot.  I'm just not sure if progressives have the guts to hold the party hostage over a public option.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:49:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Didn't finish reading the anaylsis, did you? (0.00 / 0)

PPP goes on to say the Blanche Lincolns and Mary Landrieus are in trouble whether there's a public option or not, so for them there's no more political risk in killing the public option than in keeping it. The only people at political risk are progressives in seats that can be lost in a wave or progressives who hold chairmanships. The Henry Waxmans and George Millers are not going to risk their chairmanships to kill a bill. John Hall is not going to risk his seat to kill a bill.

Progressives won't hold the party hostage because they have no leverage, it's their majority that could be lost...the Senate moderates are gone no matter what.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:55:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I read the analysis (4.00 / 2)

I think that progressives in Congress best accomplish their goals by avoiding being risk-averse.  They need to be willing to gamble the majority.  The reason that Bart Stupak, generally a supporter of health care reform, was able to force through an abortion amendment was because he was willing to gamble with one thing he supported in order to get another thing he supported.  

Progressive politicians need to hold the line with what is perceived as must-pass legislation and be willing to play a huge game of high-stakes chicken.  Otherwise, they are worthless to the cause.

Of course, I think Belichick was right to go for it on 4th-and-2.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 16:59:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wha?? (0.00 / 0)

Last couple polls, if I recall, were still showing the PO polling at 60+%.

To be honest, the result makes no sense... If nothing passes the Democrats get their clocks cleaned (generic ballot falls to even).  Without mentioning HCR, the Dems are up 8, and if HCR passes with PO they're up 5... I mean, it's just a really bizarre lineup.  Does that mean people want HCR without a PO?  They didn't appear to poll that, but as I mentioned, the last few polls I've seen on the PO still showed it at least 60% popular, so that doesn't really follow.

My guess is that what form HCR ends up mattering very little in terms of the 2010 election (but there must be SOME form of HCR to avoid a complete disaster), and perhaps a bit more in the 2012 election (when people start asking what difference it really made to them, which is unfortunate since these plans won't start until after that either).

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:36:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Independents appear to have turned against a public option (0.00 / 0)

The only likely explanations I have is that either A.) the spin on government take over of healthcare got to them or they see the public option has some partisan liberal thing or B.) they see the public option has the reason the bill is being held up and think it should be killed to get some bill through.

More likely A.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:25:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hey dto (0.00 / 0)

you were never a big po supporter, and even less a single payer fan, so the fact that you are cherry  picking one poll to support your point is noticeable.

I don't hire lawyers to tell me what to do, I hire them to protect my ass when I do what needs doing.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 15:03:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not necessary, sorry (0.00 / 0)

the base will turn out, public option or not, the polls prove it.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 15:08:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

just like they did for Creigh Deeds! (4.00 / 1)

or should I say, Governor Creigh Deeds

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 15:24:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Creigh Deeds wasn't writing the healthcare bill (0.00 / 0)

and he did a hell of a lot more to turn off the base than what he said about the public option. He was losing in a landslide before he said that.

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 15:29:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but surely his hugely successful campaign reflects the wisdom of taking the base for granted (4.00 / 3)

I mean, those fools will turn out for anything with a (D) behind its name!

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 15:52:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NO the base will not turn out. (4.00 / 1)

That makes you seem not very bright. This statement compromises the impression you seem to want to make as a thinking member of the vaguely left community. This pins you to the right of Deeds. Deeds lost because he was stupid enough to believe what you just advocated. And it does not matter if you are a right wing troll making bad policy look progressive, or a progressive who doesn't understand anything. What you offer is the road to defeat, and a shameful defeat.

Yeah just kill the damn bill. Time to fight for single payer.

The Deeds Baker Rule: the number of people of people who never vote because "it doesnt matter" and the number turned off by their party going right is bigger than the margin of victory. Sadie Baker / Creigh Deeds Rule of Selling Out & Losing Elections LINK

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 09:37:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It makes sense (0.00 / 0)

If you understand that "public option" is an ill-defined term where people have different ideas of what it is about.  

I'd love to see a poll that goes line by line and asks people what they think about specific concepts within the bill that passed the House.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:58:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If the corporoDems and GOPpers don't like the PO (4.00 / 1)

Why not offer them non-profit health insurance companies with heavy governmental regulation as an alternative?
Call it Health Insurance Conservation.

On the issue of a new name for the current PO, I'd suggest the Health Insurance Profits Protection Plan. HIPPP. No shortage of catchy PR slogans with that one.

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

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:34:54 PM CST

all bitter, no sweet (4.00 / 2)

most of your possible "bittersweet moments" have already happened.

subsidies are a joke and will become useless quickly, as they are indexed only to inflation, not health care costs. and guaranteed, one of the first changes that will happen after the spotlight moves away will be to cut whatever meager subsidies are left, because everyone knows that Subsidies only go to Those People and not real Americans.

immigrants will be mistreated, coverage for women's health is heavily restricted. what you're talking about is whether or not they will make these things even worse. "well, they're still going to hang you, but we've gotten them to agree not to mutilate your corpse afterward, and i think that's a serious concession!"

i suppose the extra double taxing of existing health care plans is still somewhat in doubt, but i'll bet you a dollar it gets in there.

it's all making me feel just peachy about doing anything about climate change or economic reform or anything else that does not boil down to giving more money to rich people, i tell you what. good thing we've got that Democratic Party majority, eh?

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

---

by: tatere @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:42:55 PM CST

If we can end denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions/ (4.00 / 1)

I think it will be worth putting some kind of a bill through.
Plus subsidies for middle class (I like the House 400% poverty line), and no more than what, 12% of your income. Plus making parent's insurers cover kids up to age 26 or 27.

Those are very important reforms.

That said, the public option is paramount in making health insurance accessible and affordable and curbing the insurance company abuses that are absolutely rampant in this system.

If a foreign country or group were killing Americans at the rate that insurance companies are doing it, we would be ready to go to war on a level not seen since WW II.

How someone like Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson, not to mention GOP and the NPR commentators can dismiss this while arguing about "increasing the deficit" (which the bills actually decrease), is beyond me. As far as I'm concerned, these people are anti-American.

---

by: coral @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:00:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"only" 12% of income (4.00 / 1)

a paltry 4 or 5 grand

chump change, really

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 14:40:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not to mention (4.00 / 2)

that the subsidies will become insufficient as health insurance premiums rise, since premiums are indexed to inflation, but premiums have been rising quite a bit faster than that. The result? Eventually people will be forced to pay for insurance they can't afford.

This is the same problem with the ban on excluding folks due to a pre-existing condition, there's no mechanism available -- now that the public option is so weakened -- to prevent insurance companies from simply pricing the poor and the sick and the old right out of the market. Or raising their premiums so high that these customers will be forced to buy only the most worthless catastrophic plans.

Mr. Lux, in regards to this bill, your fears about "symbolism over substance" have already been realized.

---

by: willf @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 16:08:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

excuse me... (0.00 / 0)

since the subsidies are indexed to inflation, but premiums have been rising quite a bit faster than that.

---

by: willf @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 16:10:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

12% gross = 36% disposable (0.00 / 0)

i don't know if that's universally true but i bet it's pretty close - that 2/3 of what people gross is gone by the time they even begin to think about things like paying for insurance. or eating. or having that Mr. Edison's fancy new electrical lighting.

honestly the best thing i've heard so far, and i can't remember the source so it could be wrong, is that the penalty in the Senate bill for not having insurance is like $95. (they could call it the "salt-in-the-wound" tax.)

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

---

by: tatere @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 19:04:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

$95 the first year (0.00 / 0)

several hundred by the fourth

as the president's good friend Mike Bloomberg would say, "fuck the middle class"

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 20:55:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Several hundred.... hmmmm (0.00 / 0)

If housing should be set to 20% - 30 % of income (I can go into why and where thats used) then what percentage of a persons income should go to supporting a healthcare system, either through premiums or taxation.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 09:43:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]