How NOT To Bargain

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:55:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

TPM's David Kurtz provides a great example of how NOT to bargain on HCR:

Schumer is [. . .] a pragmatist, and surely he's known for several days what's becoming obvious to all of us today: they don't have the votes. [. . .] [A]t this point you're just denying reality if you think all that the Dems need to do to get the waverers to come around is stand together in a show of unity. [. . .] This isn't one where you get to just pick up the ball and take it home with you. You still have to play, even if the outcome is guaranteed to disappoint.

This is not only ill informed (reconciliation seems to be a procedure Kurtz is utterly unfamiliar with), it also is contrary to a proposal Schumer has already made (split the bill in 2). More importantly, it is precisely what a weak bargainer would say. A good bargainer, aware of reconciliation and aware of Schumer's proposal, would be saying that there are not enough votes for HCR without a public option and that the Schumer Plan is the only way to go. This is not picking up the ball -- this is playing the game to the end. As a good bargainer must. Kurtz does us a favor though - demonstrating how a bad bargainer thinks about these things. (Of course, this assumes Kurtz gives a fig about the public option, which is probably a faulty assumption.)

Speaking for me only

< Health Care Bill Voting Today: What It Isn't | Sanders Witholds Promise To Vote For HCR >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How NOT To Bargain | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Could be... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by NealB on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:37:21 PM EST

...Obama's happy to let this all die. He's happy to let things slowly die. Prolonged agony is his his forte. The opposite of death by shock and awe. The change he promised.

Maybe it's alright. Health insurance is a gamble after all. Those that buy it do so with the assumption they may some day need it. But insurance is a lottery. Everyone pays in; but only a few win the benefits when they're injured or get sick.

I'm 52. I smoke and drink a lot. I had insurance for a few years recently until lack of a job forced me to give it up. Most of my adult life I've managed fairly well without health insurance. I can pay out of pocket to see a doctor any time I need to. And for a lot less than it would cost to pay for insurance under any scenario I can foresee coming out of Congress's grand health insurance reform, I will be able to continue to pay out-of-pocket for my preventative and non-catastrophic health care needs. Why should I want this bill? Even the best case scenario doesn't make health insurance more affordable going forward. The worst case scenarios toward which the Senate is headed will guarantee that health insurance costs will continue to rise for families and individuals. The cost of the gamble continues to rise. Why would anyone want to continue to play the game?

There's no good reason. Better to let these unforgivably, shamefully bad bills die. Let the legislators that wrote them lose, as many of them as possible please God, let them lose. Let the insurance and drug companies lose the revenue the fresh meat these bills would give them. Let Obama realize his suicide mission. Let all of it die.

: And that's why (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by NYShooter on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 02:00:28 AM EST

"health insurance" should not be confused with "health care."
Speaking just from personal experience, almost all of my health related contacts with the "industry" is for preventive and/or follow-up treatment. Things like check ups for cholesterol, blood pressure, sugar; colonoscopies, prostate exams, heart monitoring; x-rays, stress tests, echocardiograms, etc.
This is not "unnecessary, preventative" medicine; it's the difference between life and death for millions of people.
Telling people who can't afford any kind of insurance/care to simply "go to the emergency room" is the single most disgusting, and immoral comment a Leader could make to our citizens.
The fact that our wimpy, Democratic "leaders" won't take this fact and hang it around the Repub's necks is why I won't follow the day-to-day minuet being played out in Washington. They remind me of Saddam Hussein's anti-aircraft batteries, having had their radar knocked out, shooting millions of missiles aimlessly into the night sky, hoping one of them, by pure luck, hits something.

If there is anything we should have seen (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Anne on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:45:22 PM EST

coming, it is the total inability of the Dems to bargain from a position of strength - they always seem to bargain as if they have already lost.

Which can only mean they have.

: It's not easy (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by NYShooter on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 01:32:11 AM EST

Arguing with a prostitute, being a prostitute oneself. If the Repubs charge $50 per trick, the Dems charge $50-$2.
"Vote for us; our bill is slightly less horrible than our opponent's.....or slightly more....whatever," is not, IMO, a winning slogan.

the good news is that Schumer (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:11:02 PM EST

knows better. The question is: will he be allowed to do what need to be done, or will the President backstab him?

Schumer has made a big show (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:12:24 PM EST

of denying the rumor.

Not sure what it all means.

The reality is it will not be up to Schumer to be the "unreasonable"bargainer - it will need to be Sanders and other stalwarts.


Wish you two would write so the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:16:45 PM EST

rest of could figure out what you are talking about.


Heh (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:20:54 PM EST

What don't you understand? did you miss my 72 part series on Madman Political Bargaining.


Oh, I read each and every episode. (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:24:11 PM EST

But here there seems to be a lot of political between-the-lines. If it is all in the archives, just link away.


Not really (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:27:28 PM EST

Schumer is in the leadership so he can't be an unreasonable bargainer.

Sanders and others are not, and can be unreasonable bargainers.

There are at least 58 Republicans who will never ever vote for HCR. So 3 progressive Dems can stop the bill too. Not just 3 (or 4) ConservaDems.

The idea is to force reconciliation.


I rely on this: (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:33:42 PM EST

House rules re reconciliation, which seems incomplete.

What has to happen in the Senate re Reid's bill before reconciliation kicks in?


just to be clear for oculus (none / 0) (#16)
by CoralGables on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:24:18 PM EST

38?


: Right - 38 (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:34:01 PM EST

: Did Michigan beat the spread? (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:07:56 PM EST

I think so.
As I walked from the bookstore to my car, proudly wearing my block M jacket, a fellow who appeared to be Latino stopped me to discuss the game. Says he turned the game off and agreed the Michigan fans looked very depressed. He wishes Lloyd Carr was back in the saddle and says he never liked Rodriguez, either at U of M or at West VA. So there. We agreed Rodriguez is history at U of M.

I think you can (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:39:45 PM EST

count on Sanders to be wonderfully unreasonable if it comes down to it. He may be the only totally principled guy in politics today, he has an entirely secure seat and reelection campaign expenses you could pay for out of your wallet even if you were on Medicaid. He's just barely willing to go along with the bill as it stands now, but I think any further degradation and he's out.


Well, I'm finding that difficult to imagine (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:17:33 PM EST

Arlen Specter seems like an interesting candidate for that, though.


Sanders? (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:23:43 PM EST

Why?


I guess my perspective is (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:54:28 PM EST

that liberals are just psychologically incapable to driving a hard bargain.

Maybe he'll prove me wrong.


: I gather you didn't know (none / 0) (#12)
by oldpro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:02:03 PM EST

Bobby or Gene or George McGovern.

Maybe I Have This Wrong, But (none / 0) (#13)
by kaleidescope on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:29:06 PM EST

Any public option separate bill presented for reconciliation would have to first be passed through the Senate Budget Committee, the chairman of which is the virulently anti-public option Kent Conrad.

So, Mr. Smartypants, since you know so much as to make David Kurtz a veritable moron by comparison, how is reconciliation supposed to be used to get us a public option given Kent Conrad's opposition to a public option?

If you know something about Kent Conrad or reconciliation procedure that the rest of us don't, please share.

Interestingly enough (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:56:22 PM EST

the Budget Committee's role in reconciliation is ministerial - there is no discretionary role for the Budget Committee.

This ALSO is not a new issue.

Apparently, like Kurtz, you are just finding out about it.


Well, Maybe (none / 0) (#18)
by kaleidescope on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:53:44 PM EST

I was just relying on what Kargo X and Senator Whitehouse had to say on the matter. So perhaps you could enlighten us.

I assume there has been a budget resolution, so which committees have been directed to change existing law? And if those committees' changes are not identical, then how exactly is the Budget Committee's packaging of the two different bills a merely ministerial task? Does it just paste one bill below the other and then send the conglomeration on to the full Senate? Or does Conrad's Committee slice and dice, putting one line from one bill into the omnibus measure and then following that with a line from the other bill?

There must be some lock step mindless clerk of court process by which Kent Conrad will be constrained to simply stamp "Filed" on the two bills, but I haven't been able to find it yet.

I've been following the whole issue fairly closely, but I may have missed something. What's keeping the Budget Committee from reporting out its omnibus measure?


: No you weren't (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:04:28 PM EST

If you had actually read Kagro on the subject, you would know that all the budget Committee does is take the package provided by the Majority Leader - in essence an amalgam of the HELP bills and the SFC bills and puts them in one bill, waiting for determinations under the Byrd Rule.
Indeed, read Kagro again so that you will know that in fact there is "some lock step mindless clerk of court process by which Kent Conrad will be constrained to simply stamp "Filed" on the two bills."
Sorry that you have not found it. Not my problem though.

BTW (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:57:14 PM EST

I am not unique in my knowledge on this.

Indeed, I daresay most everyone who has paid attention knows this.


: Disagree. But I will begin reading (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:09:59 PM EST

Kagro X.