home

Voices

Matt Yglesias writes:

I think there’s a lot of value in the fact that guys like Kevin Drum and Glenn Greenwald who live outside the DC-NYC media/politics hub are able to offer commentary on current affairs from relatively high profile platforms. [. . .] Readers deserve to be able to read a varied set of people working with a diverse set of models. Among other things, the existence of variety gives people an opportunity to test theories about capture and such. I think regular readers would agree that Kevin and I generally have pretty similar sellout wanker political opinions.

I think that's right (and yes, I get the joke - obviously Matt does not think his views are that of a sellout wanker and neither do I. I do think that they have an insider/Beltway Dem perspective. My problem has always been the attempt to disavow this obvious reality.) I think it is important to understand this "capture" (Yglesias' word) phenomenon. Here is an obvious one - the great enthusiasm Village bloggers have for the Grayson Medicare Buy In plan. They all love it. Guess what? they all know it has no chance of passage or of being a stumbling block for passage of the heath bill they want passed - which by a happy coincidence, is the one the President wants passed. More . .

Yglesias on the Grayson bill:

Progressives should be working to pass this bill, then working to pass Grayson’s Medicare buy-in law down the road. That’s a possibly feasible path to the preferred progressive end-state that has the benefit of making things better as we go along. Kucinich’s bold defense of the status quo isn’t going to change anything.

Is that really a feasible plan? What makes it feasible? How does this claim of feasability fit in the argument that this is the last chance to do health care reform for 20 years? Why is it not a more feasible plan to try and get something like the Grayson bill in the CURRENT legislation. After all, 44 Senators now say they support adding a public option through reconciliation.

Frankly, I think there is something completely disingenuous about Yglesias' position. To wit, he does not mind the idea of Medicare Buy In or some other form of a public option -- but he does not really care if it happens. That happens to dovetail nicely with the Beltway Dem view of the matter. Is this a question of "capture?" I do not know, but I do not think that Yglesias can credibly claim to be representing the "pro- public option" position. Similarly, Ezra Klein writes:

Comprehensive visions for reform and incremental visions for reform have been at odds throughout this process. That was proper, in many ways: When you're building a new structure where the different parts work together, you have to be relatively comprehensive about it. But once that structure is constructed, incrementalism makes a lot of sense. Want a public option? Write the bill. Want to outlaw fee-for-service in the exchanges, or give a tax break to insurers who are constructing networks where the doctors have a different payment structure? Offer it in committee. Think subsidies should be higher, or maybe lower? Amendments are a wonderful thing.

A lot of these reforms become easier to implement when there's a place to put them, and incentives you can offer to encourage their adoption. The exchanges are a big step forward in that regard. The public option is a good example. If we passed a public option now, how would you get it, exactly? Call the government? And how would you handle the adverse selection problem, where sicker people who were rejected by private insurers would use the government's offering as a last resort?

There are a lot of other good ideas that wouldn't work very well in the current system, but work a lot better when you've got a simple marketplace where a lot of different insurers are competing with transparent prices, standard descriptions, and some basic rules of the road. You need a comprehensive bill to set that up, but it can play host to a lot of incremental legislation going forward.

You see? Now that Ezra's preferred plan (the regulatory reform framework centered on the exchanges) has been adopted, he is all for "good ideas" within that framework. Indeed, he argues, this framework will help you get what you want if you are a public insurance proponent. Hell, Ezra even says you could not have a public option without his preferred framework. (Never mind the actual existence of Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, etc.)

This is clearly a Beltway Dem's perspective. To repeat - they will mouth the words of support for the public insurance framework and even raise no objection to it so long as any proposal or advocacy for that proposal does not jeopardize THEIR preferred framework. They are "very reasonable" in that way.

Thus Grayson's proposal is "good" and they are all for it, as it won't jeopardize what they want. (And honestly, everyone knows it is pretty meaningless anyway. It will never happen.) But they hate Dennis Kucinich because, different from Grayson, Kucinich wants his point of view to prevail now. To be fair to Grayson, I am not convinced that he dislikes the situation now. He may be getting exactly what he wants - good graces with Beltway Dems and "street cred" with progressives. Pols are pols, my friends.

Different voices should point out that this is just another form of rolling progressives on health care. I understand it. Politics is like that. But progressive activists should understand what is happening with the Grayson bill. And that it will never even come up for a vote. Beltway Dems and Village Bloggers can't and won't tell you that. Is it a capture problem? I'll let someone else answer that one.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Early Evening Open Thread | The White House Is Political, So Is The SCOTUS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This makes so much sense - not (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:42:00 AM EST
    A Medicare buy in could not be included in the current legislation when the Dems had 60 Senators and a super majority in the House but magically somewhere down the line it will pass after the Dems lose numerous seats and both the House and the Senate become more Republican and more conservative.

    Medicare expansion makes sense to everybody* (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    ... as the next step, whether the bill passes or fails.

    *[where "everybody" ranges from expert kill-this-bad-bill single payer hold-out Marcia Angell to expert pass-this-bad-bill incrementalist "sell-out" Theda Skocpol.]

    Not necessarily the Medicare buy-in version (which may encounter self-extinguishing adverse selection problems), but expansion by age cohort for instance.

    Skocpol makes a key point that after passage, incremental Medicare expansions would qualify as budget measures subject to enactment via reconciliation.

    Parent

    If one of the seats lost is (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:28:37 AM EST
    Joe Lieberman's, it might have a chance at some point.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:56:39 AM EST
    This should be part of a plan right now, especially as more employers are expecting to shift health-care costs on to their employees.

    MO Blue is right - we couldn't get this done with 60 votes in the Senate, and when the Drems get massacred in 6 months, we'll just hear more whining from them.

    Guess what employers are going (none / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:19:27 AM EST
    to use as an excuse for their actions.

    It found anxiety among employers about the government's plans to revamp the health-care system. Although the substance of the pending legislation has been a moving target, more than two-thirds of those surveyed said they expected it to make their plans more costly. More than a quarter predicted it would prompt them to make coverage less generous.

    Don't think this will help sell the Senate health insurance legislation.

    Parent

    Placating the masses. (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:01:20 AM EST
    Incrementalism has been a huge, confusing waste of time.  For those who see that, they offer a pipe dream.  Typical DC wankery.  A nice pat on the head, a few encouraging words and as soon as is humanly possible, they will throw that four page Medicare opt in bill in a drawer and run like hell.

    If this bill passes, they will ask for patience and ask us to give it time to work its "magic".  In the backrooms and at the dinner parties, they will celebrate their victory in staving off yet another attack on American industry.  Because it just wouldn't be right if an industry of 400,000 people were not able to continue to victimize a nation of 300 million.

    Oh and by the way, I know it is a drag that people are unemployed or under employed, but it is a lagging indicator so don't feel too badly of you or someone you know is experiencing economic destruction.  Wall Street is doing fine - that should bouy your hopes while you're standing in the soup kitchen line.  Just think good thoughts of all the good things that the Wall Street financiers are doing now.

    :)  Good Morning, Everyone.

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:10:31 AM EST
    Kucinich look much better to me if he would be willing to trade an upperdown vote on the Grayson proposal for an affirmative vote on final passage of Ezracare. But he doesn't make deals like this, which is why Markos is absolutely right to compare him unfavorably to Bernie Sanders.

    Kucinich is one of 435 and (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    Sanders is one of 100.  The comparison isn't all that apt.  Kucinich is playing a role that he can get away with in the House.  The fact that people get so bent out of shape by him is mind-boggling to me.  He has no real coalition and, in this case, he isn't really wrong about how off the rails this "reform" effort is - so it is not like he is really going to be a determining factor at this point - his only potential effect may be on the future - but even that's debatable because, again, he has no coalition to speak of.

    I would be much, much more concerned about people like Stupak who have a real shot at creating really seriously deep and damaging divisions in the Democratic coalition if his proposal prevails.

    I am disgusted by how this HCR effort has turned out, but that won't deter me from being a Democrat.  If, OTOH, the powers that be further undermine access to women's health services in order to win Stupak's vote - whilst ignoring Kucinich on top of it all - then my relationship with this party that is the only political home I have ever known in my life will be seriously be reconsidered.  I won't be alone either and the Democratic Leadership better think about that.

    Parent

    Let's not forget (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders reticence got him funding for what he wanted in the health care bill, a pilot program and framework for free clinics.

    Frankly, I'd rather 100 Sanders than 100 Nelson's anyday of the year.

    It's absolutely bizarro that the progressives demonize the principled folk on the left like Kuchinich who want at least something that moves us toward what he envisions but make excuses for the Stupak dozen as being "principled" for holding up legislation for their ideas.

    The same thing could apply and be said for Sanders and Nelson.

    Parent

    and (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:31:10 AM EST
    Ralph Nader

    Parent
    Does 2000 equal 2010? (none / 0) (#61)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    No?

    Parent
    does Kucinich = Nader (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    yes

    Parent
    That's your opinion (none / 0) (#77)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    and your certainly entitled to it just like the beltway boys are entitled to theirs. What really rankles me though is when people try to pass off opinion as fact.

    Parent
    Nader is a total outsider (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 04:49:03 PM EST
    At least Kucinich has an active constituency while he currently serves in Congress.

    Your comparison has no applicability.

    Parent

    I didn't know Nader was elected to the house! (none / 0) (#83)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    Thanks for enlightening me!

    Parent
    And Grayson is dealing how? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:40:53 AM EST
    I can understand the critiques of Kucinich IF they are REALLY about not dealing. But at this point the whipping is transparent - it's all about PTDB, not about dealing.

    Markos' arguments have been incredibly weak.

    Parent

    Bingo. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:58:09 AM EST
    The writing is on the wall; the kabuki has been played out.

    IMO, Kucinich is playing the role of speaking truth to power at this point.  This bill is bad for the reasons that he states.  The fact that the machine (political and blogospheric) is so ballistic against him at this point only serves to show how truthful he is.  

    All the efforts to silence him now, from Yglesias to Obama to Kos to the TalkLeft comment section (not BTD), just seem a confirmation of that.  

    Parent

    The problem with Kucinich (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    is that he's ALWAYS an unavailable vote. In a sense he's worse than the Republicans because he doesn't even pretend that he might be willing to get to yes.

    Parent
    I'm sorry, but it's hard to take (none / 0) (#23)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    seriously someone who says that Kucinich is worse than the Republicans, unless you are more in line with the Republican point of view than Kucinich's.

    The reason, IMO, why I think you're wrong is what seems to be your opinion that there is ONE way to be a successful politician.  Right now, more than ever, there is a place for someone like Kucinich to remind the Democratic party, and the country if even to a minimal extent, that this bill is pretty much useless and that other solutions are out there that would be much more effective in reform our health care delivery system.  That is a different function from someone like Sanders, who is willing to go along with a bad bill that will be passed no matter what in order to get one small unmitigated good included in it.  But just becuase they are different functions doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong.  Your view strikes me as pretty beltway.

    Parent

    Honestly, what impact is Kucinich having (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    substantively? None. It's fine to be hard to get. I ENCOURAGE THAT. It's even fine to be more likely to say no than yes. That gets people to pay attention to you. But his whole political shtick is that nothing is good enough. He never says yes. That takes him out of the conversation entirely.

    He's a gadfly.

    Parent

    Um, we have the (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:27:18 AM EST
    Democratic leadership and the a good portion of the A-list blogosphere attacking Kucinich right now.  I hardly see how that is taking him out of the conversation entirely.  It's important precisely because it reveals the emptiness of the village and village-blogger positions.  Overton window and all.  Obama, Ezra and Matt are desparate to paint themselves as the voice of the left, and right now it seems that Kucinich is about the only person preventing them from doing that.  I'm not saying that this is going to bring about world peace or anything, but it has a function.  

    And frankly, given the stage we are at the Kabuki endgame, IMO it is a more valuable function than forcing a vote on Grayson, which we all know wouldn't pass anyway.  That would just be a beltway game.  I guess to those with a beltway mindset it would be proof of how good Kucinich is at playing the political game, but that most defintely would have no substantive impact.

    Parent

    I think getting everyone on the record (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    about Medicare expansion would have a real substantive impact. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how to run on that.

    As for attacking Kucinich for behaving this way? That's not new, and it's entirely deserved. I didn't come to this opinion about him recently.

    Parent

    I realize that you didn't. (none / 0) (#31)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:38:00 AM EST
    That was my point about the flaws, IMO, in your political analysis.

    Parent
    I want a vote on medicare buy-in too! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:52:02 AM EST
    I want a record on it

    Parent
    That's hilarious (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    "Obama, Ezra and Matt are desparate to paint themselves as the voice of the left...."

    Barack "Banksters are Savvy Businessmen" Obama wants to go left? Of course, he's just shameless and empty enough to try it.

    Parent

    Well, yes, I do (none / 0) (#64)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    make the shameless assumption (for Obama as well as for Ezra and Matt).

    Parent
    I have always seen Kuchinich (none / 0) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    as the Overton Window pusher on the left side of the aisle. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. Even if the stuff doesn't pass, AT LEAST he advances the ideas of the left of the left and attempts to get them mainstream.

    Parent
    All you have to do is (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    flip it to see how absurd their arguments are. What if he had been vocally against something they were also against for the last year, and then flipped? In other words, what if he had been the one that flipped and said 'ah, the heck with it, this is good enough', instead of them? I can hear the outrage now, and it would be justified.

    Parent
    Grayson is not (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:00:19 AM EST
    Clearly.

    Parent
    Put differently (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:05:42 AM EST
    Grayson is all steak sauce (he'll vote for whatever at the end of the day) and Kucinich is all fast (he'll vote for nothing, ever).

    Parent
    Matt (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:29:58 AM EST
    Is a bloviating little weasel.

    I just spent the past thirty minutes reading Yves Smith. Her analysis of the current financial situation is illuminating and puts to rest forever any suggestion that Democrats can be trusted to run the economy, at least the Democrats currently running the show. Her analysis of Tim, Ben, Larry and the clown at the top leaves states the Dem failures will mean it will take five years for employment to return to pre-crisis levels.

    If you have any interest in learning just how insolvent Dem approaches are invest a half an hour or so reading Yves and her recent work.

    Matt isn't teaching anything useful to anyone.

    Read the econoblogs for the analysis (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    Read the A list for the cheerleading.

    Remember when the political bloggers actually had a media critique? Good times... Now we've got to go to Yves, and Rithholz, and Simon Johnson for that.

    Parent

    He isn't much of a teacher (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:37:28 AM EST
    In my opinion he never really has been.  I don't think that was ever his goal.  I think his goal has always been to persuade people to see things his way.  And I'd also say it will be more like ten years before employment returns to precrisis levels.

    Parent
    Yves' post is worth (none / 0) (#15)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:57:01 AM EST
    reading for the tic-toc of the crisis, who did and didn't do what, and for the comments.

    Yves pulled the lever for Obama. I came away better informed.  

    Parent

    Oh absolutely (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    I'm sorry for the tone of how my written comment sounded.  It is an imperative read if you really want to know what is happening and what our chances are.  Most people will think she is being too mean when in fact she is likely being very generous about when we can all go back to work.  Other "experts" more involved in the Employment side of economics have predicted ten years.  So when you read her, on one item we already know she is actually most likely being generous.

    Parent
    No worries (none / 0) (#54)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    But thanks. I think you're pretty much on the mark. Haven' seen the ten-year figures. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around five. Cheers.

    Parent
    Psst. Do you understand what (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:54:53 AM EST
    "capture" means in the context of this post?  If so, please share.

    Parent
    Not a clue (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    Couldn't figure out what he was talking about the first time I read it, went back and read it again after reading your question and still nope.  Could it be about weighing projected outcomes of the different arguments against each other and who gets public support for theirs?  That sounds so stupid though, sort of self important in the grand scheme.  I do not know.  If someone does please instruct me as well.

    Parent
    Autonomous Variety (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    One of the devices involved in data capture includes supermarket checkouts equipped with barcode readers. Barcode readers are electronic devices that use a laser beam to scan a barcode. These readers are categorized as non-contact automatic data capture devices. They need to be within a few inches of the material they are scanning to read it.

    Data Capture

    Parent

    I'm not talking to you today (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    I'm not talking to you until you grow up a little.

    Parent
    Your Loss (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    Bad system, imo. But suit yourself.

    Parent
    Oh Yeah, I want to clarify something too (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:17:40 PM EST
    I haven't come to think of oculus as my friend.  She is my friend.  And the day I throw my friends to the rabid dogs who dare to play devil's advocate once in awhile with me and some of my really bright ideas is probably the day before a serious incident/accident befalls me and I'm pansy fertilizer.  I've always had a great deal of enthusiasm, sort of like a race horse.  I cherish people who enrich my life with the things I lack.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    I empathize with your methods, as I know you are heavy into dog training. It is not so interesting or effective a training technique in cyberspace, imo. Best to stay in the present and call it as it comes, imo despite, friends and alliances.

    Yeah tenderness does it better, aptly pointed out by BTD..

    obviously my spiritual development has a long way to go..

    Parent

    Is it possible he's talking (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    about regulatory capture?  As I understand it, that is the term for when agencies that are supposed to be regulating say, public utilities or hospitals instead become "captive" to the interests of the investors in that entity, and end up protecting that entity's interests instead of protecting the public from exorbitant rates, etc.

    It's the only thing that makes sense in the context of the excerpt, I think, but maybe there's some other meaning that I'm not grasping.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    He is talking about the limitations of having a meager selection of beltway narratives (his own, et al.). A larger selection outside of the beltway (greenwald et al), would allow a more interesting analysis. I believe the reference is Data Capture.  

    Parent
    Does anyone else think he sounds like a used car (none / 0) (#75)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    salesman?

    Parent
    Most bothersome to me (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:36:21 AM EST
    The public option is a good example. If we passed a public option now, how would you get it, exactly? Call the government? And how would you handle the adverse selection problem, where sicker people who were rejected by private insurers would use the government's offering as a last resort?

    Variations of the public option were proposed throughout 2009 in full detail.  "Call the government?"  Ezra knows full well how they work.  Completely ridiculous.

    Well they managed to help get it killed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:39:49 AM EST
    Now they'd like to rewrite the whole story so that the reason WHY we don't have a chance at it fits untroubling into what they're trying to sell us.

    Parent
    Really amazingly stupid (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:01:09 AM EST
    He really crossed a line in the sand with that one.

    Parent
    The problem I have is that a new structure (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:07:44 AM EST
    really is not being built, as much as the furniture in it is being rearranged; remember, if you will, that the objections Obama had to single-payer were that it would be impractical to build a plan from scratch, and - besides - most people get their insurance via their employer, so he wanted to stick with that.  It was then, and is now, a big pile of sparkling pony doo-doo, but maybe he thought the sparkles would distract from the aroma.

    And while he's out on the stump, haranguing people to support the bill, he is demonizing the very industry that the bill will mandate people buy insurance from  ("these companies are out of control, raising premiums and taking advantage of people, so we have a bill that mandates you buy their product - but not now, not yet, because they still need a couple of years to keep squeezing the life out of their current customers, raising premiums to use as a baseline, before they get to take money from tens of millions of new customers - doesn't that sound like the answer to all your health care problems?")

    Whatever.

    The chances that Grayson's bill goes anywhere but in the circular file are, in my opinion, about as good as my chances of winning the MegaMillions tomorrow night...there may be general chatter about what a good idea it is, but with entitlements the next target for "reform," there is no way there is any encouragement from the WH to make Medicare bigger - even if those who buy in will be contributing more than what current Medicare participants pay, even if adding younger and possibly healthier people to the risk pool is likely to improve Medicare's overall health, even if it keeps a significant burden off the states, who might otherwise be looking at a huge expansion of Medicaid...well, you get the picture.

    The problem with the "framework" meme is that it is unlikely that there will be any additions to it before there is even an occupancy permit, the timing of so many of the provisions are so far out that there simply will be no will to do anything until we "give the plan time" to see if it even works.  

    The questions Ezra asks about "the public option" are at once insulting and disingenuous; it strikes me that had he asked some of these questions last summer, when "the public option" rhetoric was all over the place, it quite possibly could have opened some eyes to the sham - in the sense that it was wholly lacking in any detail - that it was.  But, no.  Because to ask those questions might also have led to having to put single-payer or Medicare For All in a spotlight that the WH did not want them to get.  Better to flog this industry bailout bill that contains only illusory reforms than to tell any kind of truth to the people whose lives all of this affects.

    And speaking of illusory reforms, Dodd's financial reform bill is being unveiled on Monday; anyone think it will do anything more than rearrange the furniture in that structure?  Perish the thought.


    Anne deserves a TalkLeft (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    Observation Award or something for this

    And while he's out on the stump, haranguing people to support the bill, he is demonizing the very industry that the bill will mandate people buy insurance from  ("these companies are out of control, raising premiums and taking advantage of people, so we have a bill that mandates you buy their product - but not now, not yet, because they still need a couple of years to keep squeezing the life out of their current customers, raising premiums to use as a baseline, before they get to take money from tens of millions of new customers - doesn't that sound like the answer to all your health care problems?")

    I listened to some of his stumping yesterday but all I could hear in my frustration was blah blah blah shove it down your throat blah blah blah blah shove it down your throat, and this is exactly WHY!

    Parent

    I listened to some of the stumping (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    several days ago.  When is the time to fix it--now.  No mention of the long delay in implementation.  

    Parent
    I'll second that (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    The only route to public support for what's being pushed around congress right now is scaring the people into thinking rates will multiply many more times over if we don't hurry and get this wonderful bill passed. (Repeat of TARP) He degrades the industry because that's what it takes to get public support. But, has anyone read anything in the bills being considered that regulates or brings insurance costs to affordable levels for ALL?

    I'll never understand why we can't simply copy the Canadian model. It's not hard to see that as long as everyone in a country is covered for health, the wait times to get into a doctor for non-emergent situations will increase. So, we keep this elite idea that we have superior coverage because we pay so much for it, and we will end up with the same (if not worse) long lines to care.

    Parent

    Excellent analogy (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    with the furniture rearrangement.  They think the health care Titanic is, overall, not horribly bad, although they do acknowledge that it definitely needs some "tweaking" and instead of making sure that it is repaired to become actually "sink-proof" (or better yet, scrapping it and building another ship altogether), they're busy rearranging the deck chairs.

    Parent
    You count 44 (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    PCCC counts 41.

    In this context especially, Ezra and Yglesias in their dismissals of the PO are full of it.

    When's the last time they wrote about that letter?  Why write about Grayson instead?

    Further (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:21:15 AM EST
    hypocrisy from Yglesias:

    I note that if the big ObamaCare bill passes (no sure thing) then supplementing it with Grayson's Medicare You Can Buy Into Act would be equivalent to adding the long-dead "robust" public option--a much better policy than the level playing field public option that's been dominating discussion for the past 6-9 months.

    "We support a public option, just the most perfect one available.  

    But you better accept this goddamn imperfect health bill right now, as is, do you understand me?"

    The perfect is the enemy of the good, except apparently when it comes to the PO.  This would be less bothersome if EK and MY didn't attempt to position themselves as our charismatic spiritual leaders.

    I wish that FDL agreed with me and Chait and Paul Krugman and the SEIU and the NAACP about health care rather than taking its counterproductive dead-ender stance. But the fact of the matter is that on this issue they represent a rather marginal point of view and I don't see any real evidence that there's major support for their view. [emphasis supplied]
     

    Parent
    Valhalla "Down the Road" (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by robotalk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    The new catchphrase of the demvillage.

    Bingo! Disingenuous... (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    It's like when Kos says:

    Remember, Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts had all but killed the impetus for health care reform, until Wellpoint-Anthem announced their ill-timed (for them) double-digit premium increases.

    A completely dishonest narrative.  The insurance companies, AHIP in particular, basically wrote this bill.  The premium hikes play write into the Kabuki they are playing with the Obama administration.

    More to the point...

    I still want to see a separate Senate vote on the public option -- we currently have 40 signatures on letter demanding the vote. One way to hold our party accountable and identify the roadblocks is by forcing these elected officials to go on the record with their votes. Those who vote against the public option will have a big, fat target painted on their backs in 2012. Absent a vote, I'm happy to consider the public option letter evidence enough.

    Kos may as well say I could care a less about the PO but I know many in my readership do, so how about a nice meaningless vote, or heck, an even more meaningless letter?  

    I personally would be grateful for the (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:47:40 AM EST
    name and head count.  I think there should be a vote on the PO.

    Parent
    Grateful? Really? (none / 0) (#19)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    Well, I guess if your expectations are that low chances are you'll never be disappointed.

    Parent
    I want it on the record (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    who wouldn't support the Public Option, because the bill they are likely to pass I don't believe will solve anything and is actually going to blow up in their faces given our economy.

    Parent
    I think the PO has bit the dust. (none / 0) (#39)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    It's so amorphous, I don't think the term has staying power.  In this way the Medicare expansion proposal is a better test.  However, remember that Medicare for All has had the same number of sponsors for several decades and when it came time to "reform" insurance markets they folded at the outset.  My point is going on record supporting something you don't think will pass is very different from voting on legislation that has a decent shot of passage.  I think these type of statement votes are OK as a barometer but are more or less fundraising tools for the pols.

    Parent
    Medicare for all is a "public option" (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    option.

    I figured out fairly early on though that the reason why the Democratic Leadership avoided the term "Medicare for All" was that they were trying to avoid trying to pass Medicare for all.

    Parent

    Agreed. What I have figured out (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    through this process is how entirely non serious the Democrats are about having health care as a winning issue. If they were they would have ran on expanding Medicare since it was first enacted and every election afterward until it was law.  The notion that it's the people who reject Medicare early on in their lives rather than only as elderly is completely laughable.  The only assumptions I can come up with about the health care Kabuki the Dems are playing with the voters is either they don't trust the voters to know a good thing when they see it, or government programs, ie Medicare, do not have lobbyists to donate to their campaigns and thus can not compete with insurers for their support.

    Parent
    Obama has promised to protect (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    the insurance industry--that's what he means when he says all parties are at the table.
    Is there CBO scoring on various Medicare expansion proposals?

    Parent
    There was supposed to be... (none / 0) (#47)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    I was wondering about that myself.  Weiner's Medicare for All was due scoring and a floor debate.  Then, I never heard about it again.  

    Parent
    Kucinich coud trade his vote for (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    a promise just like Weiner. Exactly how well did that work?

    The only impact that I expect from Grayson's Medicare buy-in proposal is that it will help him raise campaign funds.

    Parent

    Oh, I completely agree. (none / 0) (#86)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 07:14:05 AM EST
    That's my argument.  These statement votes are little more than campaign tools.

    Parent
    Didn't we already have votes on the PO? (none / 0) (#29)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    The house voted for a decidedly non-robust (IMO, characterizations like anemic and doomed-to-fail would be more accurate) public option, and the senate voted against a public option.

    I have no problem with further votes on it (I'm not one of those people who think that you should only call for votes that you are certain you will win, I say vote again and again and again).  But it's not like we don't know what the outcome would be.

    Parent

    Not really the kind of vote (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    that would put people on the spot addressing their position yea or nay without hiding behind the "other good/bad things" that they were voting on.

    Really, the Democrats should have forced a vote on either recission or pre-existing conditions to expose the GOP coalition's disinterest in serving the people.  Unfortunately, I think that they were likely trying to protect some of their own coalition for being exposed on that front too.

    Parent

    You're so smart on this stuff (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    And absolutely correct!

    Parent
    Someone could have gotten mad (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    though, and all the good that we get from bipartisanship would have been destroyed :)

    Parent
    I should have clarified (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    I want a Senate vote.

    Parent
    I don't think they have the courage to (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    do that; time after time, they have taken the cowardly way out, shrugged their shoulders and lamented in sad and serious tones that they did the best they could, but it just wasn't possible.  And then they heaved a sigh, shook their heads and that was that.

    The silence from Obama speaks volumes - and has all along.  There was nothing from him in opposition to Stupak/Pitts/Nelson.  There was nothing from him when an effort was made to put a Medicare Buy-In in the Senate bill - he was busy designing the Committee to Cut and Gut Entitlements, remember?  There is nothing now from him on Grayson's bill.

    We have been seeing from Democrats a pattern of letter-signing and statements of support for various elements of this and other issues that isn't followed by action - by voting consistent with their stated positions.

    Whatever they are saying today, they've had over a year to put together a Medicare For All, or Medicare Buy-In bill - either of which would have had strong support from constituents - and chose instead to put a pitifully weak public element in the House bill and nothing in the Senate bill, and that's not going to change.

    This is the template for everything that matters to us; if you think things are depressing now, just wait - I think it's going to get worse.

    Parent

    {{Applauding wildly}} (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:12:19 AM EST
    Anne, you're on fire today, sister.

    Parent
    LOL - some days this stuff does (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    just set me on fire...my husband will often say to me, "why are you getting so upset about this - it's not like they (meaning Dems/Obama) actually care what you think or what you want," and the sad truth is that I think he's right.

    Parent
    I sent an email to Patty Murray (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    within the last 10 days about HCR/HIR - the email response I got was a lengthy boast over how the HELP committee worked so hard and is so proud of what they submitted.

    The only way she is going to get my vote this November is if Dino Rossi ends up running against her.

    They don't care; your husband is right.

    Parent

    *Sigh* (none / 0) (#59)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    I've sent emails to both Mikulski and Cardin about this, several times, and have gotten very similar answers.  "Worked hard...."  "Building a consensus...."  blah, blah, blah.  The only thing it got me was getting put on Barb's email "list."  Ben's not up for reelection until 2012.  Barb is up this year, but she is an absolute lock in this state.  Maryland will continue to reelect her, even after she's dead.  She won't be getting any money from me, though, and I'll be telling her why when her campaign asks.

    Parent
    I'll bet it's the exact same email response (none / 0) (#81)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    I got from her six months ago.


    Parent
    I'll bet you're right..... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 05:10:49 PM EST
    'cause it was not the first time I got that response and there were months between my messages to her.


    Parent
    My husband (none / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    says virtually the same thing to me!  All the time!  Are we married to the same man?  Or maybe clones.  ;-)

    Parent
    Fair enough. I'm not (none / 0) (#42)
    by dk on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    really disagreeing with you, I think the more votes the better.  It's just that I think we already have our answer that there are not 50 senators who support an effective government run insurance program that every American has access to (whether it be a "robust public option," medicare buy-in or what have you).  If they did, they would and could have passed it.

    This is one of the reasons why I never jumped on the "blame Baucus" train.  It's not like it was ever just Baucus.  There were always as least 11 Democratic Senators who wouldn't have supported it.  True, forcing a vote may help show us their exact identities, but I think we can all guess.  Frankly, I think very few Senators would vote for an effective government run system.  Not with all the health insurance money coming into their campaign chests.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#60)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    The only thing village Dems are concerned with is keeping their seats at the WH rumor mill table. The only way to do that is to tow the WH line. So they are for whatever Obama is for at this moment.

    a. A different "capture" indeed. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 04:18:50 PM EST


    Klein and Ygelias are Poster Children for (none / 0) (#85)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:55:09 PM EST
    the 'talk like a progressive, act like a corportist' wing of the "progressive movement"