home

Hating The Villagers?

Below I critiqued Jon Chait for writing "[t]he left has [. . .] help[ed] convince many liberals that the health care bill [. . .] is a worthless compromise not worth fighting for." Ironically, I then found this from Ezra Klein:

One of the problems with the health-care reform bill, I think, is that it's been oversold. [. . .] [I]t's not nearly so big as people think.

Ezra links to an earlier post, where he writes "We're doing a lot on health-care reform this year, but we're not doing that much. And we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. We'll be back at this again, and soon." Define soon, Ezra. The problem for the Senate bill proponents is the bill really is almost nothing in terms of reform. The undiluted progressive good in the bill is the expansion of Medicaid. Want to sell the bill to progressives? Stick to that point. The rest of the bill is not convincing at all.

Speaking for me only

< What Obama Said About Bankers' Bonuses | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Let's see if I have this straight (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    The Dems can't pass anything significant when they have the WH and super majorities in both houses but somehow they will be able to "fix" it soon after they lose a lot of seats in both houses of Congress.

    Color me not convinced.

    I don't think the Dems are convinced (none / 0) (#2)
    by pfish on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    that they can't pass anything.

    Parent
    Irony not dead; Dems "kick the left" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lambert on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    ... over what, sayeth Klein, might as well be a Republican bill.

    Hilarity ensues!

    As for Medicaid... I'm glad to see the option of losing all assets made available to more people up the income ladder! Hardly undiluted. Expanding Medicare would have been undiluted, which, of course, is why it was taken off the table.

    Hey Lambert... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 03:31:31 PM EST
    This is OT but your link for Corrente on Digby's Blogroll goes to some weird "Stay Behinder" site that seems some sort of a hack job.  It's really odd and you should check it out.

    Jackson

    Parent

    It is almost impossible (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 06:39:21 PM EST
    to dilute medicaid coverage isn't it?

    Parent
    The Dems are the first Lame Duck... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    ...government to convene in the same year as their election. Staggering incompetence given their over whelming mandate.

    That last thing with the bank bonus.  HE'S going to lose his bid for Re-election talking like that. I'm willing to bet a tenner on it.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    he really doesnt care about getting reelected and is just looking out for big money once he leaves office.

    Parent
    that's Palinesque. (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    I think you mean (none / 0) (#8)
    by lewke on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    Politicianesque

    Parent
    He just called Blofeld and Demon... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    ...his mates.  What is Obama, a Bond villain?

    Parent
    Are you calling him (none / 0) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    a "savvy businessman?"

    Parent
    Obama's not in trouble as far (none / 0) (#15)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    as re-election goes, Congress on the other hand is- I mean in terms of Obama he's in much better shape than Clinton in 1994 and about the same as Reagan in 1982, plus he has the incredible luck of running against what is currently a GOP beset by deep, deep division- the base is in love with a canidate that quite frankly terrifies the money men and moderates (Palin) and they in turn back a canidate who is viewed with deep suspicion  at best (idelogically) and/or outright hostility at worst (religiously) by the parties base (Romney).

    Parent
    I have decided I agree with my friend nojo (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 04:48:12 PM EST
    at stinque.com and she will not run.  she is going to take as much money as she can and run.  Romney, again to quote my friend at stinque.com, will forever worship the wrong god for the base.

    Poll of Alabama Republicans: Huckabee 33, Palin 23, Romney 12

    Huckabee is the one we should be watching.  and possibly Thune.  either could beat Obama if things continue the way they are going.


    Parent

    Huckabee is the guy who (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 05:23:39 PM EST
    scares me as well- honestly, he was by far the best straight up Pol in 2008- better than Clinton, Obama, and way better than McCain- Obama's only edge was on the big speeches, but in terms of retail politicking the guys the best I've ever seen in my lifetime- better than Bill Clinton even- its eery to watch the guy work a room, even on video its like watching a magician or something. Fortunately (for America) Huckabee's also one of those "do the actual bible things" Christians so he's basically radioactive to fiscal and law order cons- his pardons (recently highlighted here) and his support for spending to help the poor (even illegal immigrants) are the reasons he couldn't take off in 2008 and I don't see any reason they won't hobble him in 2012.

    Parent
    To some extent (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    what would you prefer to have?  A Democratic Executive or a Democratic legislative?  It appears we can only have one or the other at one time.

    Parent
    I'd love to give you a counterexample (none / 0) (#20)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    unfortunately you may be right- 1978 is the only election in the last 35 years where a Democratic Executive was able to retain control (1998 we gained seats but didn't retake the house).

    Parent
    man (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    when are people like you going to get a clue? Two words: George W. Bush. If George W. Bush could get reelected in 2004 with his stinky record then any Republican has a distinct advantage. Obama is not doing well right now and I would say he is definitely beatable because he has a demoralized base, independents are turning against him and the GOP is energized. those three things can make him lose.

    Parent
    Game Theory (none / 0) (#7)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    Link

    The article misstates the prisoners dilemma and battle of the sexes problems but makes the valid point that Republicans and Liberals have an incentive to defect instead of cooperating even though cooperating would result in a marginal improvement for everyone.

    This game isn't going to come to a good end.  It's time to start over.

    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    I couldnt read past the first sentence.

    The Senate likes to think of itself as the world's greatest deliberative body.

    laughing to hard.


    Parent

    Got past that, but hit (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 03:53:46 PM EST
    The dilemma is simple. The worst-case scenario for Democrats as a whole is to pass no health care bill at all.

    and had to stop. Seems like an arguable premise to me.

    Parent

    Well I think the good Senators (none / 0) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    are looking at it from a different viewpoint then those of us that will have to participate in what they pass.

    When they say worst case scenario they aren't thinking about you or me, they are thinking about their own sorry backsides since they have spent a year deliberating on the issue.

    See it's all a matter of perspective. Besides they want to pass something quick so they can practice their "Well I never in a million years thought THAT would happen when I voted for it" faces.

    Parent

    Fix is in with Dimon (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/prediction-obama-will-pick-dimon-to-be-treasury-secretary

    Look at who he has donated to.

    Baucus, Ford, Emanuel...the rogues gallery.

    That has to go into my (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    'Are you effing kidding me?'  file. I suppose nothing should shock me anymore, but that would.

    Parent
    Check the date (none / 0) (#27)
    by Pol C on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 09:39:13 AM EST
    That article's over a year old. Obama hadn't even been elected yet.

    Parent
    You miss the point (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    The journalist was asking a very clever question.

    Parent
    I am for a Medicaid expansion (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    but it isn't healthcare reform.  Most rebels call that welfare and this is an election year for some people.

    The biggest problem I have with Medicaid (none / 0) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 08:13:43 PM EST
    is that it is state run which means what who can recieve it and what you get vary depending upon the state you are in. Furthermore expanding Medicaid after it just got its rolls diminished in states(and it did in a large portion)means what? The expansion will mean the people who got tossed off the rolls can go back on again or at least until the states decide they can't afford to keep em' there again? All in all I don't believe it will be regulated with federal standards or a large enough percentage of people (since it is state by state rather than the sum total percentagewise) to be provide downward pressure on prices of private insurance.

    Parent
    So true (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:44:11 AM EST
    A medicaid expansion can be wiped off the books with the next administration very very easily.  Not much of a fix.

    Parent