home

No Vote on Health Care Until September

The House agreed today to put off a vote on health care reform until September.

Under the deal, the last of three House committees will be able to finish work on the legislation this week. But lawmakers will have time to review the 1,000-page bill before a floor vote in September.

I think that's wise. Act in haste, repent at leisure. That's what happened with the Patriot Act. I want to be sure every elected official knows exactly what's in this 1,000 page bill and what's been removed. And I wish journalists would take the time between now and September to explain it in lay terms to the public.

< Franken On Right Wing Judicial Activism | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    More likely that it just won't happen at all (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:30:54 PM EST
    For most controversial legislation, delay equals death.

    Death Already Happened (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    Without a public option there is nothing new. Death of the bill without a public option would be something I support.

    Parent
    The public option is still looking like (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    a possibility, but the likelihood of it passing has gone way down this week IMO.

    I don't think we're going to see much of anything at all.

    The White House blew this entire thing, their political capital is sinking, and Republicans are probably going to win two off year elections this November.

    Good job Dems!

    Parent

    What Do You Think The WH Should Have Done? (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    Seems to me that the Senate is entrenched with Insurance, and Medical lobbyists who want no change. The insurance cos dumped 100's of millions in ads suggesting that messing with America's health care will turn us into a third world country.

    I am not sure where Pelosi got the 70% number reflecting those americans in favor of a public option, because I believe that most americans have been hoodwinked to think it will make health care worse in the US.

    Parent

    The PRESIDENT (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    should have said what we he would accept and not accept and defined the health care debate.

    He has let his minions screw this up. He also made the mistake in the last press conference by answering the Gates question. Lack of discipline there.

    Parent

    Love this Taibbi quote (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    If the Obama administration wanted to pass a real health care bill, they would do what George Bush and Tom DeLay did in the first six-odd years of this decade whenever they wanted to pass some nightmare piece of legislation (ie the Prescription Drug Bill or CAFTA): they would take the recalcitrant legislators blocking their path into a back room at the Capitol, and beat them with rubber hoses until they changed their minds.

    Probably describes the LBJ approach as well.  Taibbi's whole post is worth a read. I think someone linked to it yesterday as well.

    Parent

    Taibbi's closing remark is spot-on... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    Taibbi:
    This whole business, it was a litmus test for whether or not we even have a functioning government. Here we had a political majority in congress and a popular president armed with oodles of political capital and backed by the overwhelming sentiment of perhaps 150 million Americans, and this government could not bring itself to offend ten thousand insurance men in order to pass a bill that addresses an urgent emergency.

    What's left? Third-party politics?

    The final question is quite apt, because if neither of the existing parties will reflect the will of the people and meet the definition of a functioning democracy, we are a third world country - so bring on the third-party politics.


    Parent

    Obama would run on the bill in 2012... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    ... if it were any good.

    All you need to know, really.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    More realistically, shown them what the latest datamining and illegal wiretapping efforts had uncovered about them...

    Parent
    Obama's never drawn any lines, (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    never indicated there was anything that was not negotiable; that's just not the way he does things.

    And even now, I'm not all that convinced that he truly understands what's in these bills, how they would work.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    Whatever you say. Up until two or three days ago, he was adamant that he would veto a bill that did not include a Public Option.

    Had no effect on the Senate, imo.

    Parent

    I believe the senate thinks he (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:57:51 PM EST
    doesn't know how things "work in washington"  we got a Democratic leader. Remember how they roiled Clinton on health care?  Just because we have a Democratic president doesn't mean they will follow him.  Same ol same ol.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:23:40 PM EST
    That may be true, and he may have some learning to do, but I think that the Senate, and the country at large, courtesy of BS from the medcio/insurance industrial complex, is not in favor of changing the system.

    And when Clinton wanted to do it, who was it Moynihan, did not even let a bill come to the floor.

    But over 60 years something may change.. sometime..  I hope

    Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the New York Democrat who heads the Finance Committee, wants his panel to handle the legislation. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the Labor and Human Resources Committee, wants to claim it. Senate aides said their wrestling reached a heated climax last weekend during conversations between the two men and with the majority leader, George J. Mitchell of Maine. Bruised Egos

    One result is that nobody has principal responsibility in the Senate for Mr. Clinton's principal legislative initiative, at least for now.

    [snip]

    First Mr. Kennedy, whose panel has jurisdiction over health and public welfare, filed a bill containing Mr. Clinton's health package in truncated form."

    [snip]

    The Senate parliamentarian agreed, and sent the bill to the Labor Committee. But Mr. Moynihan objected, arguing that the entire health package clearly fell under the Finance Committee's broad mandate to consider "national social security" and tax-financed health care. Dole on Finance Panel

    Moreover, Republicans argued that the insurance premiums were a tax and therefore should go to the Finance Committee, where Republicans have greater influence.

    Under Senate rules, any senator can block a bill from being referred to a committee, and so Mr. Kennedy's designs were thwarted by the objections....

    But then Mr. Kennedy served notice that he would block referral of the President's entire plan -- already filed as a separate bill -- to the Finance Committee. And for good measure, Mr. Chafee's proposal also was kept from going to any committee.

    With all plans blocked by objections, the proposals now will simply sit on the Senate's calendar, consigned to a sort of legislative purgatory, until the turf fights are resolved.

    NYT


    Parent

    Obama even said he wouldn't draw lines (none / 0) (#79)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    if one supported him with the understanding that he would draw lines, they weren't listening.


    Parent
    The former point ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    is more important than the latter, imo.

    Parent
    I Though That He Did (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    In fact the GOPers said he was out of control, lol.

    I thought the Gates question was great, in retrospect, I have to agree it was a bad idea.

    As far as I know he caved only a couple of days ago, that was bad imo. Although I really do not believe he would have gotten a bill out of the senate supporting the public option, no matter what he did.

    Parent

    It should have passed this (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    in the stimulus. I told them to last fall.

    Parent
    I think you're buying ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    too readily into the media's view of this.

    Parent
    I trust my own ability to read Congress, thanks (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    They won't. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    They'll spend hours and days camped out in front of Michael Jackson's doctor's house to watch the cops meet the UPS guy, and debate in grave detail the relative merits of whether the lady in Cambridge calling Gates (or his buddy) kinda of hispanic looking was racist or not.

    And the clowns on the right will continue fanning the flames of race hate.

    And, I hope you bought health insurance company stocks Monday.  You'd have made 10 or 15 percent on your money this week so far.

    That should tell you exactly who benefits the most from the plans currently before Congress.

    I can tell you now, this is going to be worse than the debacles of the 80s and 90s in car insurance where states had imposed mandatory car insurance and had no limits on what the companies could - and did - charge.  Similar, but worse.  

    So you've read (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    all the legislation and even the conference committee report which hasn't happened yet and know that there are no limits on what they can charge for health insurance?  Just askin'.

    Parent
    What evidence do you have (none / 0) (#118)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    that they will limit premium cost inflation? I've not found it. If you know about something limiting this, I'd appreciate hearing about it. . .

    Parent
    Zero evidence (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    but there are several bills, it's not clear what's in any of them in terms of any of those details, and the details are still very much in flux.  Pronouncing that "the bill" or "the plan" will allow insurance companies to gouge the hell out of us with impunity has no more basis in fact right now than pronouncing that they'll be tightly restricted from doing that.

    If I had to guess, I'd guess they'll end up with some provision or combination of provisions that will put some modest restraints on it, but that's only a guess because We Don't Know Yet what's going to be in the final plan.

    Parent

    Premiums (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:36:50 PM EST
    Premiums have risen far faster then inflation, definitely faster than wages, over the last ten years at least. Before supporting something, especially when requiring the public to purchase it from private companies, with said histories, shouldn't we at least know what is there to prevent it? Obama has said nothing about limiting premium increases. Neither has any senator, or house member. If so where? I've looked and found crickets. Also if it was there I guarantee the Insurance industry would say something, cause it definitely would limit their profits. Have they said anything about it? Crickets. . . The silence is deafening.

    Parent
    Affordable (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    Is the word used. That is in contrast to the unaffordable premiums we have now, which result in many being uninsured.

    Seems to me that limiting premium increases is at the heart of reform, otherwise what is the point?

    Parent

    I think the point is providing health CARE (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by sj on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:56:25 PM EST
    Which has morphed into help with insurance premiums.

    Limiting premium increases may help with health INSURANCE reform, but the debate should be about health CARE reform.

    Nothing I have seen discussed helps the members of my family who are presently without health care that they cannot pay for up front.

    Parent

    If reform is "reform" (none / 0) (#149)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:44:35 PM EST
    the point could be quite different. . .

    Parent
    You Mean (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    A secret plan to raise everyones rates so that even more people have to use emergency services which increases profits for the insurance and healthcare industry at taxpayers expense?

    Sorry, but I do not think that Obama or the people pushing for a public option with the ultimate goal of universal health care and a single payer plan, are that tricky.

    Parent

    My how suspicious of you. . . (none / 0) (#151)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    Doesn't have to be secret, or even a plan. Just let it be pushed through like all the trillions for the bankers. . . Gee! Look at all the money congress will get in campaign contributions for that. I wonder how much they will get by doing well for the insurance industry? I'm sure you're in support of the insurance industry Squeeks (I can misrepresent as well as you!). . . surely it's a great deal for them?

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    Yes, I get 2% of each trillion, direct wired to a swiss bank account.. lol  

    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#154)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    Great if you could swing it. Try the Caymans-- might be safer!

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    Switzerland is blocking US efforts to gain access to UBS accounts.

    The Swiss government, vowing to protect its vaunted bank secrecy laws, said on Wednesday that it was prepared to seize UBS client data rather than allow the bank to hand it over to the United States to settle a tax case.

    Safer that a bunch of islanders.. imo.

    Parent

    Guess you haven't been listening much (none / 0) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:33:05 PM EST
    Obama talks all the time about the need to slow down the rate of increases at least to something approaching the general inflation rate.

    You do realize, I hope, that there are ways of doing that other than flat-out regulating what companies are allowed to charge?  One of the goals of the public option thing has been to provide competition to private insurance that will cause them to be less aggressive in raising premiums. One of the reasons they've been getting away with it is because there really is very little effective competition within each market.  Broadening the competitive field and breaking those near monopolies will definitely make a difference.

    Getting everybody enrolled in insurance of some kind will reduce the premiums we all pay because that's a vast pool of mostly healthy people, a lot of them young people, who haven't been paying into the system.  Etc.

    Look, I don't like any of this crap.  I'm for single-payer, or a super-robust public option that will pave the way.  But it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

    Parent

    And it gives the citizens (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    this month while their representatives are supposedly home and paying attention time to make their opinions known up close and in person. Most congresscritters do at least a couple of public events during the recess. I plan to visit Ms. Kosmas.

    All they understand is money and pain (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    We have no money, so we have to bring the pain.

    Parent
    I can be pretty painful (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:57:20 PM EST
    ask anybody!

    Parent
    In order for lay journalists to be able (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    to explain it, most of them - the ones who get all the air and camera time, anyway - have to understand it themselves, and some that I have heard and read in recent days have been woefully undereducated about not just the legislation, but the underlying elements.  

    Both yesterday and today, C-SPAN had some "journalists" on Washington Journal to interact with callers and it was so bad, I had to change the station - worse than not educating people is mis-educating them.

    What I hope vacationing House members face when they return to their districts is an onslaught of feedback from their constituents, who can somehow get through to their representatives what their concerns are and what they want the Congress to do about them.

    It's a lot harder to face a voter who arrives with a backpack full of medical bills they cannot pay, and tell that voter whatever help they're looking for they will have to wait at least three more years for.  Harder too, to make the "politically infeasible" argument against single payer to someone who's looking you right in the eye.

    I do not expect these committees to come back in September resolved to fix what they have already screwed up, and commit to real reform; at this point, I am keeping my fingers crossed that this particularly bad effort comes off life support.  Hey, there was no help coming until 2013 anyway, right?

    For those who think we have to have "something" so we can then start working to make it better, you know that almost never happens.  It's ridiculous that if we know right from the get-go what is better, we decide to start from somewhere short of that point.  

    Sometimes half a loaf is not better than none, if the loaf is old, moldy and inedible anyway.

    Good one J (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    "I wish journalists would take the time between now and September to explain it in lay terms to the public."

    Which journalist precisely do you recommend for that role?

    Of course, this is why President Obama SHOULD take the bull by the horns and OWN this discussion.

    I understand he made an error at the end of his press conference last week but that is no reason to cede the ground.

    He needs to shut everybody on his WH team up because they just stink. He has to do it himself. By himself.

    BTW, how useless has Sebelius been on this? Should have left her in Kansas.  

    Um, Obama (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by dk on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    is the one prevaricating by implying that any of the bills under discussion provide choices for all Americans.  Last thing we need is more of that, IMO, unless you care more about propping up Obama than about the issue.

    Would that there were some journalists that would tell the truth.  But as you point out, that's not gonna happen tierh.

    Parent

    Ergo (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    "bull by the horns."

    Parent
    So, you mean he would have (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dk on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:51:39 PM EST
    to come out and say that the current house bill, which does not offer a robust public option, is unacceptable to him?  Do you really see that happening?

    Parent
    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    Then he'd have to defend it, instead of blaming Congress for not acting quickly, blaming Republicans for well, being Republicans, and giving rah-rah campaign stops where he speaks and says nothing substantive (except we know he likes cupcakes).

    But, he claims he's kept his campaign promises!

    Obama repeatedly argued he's been keeping his campaign promises. "We have kept a campaign promise to put a middle-class tax cut in the pockets of about 95 percent of working families," he said early in the speech. And, toward the end: "I've been keeping my promises since I went into office."


    Parent
    BTD, the man doesn't want to take the damn (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    "bull by the horns". Even if he wanted to, he wouldn't. Most likely because he's way too averse to getting Gored - i.e. having the media establishment and the whole corporate cabal turn on him.

    Parent
    Meaning? (none / 0) (#22)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    Not sure I get this.

    Though I think ACT-UP has a lot to teach us on this topic.

    Parent

    Not here bailiwick these days, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:17:22 PM EST
    but the only administration official who presented the case well was Mrs. Clinton during her Meet the Press interview last Sunday. But, you sure are correct on all the rest.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#37)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    Journalists actually investigating and explaining things?

    Hah.

    What they'll do is make everything in to a "controversy" or a race/contest/match. Republican scaremongering fits in to that. Calmly explaining things does not.

    And yes, Obama should have been stronger. Townhalls are fine, but the number of people you reach is limited. He could have knocked it out of the park during his press conference, by refuting all the scaremongering in strong words, and putting public pressure on people like Baucus. But instead he went off script and got sucked into making a comment about the Gates issue.


    Parent

    Obama also could (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by dk on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    have told Congress and the American people that he would not support a bill that is nothing more than a bait and switch.  But he chose not to do that.

    Parent
    Sibelius got nearly a whole page (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    of coverage in the Orlando Sentinel yesterday...for talking about obesity as a health concern. A valid concern. I agree, but it was as if this whole other discussion was not taking place.  Above the fray indeed. Guess who's running in 2016?

    Parent
    Re: Sebelius (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    Yep...I totally agree with you there.  Someone else should've been put in that role.  Me, I think Hillary.  I don't think Gibbs is doing a great job either.  

    Parent
    How about print journalists (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    that write about legislation or health insurance issues? I don't mean tv pundits, you can't do it in a soundbite.

    How about starting with: How does health insurance work now for those who have it (what  are the different types of currently available policies?) What substantive changes will insurance companies make to policies of their existing insureds if the legislation passes? Will people who like their existing policies be able to keep them if the legislation passes or will health insurers be changing benefits under all policies because of it? Will this legislation cause health insurance companies to impose greater restrictions on what doctors you can see, second and third opinions and approval of your chosen physician's recommendations? Will it lead to health insurance companies providing lesser benefits for prescription drugs, particularly brand name?

    And economically, for those who like their existing policies, will this legislation cause premiums to rise and if so, what part of the legislation is causing the increase?

    That's a start.

    Parent

    J, the underlying problem is that there are no (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    "print journalists" who aren't beholden to the whole Corporate-Congressional Complex.

    Parent
    You mean like this? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by cenobite on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    great start (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    but a major problem for the print publications these days is a talking head who takes one or two of their well researched points, gives it to an "expert" who refutes it venomously, and the talking head reaches far more people who are less informed.

    Investigative journalism is losing the battle to soundbyte news/entertainment and in my estimation cannot win the war.....

    Parent

    i should include (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:41:37 PM EST
    radioheads......

    Parent
    Please send your comment (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    to NYT's personal health columnist, Jane A. Brody.  Her column is included in the Science Times section in the Tues. edition.  

    Parent
    Great summary, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    of what they could, but practically never, do.

    However, they can't even do it at all now because there are multiple bills, all of them works in progress, so it would mean running through all of that with an incredible number of different variables.  And it all changes almost daily.

    Parent

    BTW, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    The WH should get behind the deal Waxman and Ross made.

    This is the compromise, and it has to be passed ASAP.

    Nifty news items like (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    that show why it's a little premature for folks on my side to get too depressed too quickly over this ongoing and evolving and complicated process.

    This potential Waxman bill might not be 100% of what I want, but it looks like it could be 75%, and right now that looks a lot better than the awful Finance bill with only the co-op nonsolution.

    Plus I like the way Waxman apparently is trying to incorporate the opponents' proposal by adding it to the bill rather than substituting it for the public option element -- shades of how the original Medicare bill was "layered" together with oppo proposals in 1965.

    It looks like he's being reasonable (and he is) while still producing a solid bill for our side.

    Parent

    I'm hopeful (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    If this is what they pass, I'll be happy. They just need to actually pass it.

    Parent
    Really? Because it's a really bad plan. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    It's really the MA health plan that is crumbling as we speak.  I guess the policy doesn't matter to you at all?  Just the word "public" somewhere in the bill?  Wow, you are an easy sell.  I'll assume you have good insurance.

    Parent
    There's a difference between (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    implementing a program at the state level and at the federal level. The public option plan is a very real difference that you can't just hand wave away by putting it in scare quotes.

    Parent
    We have a "public option" program (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:21:54 PM EST
    here with the same exact firewalls as the federal one being discussed.  I suggest you read Ezra Klein's conversation in the WaPo earlier this week.  He says MA will stay just as it has been.  He also says because of the scope and the design of the public option it will not create any downward pressure on insurance premiums.  

    Parent
    Even supposing that's true, it creates the (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    opportunity to go in for a second round and control costs, as Krugman has suggested.

    Parent
    That worked so well with Medicare we've (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    only been waiting 40 years, and that program started out with our entire elderly population.

    Parent
    Again, therefore do nothing? I don't accept (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    that conclusion.

    Parent
    I didn't say "do nothing". (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    You say you would have pushed through this sham when the stimulus passed.  I would have pushed through Bill Clinton's old proposals of expanding Medicare via a buy-in(or not) to 55-65 year olds.  Right now, I would scrap this plan and start over.  It's bad policy.  It's not an either/or as to do this or nothing.  But I would not implement a bad policy that further pushes health financing on to the already squeezed middle class.

    Parent
    what's the difference? (none / 0) (#100)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    Amount of people involved? Nope. In fact the fed ones I'm familiar with would actually have fewer, far fewer than most states. If bargaining power is based on numbers of enrolled, then the federal plan has even less bargaining power than large states. Room for growth? Nope, another fail for the federal plan-- it's firewalled, and designed intentionally to prevent growth to a single payer or other large public option. limits on cost of premium growth? Again nope. Again the federal plan fails to limit premium growth in cost. If no bargaining power, it is unlikely to limit expense. Competition? laugh!!!! Insurance companies don't compete by limiting cost to customers, but by limiting exposure. If they are required to increase their exposure to risk by covering actual ill people, guess what happens to the cost of premiums. Either you dump the ill (like in MA) or raise cost of premiums cause they must keep profits rolling.

    Parent
    The difference is that the fed can and will (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:13:58 PM EST
    run a deficit. And I don't take this firewalling business seriously. SCHIP was expanded, and will the public option be.

    Parent
    Hmm, really? Medicare has been pretty efficiently (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    firewalled for 40 years.  You do know the original concept of the public option was that it would start out with enrollees of 123 million and that that has been reduced to a CBO predicted enrollment of 0-10 million, correct?  You know that it can not use Medicare reimbursement rates over the long-term, right?  You know that it has to be priced at competitive private market prices, yes?

    Parent
    They should have expanded medicare (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    long ago. Indeed, that should be the strategy now. But it isn't getting any traction. So, it's this or nothing--unless you know how to change the legislative calculus.

    Parent
    But unlike Medicare ... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    it isn't pre-populated (i.e. it starts with zero enrollees) so what are you expanding?

    The start up costs?  That's probably the first thing you'd have to expand. Since current legislation requires these to be paid back in the first decade.

    That's a much harder sell than SCHIP expansion.  And that only occurred shortly after the inauguration, when Obama and the Democrats were at the height of their popularity.

    You base a lot of your confidence in expansion on something that happened at a very rare moment in history.

    And that was expansion of pre-existing program.  Not one which is likely to barely exist when it requires more funds.

    Parent

    Ok, let's suppose it isn't even expanded (none / 0) (#124)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:53:09 PM EST
    any time soon. Does that still mean it's a bad deal? Not if you believe that it's better than the status quo. And I do.

    Parent
    So much of the rest of the plan is a bad deal. (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    Look, I live in MA, the Connector premiums are not affordable, and the coverage is not high quality.  But look what they are doing here to the safety net in the mean time, remember this program only started 3 years ago, and now they want to base an entire national policy on it.  90k people have lost dental coverage.  120 million has been cut in subsidies.  30k legal immigrants have lost their state health coverage.  No more automatic enrollment for the working poor.  The state's largest safety net hospital is suing the state for diverting funds meant for free care for the poor to their private insurance scheme.  Free clinics for the poor have been closed down because the state plan was supposed to mean everyone was insured.  People have actually lost access.  And, here's the kicker, premiums have risen faster than the national average.  It's not a good system.

    Parent
    If it becomes an excuse (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:07:00 PM EST
    to avoid something better for the paying public then it is indeed worse. If it is so bad that it produces a failure in public confidence in government supported public options then it is worse. If it is utilized as a roadblock to enact an honest public option then it is. I'd hate to get stuck with a legal requirement to pay for something I cannot afford in the first place, to get something that doesn't limit my risk (not the insurance industry's risk) to the rising costs of actual health care. It looks like a bailout to the insurance industry at my expense as it stands now.
      If I'm going to be required to be an indentured slave, then give me something that requires a good slave experience, not just hopes for it.

    Parent
    The mandates can make ... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    this plan worse than the status quo.

    Those who don't have access to or aren't eligible for the public plan (and that will be alot of people) could be forced to buy insurance with either limited coverage or very high deductibles.

    And lack of expansion is not the only problem.  The limited public option may never exist at all.  Or collapse as it's being created.

    Then the insurance industry and their cronies can once again say, government can't do healthcare


    Parent

    12 years later (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    after 2 failed attempts.

    Parent
    Therefore do nothing? (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    Sorry, but that's a recipe for legislative failure every time.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    Produce a better bill.  Take a month or so.  But to say "hey we'll pass garbage and fix it later" is not a good strategy, because it won't get fixed.  Interested parties will get too entrenched.

    Parent
    The longer we wait, the worse the final product (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    would be. You can take that to the bank.

    Parent
    Interesting that you argue (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    on the one hand that if we start with something bad, over time it will be improved, yet on the other if we wait, over time, it will get worse. . .

    Parent
    Good programs can be improved (none / 0) (#117)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    Bad bills just die from lack of support.

    Parent
    This is a bad bill ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    so its course seems set by your analysis.

    Parent
    Well, that's the debate that Congress will have (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    Obviously I don't agree with you.

    Parent
    A lot of bad programs and bad (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    policy came into being as a result of bad legislation that political pressure and fear-mongering was able to gin up enough support for.

    The current system we have is not good; that is why it needs to be reformed.

    The reform that has been proposed does not accomplish the goals that were set for it, which to my mind, makes it bad, not good.  

    Calling something a public option that is neither (1) public in the sense that everyone can use it, or (2) an option for those who may already have insurance coverage who might want to make a change, does not magically make it a good program.  There are reasons the term appears more and more frequently in quotes, and it might be instructive to read Ian Welsh, or the wealth of material at PNHP.org.

    Or, you can just keep insisting that something is better than nothing, in spite of the growing body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

    Parent

    Well that sorta kills your entire argument (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    The proposed legislation does not IMO provide a good program.

    Parent
    Yes, that's where we disagree (none / 0) (#131)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:01:15 PM EST
    I think it is a good program.

    Parent
    Well this should die. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:03:56 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's attempt at UHC(which was legislatively far better than this) died, but he still passed SCHIP.  Why not pass the rules on the insurers without the rest of the bs?

    Parent
    I think the insurers (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    and their congressional and presidential lackeys will fight the rules if they don't get the rest of the bill the way they want it. That's why the administration made such a big deal out of the insurers 'historically' agreeing to rules a couple of months ago. Take out one part of the bill, and the agreements on the rest of it fall apart.

    Parent
    Then rip it to shreds. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    Honest to Gawd, health care has been the Democrats signature issue for the last 40 years.  This is just terrible policy.  I feel as though I do not even recognize the Democratic Party anymore.

    Parent
    Anymore? (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    Not sure what your frame of reference is but regarding Health Care not much has happened for a long time. I would say that the Democrats of today are the most receptive to health care reform than any other time in my lifetime.

    Too bad that not enough of them are on board.

    Parent

    How old are you? (none / 0) (#160)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    I'm stunned you believe that.  

    Parent
    When Clinton Tried (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:34:37 PM EST
    It never even got out of committee. A disaster and blocked by Democrats, they did not even need the GOPers to quash it.

    Parent
    True, but he at least offered (none / 0) (#164)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:27:34 PM EST
    a plan that was much more tightly regulated than we are hearing from the Democrats today.  Further, we were in no where near the crisis we are now.  We were still the Party of Medicare.

    Parent
    Not Sure About (none / 0) (#165)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:48:06 PM EST
    How tightly regulated that plan was or not. Many thought it a mess, I assumed that was because they just did not want health care reform, but I never read or studied the plan.

    Clearly america was not ready for it. There was no outcry by the majority of americans and the thing just died unnoticed.

    What was learned from that? I think what was learned was that a door had to be opened a crack, so that it did not seem to be such a dramatic change in order to get the votes necessary to pass.

    Whatever you think of Obama or Hillary, it seemed clear to me that they both had the exact same goal in mind: national healthcare for all americans. Obama toned it down a bit more than Hillary to appeal to those who were skeptical about National Health care.

    It is a long held platform by a minority of Democrats, how to get it passed is not so easy, as we are seeing now.

    Parent

    No, it wasn't a mess...although (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:45:50 PM EST
    it wasn't as simple as everyone, nobody out, which I would say was a huge mistake.  It's just the Democrats wouldn't take so much as an up or down vote on it, and the public didn't like that.  But, ya know, Bill Clinton didn't just throw in the towel.  He created SCHIP.  He proposed expanding Medicare down to 55, as a buy-in.  He for saw that eventually we'd have an economic downturn, particularly in manufacturing, and some 55 year olds would never work again, so let them buy-in to Medicare?  the media basically laughed at him.  But he argued for it repeatedly.  Obama is in a position Bill clinton could not have dreamed of.  We nationalized the auto industry for heavens sake.  We can certainly finally start expanding Medicare.  Really.  He should just scarp this and start there.  

    Parent
    Nothing like feeding ammunition (none / 0) (#111)
    by hookfan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    to deficit hawks, and fueling a war on "welfare to the poor" aka "the public option". That's especially so, when you consider that most who have employer supported insurance can't opt out and elect the public option. What's to keep them from resenting "paying for" the uninsured to get a decent option, while their premiums rise and they don't have the same choice? Sure looks like stoking class warfare and further resentment. Just what the doctor prescribed for winning elections. . .

    Parent
    He Is Behind That Plan (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    That is the cave-in he just made, giving the nod to co-ops and moving away from public option.

    Parent
    You seem to agree with the author (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    of the Politico article that waiting for a month to vote on it just gives the opponents time to attack it. Why doesn't the extra month give the proponents more time to build support? If it is worth doing, it should be worth taking a month to 'sell'.

    Also I like how he refers to the Blue Dogs as "warning" they may not be on board. Sooo sick of htose guys...and Politico enabling them.

    Parent

    Because "our side" (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    is utterly incapable of building support for anything, whereas the opposition is utterly implacable and relentless.

    Parent
    That IS the fatal flaw we seem to have (none / 0) (#143)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:21:13 PM EST
    Ross made a deal? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    Really? With Waxman? Hmmm . . .

    Parent
    Looks far superior to the Senate version (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    Pass it ASAP so there's a public option that can go to conference.

    Parent
    It has to be a good public option, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    not just any public option; the Senate is not going to strengthen something they already killed, so if the House version goes into conference weak, it will either be further weakened or eliminated.

    Succumbing to the urgency of passing "something" NOW! when it won't go into effect for three more years is one way to make sure we all have plenty of time to regret doing it.

    Although, I can well imagine we will see many a bewildered face and hear many an anguished, "but no one could have anticipated..." sometime after the 2012 election, when the rubber has to meet the road - skids out of control and bursts into flame.

    Parent

    I'll be honest with you, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    I think that just about any public option is a victory. And if they have an agreement on one, they need to pass it NOW NOW NOW!

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    if it's a crappy public option and it passes, all it will do will make people angry when it fails big time and takes down lots of people with it.  They will remember it was Obama's and the Dems plan and will be a boost to R's for years to come after that.  

    So we will get $crewed and then we will get even more $crewed.

    Parent

    We have a public option. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by dk on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    It's called Medicare.  It passed 40 years ago.  And unlike the "public" "option" in this bill, it actually works.  

    Parent
    I am honest (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by eric on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    when I say that I want a public option for EXACTLY the reason that some Republicans fear:  it will be a Trojan Horse.  A public option is a foot in the door.  It is a way to get the government into a position where they can eventually expand.  The only way we can start down the road toward universal government run health care.

    Parent
    You can only expand it (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    if you aren't thrown out of power for passing a bad bill.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    Getting any old public option (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    for the sake of getting a "win" for the folks back home and/or for the long-term hope of a soon to be entrenched private insurance program (representing about 95 percent of the legislation) yielding to an public option does not make sense to me. The Waxman compromise may well be workable, but we need to see the details, especially how badly hobbled it is to achieve even a pipe dream.  Medicare is already available and could be "extended" based on its evident success, that is not going to happen and a"public option" would necessarily be  a stealth pathway to, say, Medicare for all.

    Parent
    Victory for insurance companies, for sure, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    but "just any" public option is not necessarily a victory for individuals.

    Given the terrible track record of "fixing" legislation we were fear-mongered into passing NOW! NOW! NOW! I think it is unreasonable to think that what a bad health care bill will do to the current system is somehow going to be made better at some point in the future.  In order to make it better, it will first have to be shown to fail, and the failure itself will be all the proof the Republicans and the Blue Dogs need to prevent further tinkering lest it be made even worse.  It will be nearly impossible to get even a chance to fix something "we" were responsible for creating; it is much more likely that it  will just move us closer to losing even the good parts of the system.

    Parent

    If you understand the legislative process (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    you know that "Now! Now! Now!" is generally the only way to get anything potentially controversial through, good or bad.

    I think this legislation is likely good enough that it's worth using just about any means necessary to pass it.

    Parent

    I think this legislation is spectacularly (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    bad, so we will just have to agree to disagree that passing it with the same kind of urgency that brought us the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the FISA renewal, etc., is the best we can hope for, the best we can do, and worth selling out some very important elements that I thought we gained majorities precisely to be able to effect.

    The same kind of poor leadership that brought us to this point is not going to save us later - they won't be able to.

    Parent

    Rep. Woolsey objects (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by magster on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    and is trying to get rally progressive opposition. Says cave on tie to Medicare guts public option.

    LINK

    Parent

    She's jockeying for position (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    and I'm glad about that, because a better bill is always better. But at the end of the day, this seems to meet my minimal requirements.

    Parent
    And this compromise ... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    further weakens an already weak Public Option with this point alone:

    Doctors and other health care providers would also be allowed to negotiate their payment rates with the government-sponsored health care arm.


    Parent
    My understanding is that they already (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    negotiate with Medicare to some degree, just as they negotiate with insurance companies. I don't see the problem.

    Parent
    Exactly YOU don't see ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:30:37 PM EST
    the problem.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

    Parent

    So what, they should take what they're told (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    and like it? Negotiation seems entirely fair to me.

    Parent
    Do your own research ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    my initial post was to Anne not you.

    Parent
    Seems I've tripped on a sacred cow of some kind (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    Carry on.

    Parent
    No Public Option In the Plan (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    Co-ops instead.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    Read again.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    Got it, missed that part, but it is a forgone conclusion that this vote is not happening until Sept. No matter what anyone does.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:18:36 PM EST
    And wow troll rating for making a mistake... did not know that you were such a ...

    Parent
    Egregious misinformation (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    that I wanted to flag.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    I really could care less, as I get 1's all the time, never complain. As functionless as ratings are here,  Jeralyn has been clear about troll rating.  I did not think you belonged to that group who purposely misuses the rating system. No problem, just new and somewhat surprising info.

    IOW rating here most often speaks only about the rater and less about the commenter.

    Parent

    Ratings here barely matter at all (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    I don't understand why you're getting so worked up about this.

    Parent
    Not Worked Up At All (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:32:08 PM EST
    Just surprised. No problem. I agree with you that ratings are are functionless here. They speak more about the rater than the comment.

    Parent
    Well, this was about your comment, not you (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    Though you are quickly giving me an impression about you that perhaps you did not intend.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    Not worth dragging out. And if you learned something about me, well, that is good despite my intentions.

    Parent
    Fives for the both of you, consider (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    them beers--Cyberbrews.

    Parent
    Cheers (clink) (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    Great idea..... mmmmm tasty. So good I think I will have another.

    Parent
    That's what I kept telling myself (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    after the big cheese gave me a "1" yesterday!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:20:14 PM EST
    According to the parameters for 1 ratings, I think your comment was, let's say "provocative" enough to be in the ball park.

    A little boxing the ear to keep you honest..  lol

    Parent

    I was confident you would agree. (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    I do agree that it speaks volumes about you and BTD... so I would agree that it says more about the rater than the comment.

    Although I do feel your comment was of a substantially different quality than my comment which was a simple mistake soon corrected by rereading the source text.

    But I can imagine that you did not appreciate the scold, in particular because you were, in essence supporting BTD...

    Parent

    The interesting aspect to me is that (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    the rater hadn't read both police reports.

    Parent
    Same (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:25:52 PM EST
    One long and one a synopsis backing up the first. Not sure why that is interesting. That fact, certainly does not support your point that BTD et al, was not basing his opinion on facts.

    You were being sarcastic and provocative, and justifying Gates arrest in a passive aggressive way. Suggesting that BTD or others were just pulling opinions out of their butts without any factual basis was an unfair, and untrue, characterization.

    I did not quite get that on the first reading, as I had not read souvarine's ramble..  

    Parent

    As you know, I have never justified Sgt. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:29:48 PM EST
    Crowley's arrest of Prof. Gates.  Don't make things up.

    Parent
    Not Saying That In the End You Did (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:31:54 PM EST
    Or that you were in the beginning.

    But you were backing up souvarine, who in that very comment was justifying Gates arrest.

    Parent

    Isn't this odd? Boehner on health care reform: (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    Boehner said at a Christian Science Monitor lunch appearance. "...


    Parent
    I'm sure he was worried about the (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    study that came out the other day about tanning beds and cancer. We'll see how good that congressional coverage really is.

    Parent
    He doesn't have to worry; bronzer (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    is perfectly safer. :D

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:33:41 PM EST
    Aren't Christian Scientists one of the religions that doesn't allow medical intervention on the good work of the Almighty?

    I'm sure they could care less about UHC...except maybe to stop it from happening so they don't have to pay for coverage they never use.


    Parent

    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    the newspaper is not beholden to that philosophy and most of the editorial staff, as far as I used to know, were not Christian Scientists. It's like the difference between the WSJ editorial board neanderthals and the news pages, which are superb.

    Parent
    He's telegraphing what he intends to try (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:01:22 PM EST
    I'm so glad.... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    .... I'm not the only one saying "act in haste, repent at leisure."

    Besides the USA Patriot Act, we also have AUMF and TARP to point to.

    And wasn't the Senate going to (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    "fix" the FISA revise later?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    Link

    He was going to work to strike Titel II from the FISA bill, after he voted for it.

    Parent

    Good one (none / 0) (#88)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:44:01 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    And the Chicken Little Brigade ... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    tricked many into supporting those.  And they're trying it again.

    We shouldn't heed the same clarion call.

    Parent

    Well people are still free to bemoan (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    that it's always the crappy ideas that we must implement right now, and the good ideas that must wait.

    I'm sure there is some truth that the crappy ideas were crappy because they were rushed, and that the good ideas are good because they are well thought out.

    Problem is, most of us already consider the topic well thought out and what must be done will only be diluted by a waiting period.

    It's not that congress is thinking this over to get it right.  It's just more time to create noise about the issue, rendering a good idea less helpful to those who need it.

    If the arc of public discourse was going in a more leftward direction then by all means, but for now we are losing this battle.

    Parent

    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Samuel on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    The Federal Reserve Act, Fannie and Freddie, Removal of Glass-Steagall(crisis!) and Atlanta's Olympic Games Monorail.

    Parent
    When I worked at Microsoft (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    We had to "eat our own dogfood".  That means we actually had to use the beta products as we were developing them.

    If the president, the Congress and the pundit class including bloggers all had to "eat dogfood" when it came to healthcare....

    ...they would understand the healthcare issue.
    ...they would care about the healthcare issue.
    ...they would advocate the issue.
    ...they would sit down and read the bills before voting
    ...a good bill would pass.

    I can dream, can't I?

    They would also (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:08:46 PM EST
    work for minimum wage, have to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, drive themselves to work, (maybe) have a 2 week vacation (if they were lucky), only get 6 paid holidays a year (if they were lucky), and have to arrange with a boss or someone to take time off.

    Parent
    Given the quality (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:55:31 PM EST
    of most MCS products, I'm not sure that's worked out real well as a strategy.

    Parent
    Obama should follow his own words. (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    I know people change, and I know Obama wants his medical bill passed right now, but Obama should not speak from both sides of his mouth.  IN 2004 he is quoted as saying the following:

    BARACK OBAMA: ..

    .When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.

    BARACK OBAMA:

    Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.

    I all for getting some bill passed that will help as many to get medical but IMO you cannot push something this big without knowing the major details.

    Will I see you (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:29:20 PM EST
    in September? Or lose you, to a summer SCAM?

    Bad parody of a good song, used without consent under "Fair Use" doctrine, without attribution to the original artist, Shelley Fabares.

    Isn't one purpose of this delay to permit (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    members of Congress to return to their electoral bases w/o a final bill?  What can I say, it isn't done yet.  

    That's one read (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    Looks like the GOP will have something (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    to show the home town voters:

    AP

    Parent

    I think Hunter Thompson has the right metaphor (none / 0) (#85)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:40:55 PM EST
    Ship Commander Butchered by Natives After "Accidental" Assault on Guam.

    (AOP)-Aboard the USS. Crazy Horse: Somewhere in the Pacific (Sept. 25)-The entire 3485-man crew of this newest American aircraft carrier is in violent mourning today, after five crewmen including the Captain were diced up like pineapple meat in a brawl with the Heroin Police at the neutral port of Hong See. Dr. Bloor, the ship's chaplain, presided over tense funeral services at dawn on the flight deck. The 4th Fleet Service Choir sang "Tom Thumb's Blues" . . . and then, while the ship's bells tolled frantically, the remains of the five were set afire in a gourd and hurled into the Pacific by a hooded officer known only as "The Commander." Shortly after the services ended, the crewmen fell to fighting among themselves and all communications with the ship were severed for an indefinite period. Official spokesmen at 4th Fleet Headquarters on Guam said the Navy had "no comment" on the situation, pending the results of a top-level investigation by a team of civilian specialists headed by former New Orleans district attorney James Garrison.

    Enzi is demanding total Dem. capitualation (none / 0) (#87)
    by magster on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    in order to get bill out of SFC.  I'd say this was delusional, except our leadership is so bad, Enzi might just get his way.

    Single Payer Still Alive ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by gtesta on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    at the state level.
    Huffpo Story

    I'm actually more excited about the possibly of having single payer at the state level than about a public option.  Might as well start with a smaller version of what will really work than with a larger version of what won't work nearly as well.  And different states can try variations to see what might work best.
    Now if only this survives a conference!

    Disability Rights and Health Care Reform (none / 0) (#167)
    by Nvacyclist on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:27:39 AM EST
    It is my hope that, as we move forward with health care reform, we do not lose sight of the tremendous work that remains to be done on the rights of the disabled. Too often, such rights are, like many other rights, thought to be "for that other person," and not something important to all of us.

    My recent experience as a volunteer police officer underscores my point. For more than 4 years, I worked as an unpaid officer with Arlington County, VA, a purportedly progressive jurisdiction. On May 12, however, I got a concussion while participating in the Police Unity Tour, an event that honors officers who have died in the line of duty.

    Shortly afterwards, the police department terminated me -- and said so in writing -- because of my concussion. No request for medical documentation, no discussion with the supervisor who sent me the letter, not even "thank you for your service."

    Presently, I have two Americans With Disabilities Act complaints pending against the department. The moral of the story is this: In a flash, one can quickly wind up perceived as disabled or otherwise somehow different. In such cases, it is alarming, too, how quickly people make decisions on one's behalf, even when those decisions contradict the advice of one's physician.

    Thus, rights for the disabled are not a "nice to have." There is a great deal of progress that remains to be made, and my hope is that, as we move towards universal healthcare, we move towards greater protection for disability rights.