So to Jay et al, I say, fine pass a bipartisan bill, but show me the coalition that you're going to deliver before we go through this exercise again.  Otherwise, skip it and get working on a good bill that can pass under reconciliation.

It happens often in Washington: A perception emerges and soon hardens into fact. Take the proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate's health-care legislation. Because organized labor took the lead in opposing the tax, the assumption took hold that it would hit unions the hardest.

Both sides made use of this perception. Opponents of the tax could argue that it would hurt a lot of hardworking factory workers or teachers who had traded wage gains in return for good health benefits. Proponents of the tax portrayed opposition to it largely as a special-interest issue driven by self-protective unions.

But according to a new analysis, the conventional wisdom about the tax is wrong: The tax would actually fall equally on nonunion plans. At least 80 percent of the workers whose plans would be subject to the tax in 2019 would be in nonunion jobs, according to the analysis by Ken Jacobs of the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center and William H. Dow, a professor of health economics at Berkeley who was a member of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

This impact is roughly in line with the overall breakdown of nonunion vs. union workers with employer-provided plans. And it would be true under both the version of the tax passed by the Senate and a more labor-friendly one the White House agreed to last month.

SNIP

The House bill instead relies on a surtax on the wealthy. But Obama has made plain his preference for the tax on high-cost plans. To mitigate its impact, the White House and union leaders last month negotiated revisions, including slightly raising the tax threshold, limiting the tax for businesses with many female or older workers, and exempting government workers and union plans until 2018.

Congressional Republicans have attacked the deal as a carve-out for labor, but according to the analysis, the revisions would also benefit many nonunion workers. The authors, whose work was funded by the California Endowment and the liberal Institute for America's Future, estimate that the revisions would reduce the tax's revenue by $41 billion, of which 71 percent would accrue to nonunion workers.

If employers remained with their current plans, the researchers estimate that 23 percent of plans would be subject to the tax by 2019 in the Senate version, while 14 percent of plans would be hit under the revised deal.

Should be administered to members of both houses of Congress, the president, the media and the electorate at large.

Rockefeller's statement should be enshrined along side so mamny other statements that clearly indicate that too many members of Congress have completely forgotten why they were sent to Washington.

They were sent to take action on problems confronting the nation.  Rockefeller's inane statement is proof that he hasn't a clue about his mission.

Washington -- One-third of voters in Nevada say they would be more likely to vote for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this fall if he wins passage of the public option in the health care bill, according to a poll released today.

He not only does not grasp the concept of what the "Public" in "Public option" means - I imagine he's not alone on that score - but saying that he's "strongly for the public option" and at the same time giving up on it without any fight at all tells the rest of the story.  And it isn't pretty.

This is the kind of attitude that will be present at the Health Care Summit:

Oh, we can't do that, it's too hard, and that corporate cash will dry up, so...what to do, what to do?  Oh, right, we don't actually do anything but mouth platitudes and shrug our shoulders and make excuses for why we're just helpless to do more, and hope our constituents don't see us stuffing our pockets with their cash, and when all is said and done, we'll just let Max Baucus tell us what the next step is.

This lovely, bullet-pointed proposal should be read slowly, and more than once; as you consider what is in it, as you think about what it really says and provides for, don't be surprised if you find yourself muttering, "hey, wait a minute...does this say what I think it says?  Does this really say the donut hole will not be closed for 10 years (that's a long time when you're "old," but the longer it takes to close it, maybe more people will do Medicare a favor and just take a big ol' dirt nap.  Does it really say that we've moved from subsidies to tax credits, with no explanation of how that all works?  How does a tax credit I have to file a tax return to get help me pay insurance premiums?  Or are they going to just shoot the credits right to the insurance company?  Does it really say that insurance will become affordable through the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history?  Are premiums the same things as taxes, or is it vice-versa?  Does it really say that it will strengthen oversight of insurance premium increases?  What oversight does it provide now that will be strengthened?"

I could go on, but you get the idea.  Too bad most people won't, because not only will most of them not read this proposal, but they will allow themselves to be swayed by the nice photo ops and sound bites that the media will show us, unaccompanied by any substantive questions or analysis.

Does anyone really think Jay Rockefeller is going to add anything to the conversation when his rhetoric includes phrases like "sort of like a public option?"

The Democratic Party's deceitful game