home

Progressive Failure: Ezra Klein Says "The Blue Dogs Won" The Health Bills Negotiation

Ezra:

If you want to see how Nancy Pelosi gets the votes, Kucinich offers a hint. She unites her left flank, as these folks may not like the bill, but they love what the bill is trying to do and they don't want to destroy Barack Obama's presidency. And then she goes to however many Blue Dogs and strays as she needs and says, basically, that this bill is more to your liking than the original. The cost controls are stronger, the public option is gone and there's even an entitlement reform component. You won! This argument, incidentally, has the virtue of being true.

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, Ezra won too. He wanted those exchanges and did not care for the public insurance reform. I wonder what he would be writing today if he had lost?

Speaking for me only

< Progressive Failure: The Cost Of "Health Care Reform" To Women | March Madness, Day 1 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Atrios is like so totally wrong (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    Duncan Black figures the CBO numbers are going to make it easier to make the bill as big a sop to the insurance companies as possible.

    Doesn't Duncan understand that Dennis folding makes it easier to get the progressive camel's nose in the tent?

    Good thing Dennis folded. Dems now stand good chance of passing a bill crafted to win approval from the right. As if Republicans don't hate the bill and plan to use it as club whether it passes or not.

    I would never, ever believed the GOP could have risen from the grave this quick. Not after 8 years of Bush.

    Maybe Dems figure voters will forget the Dem epic fail by November. Stranger things have happened.

    Of course (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:45:02 AM EST
    they won. It's why people respect the blue dogs but laugh at the progressives because progressives will always raise the white flag when push comes to shove.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:52:17 AM EST
    If the Blue Dogs are representing their constiuents' interests (and I'm not arguing either way here), and the progressives are fighting to save the Obama presidency (which may or may not be what their constiuents want), then who is really doing their job and who really should "win"?  Blue Dogs are elected for a reason - their districts would never elect a far left liberal.  Bart Stupak's district would never elect Dennis Kucinich.  

    Is the reason that more people in this country align themselves with Blue Dogs' philosophy? I don't know.

    Seems to me when you have a good idea that will help lots of people, it is incumbent on you to make the case and not sell out - seem that's what the WH and the progressives have done.

    Parent

    The WH got what it wanted. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    Well, true (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    But the cheerleaders and hangers-on still want to insist that Obama is getting the camel's nose under the tent and will then show his real hand and proposes sweeping fixes to the bill.

    It's sad when supposedly intelligent people can't see past the rose-colored glasses.

    Parent

    There was some irony in Dennis speech (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    He hopes the current bill will lead to something a little better in another decade. If you still got hope that's all O promised to give after all!  Was Dennis having a laugh?

    Parent
    Honestly, I'd rather vote for Stupak (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by beowulf on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    Think of every Hill Democrat who drew a line in the sand and then soon after capitulated, and Stupak didn't back down an inch.   The Progressive Caucus  are so absurdly weak, they let Pelosi and the WH leverage the Stupak Bloc against them.  Iif you recall, the reason that Weiner's single payer amendment (which really was a bridge too far, when you're promised a floor vote, that's the time for last, best offer) or Kucinich's state ERISA waiver amendment were pulled was to keep Stupak from getting a floor vote.  So Weiner  and Kucinich retreated and got nothing, and what do you know... Stupak stood firm and got his way.

    The pity of it is, the CPC could have gone to Stupak at any time and  flipped the script in exactly the way BTD has advocated for months.  If the bill only funded public plans (whether by expanding Medicaid or subsidizing Medicare buy-ins), the Progressives would get their public option and Stupak would get his Hyde Amendment (since it already applies to public plans).   The CPC dozens and the Stupak handful could have teamed up  (and umm, let Bart do the talking) and forced the WH to capitulate for once.

    Parent

    Wait, wait, wait (none / 0) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:39:33 AM EST
    you think the CPC would have agreed to a far more severe restriction on Abortion than Hyde in exchange for the public option- and that would have been a good thing? Please even if it created a public option it would have been worse for the CPC- they would have essentially traded a worse position for women for a public option (Stupak is far far worse than Hyde or the Hagel stuff in the Senate bill- its an order of magnitude more restrictive).

    Parent
    Blue Dogs have a far more compex (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    genesis than your assumptions about the people in your districts belie.

    There is a segment of the Blue Dog coalition that is really only in office because of open primaries in their states and because of strategies to game the system having to do with party switching.

    Not all of the Blue Dogs are as representative of their constituents as you might think, but the voters are often denied the opportunity to vote for people who would be more representative because the system is often gamed.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:17:23 PM EST
    Because Blue Dogs, if they switched parties, are still conservative enough to elected in that district, which means the still reflect the makeup of voters in that district - proving my point.

    Because people on this blog want and desire for more out and out liberals to be elected to Congress, and because of the many independents and cross-overs that voted for Obama (and the millions of Republicans who stayed home), I think sometimes the perspectives get a little skewed as to where  actually most of the people in this country are politically - and that would be in the middle.

    Parent

    No you still don't get it. (none / 0) (#101)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:16:54 AM EST
    The more liberal Dem candidates in some open-primary races are eliminated at the primary level by REPUBLICANS who cross over and vote for the weakest Dem candidate in the primary - or the most conservative whichever strategy will preserve conservative dominance - the Democrats don't get to pick their candidates.  The reason that the Blue Dog coalition even exists is that there are still a number of strongly Democratic pockets in the South - I know - my family lives in one of them.

    The point being that in some districts the voters do not end up having the option to elect a liberal because they are often blocked from being on the final ballot.  Not having liberal candidates end up on the ballot does not necessarily mean that the voters wouldn't accept a more liberal view.  All that means that they are picking from what they are offered.

    Karl Rove was the master-mind of moving to open primaries in a lot of Southern states.  And it really helped to break the Dem strong-holds in a number of states.

    Parent

    Ezra (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    is a regular captain obvious.

    Master of the bleedin' obvious. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:07:16 AM EST
    That is.

    He writes as if he's angling for Tom Friedman's column
    at the NYT.

    Parent

    And he will invoke Friedman units (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    in his argument that we just have to be patient and wait for the "really great stuff" in the law to surface in our lives as the reality of this bill unfolds.

    Parent
    Obama:HCR lets us buy into same pool as Congress (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    Link

    "we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have."

    that was (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    actually a damn good interview.  he shoot down a lot of BS.  I was of the opinion he should stay off FOX but now I am not so sure.


    Parent
    He needs to go on FOX (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    every once in a while to show he is not afraid of them. And he was hectored and interrupted as few Presidents are in such one-to-one interviews....FOX just can't stand the guy and apparently believes he is not entitled to much respect.....

    Lawrence O'Donnell speculated last night that Obama did it now to show the way for wavering Democrats how to defend their votes later.

    Obama has done well challenging the Republicans directly in such verbal jousts....

    Parent

    Slick (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    "same kind of pool". Meaning, a pool - as with all insurance. Totally meaningless statement, meant to mislead by throwing the words pool and congress into the same sentence.

    Not at all the same as opening up the federal employees insurance plan for everyone to buy into, which was a proposal at one point in the HCR discussion.

    Parent

    this is a serious question (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    since you are the most unaffiliated person I see.
    do we know what the structure of the pool/pools will be?


    Parent
    No I don't, not really (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:03:45 AM EST
    Maybe he is referring to some special pool.   But it still seems like he is trying to imply it is the same insurance that Congress gets.

    I don't think it is the lie of the century, but still a bit of slick pol-talk. Not shocked.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    He realized what he said and caught himself so his butt was covered.

    Parent
    I'd still like to know what he was (none / 0) (#44)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:08:55 AM EST
    intending to say when he said something about 3000% reductions in insurance costs.
    Even $3000 doesn't makes sense, apparently.
    What the heck was he trying to say?

    Parent
    $3.00 (none / 0) (#54)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    or 3% probably.

    There's no proof, or mandate, that the insurance premiums go down in price, or that existing policies won't be scaled down in coverages. Selling it as though that is some guarantee is simply a cheap and misleading sales tactic.


    Parent

    Over time (none / 0) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    The $3000 comes from the estimated result of bending the cost curve.  If your insurance would have been $12,000 by year X, it will instead be $9,000 at some future date.

    This bill does nothing about cost.  I was happy to see 'cost' dropped from the list of talking points.  I cringed when Dems were saying it.

    Parent

    Bending the cost curve by (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    reducing the actuarial value of the policy. Instead of 80% cost sharing they are pushing for 605 - 70%.

    Parent
    Could be (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:10:49 AM EST
    I've never been anywhere near the position of giving speeches on the same topic for over a year. Maybe the words get rote after a while and you don't catch yourself in time when stuff that used to be possible is no longer in the plan.

    Parent
    To me it rises to the level of 'slick' (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:08:05 AM EST
    exactly because there was the idea floated at one point to let people buy into the federal employees plan. I think that would have been a popular idea, so of course it was not adopted. this seems to be attempting to harken back to that without it actually being there.

    Parent
    Maybe this is way too late (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    But I would like to see a discussion of the relative merits of Canadian style single payer versus British socialized medicine versus the French style public insurance with private supplements.

    If this health bill is really nothing much, perhaps the Obama critics could try out a substantive discussion of health care....Some here have that kind of knowledge.....But all moot I suppose....

    Parent

    Here's a good place to start (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by cenobite on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    Lying scumbag. (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    Stop it (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:52:56 AM EST
    You really need to stop with the name calling.  Jeralyn doesn't allow it.  She hasn't had the time to moderate as much as usual, but that doesn't give you license to continue.

    Parent
    I think the quote is extremely (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    misleading---at a minimum.
    Calling it a lie is not unreasonable.
    There is just no way people are going to be getting the insurance Congress gets, which is what he wants people to believe.
    What are the deductibles and co-pays on the mandated insurance, in the latest version of the bill? Last I read, co-pays could be 30%, IIRC.
    Do you think Congressmen have 30% co-pays?


    Parent
    Let's cool it (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    Shall we?

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#97)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:25:00 PM EST
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    Can you imagine Bill Clinton (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    being such a sleazy salesman for such an important policy?
    That quote is SOOO misleading.


    Parent
    well actually (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    Bubba is out selling this every day

    Parent
    And I bet he is not being (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:32:34 AM EST
    all sleazy used car salesman about it.
    That's my point.
    Agree or disagree with Clinton, he talked about policy issues on the merits.


    Parent
    actually (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:34:11 AM EST
    I think if I look I can find video of Clinton saying exactly what you are freaking out about.

    Parent
    I'm with the Capt on this one. (none / 0) (#20)
    by dk on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:37:57 AM EST
    Bill is nothing but a loyal Democrat, so if the current leadership asked him to lie like that I think he'd do it.

    Parent
    haha.. maybe so. (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    Let's not get sidetracked into whether or not Clinton saying it makes it true.
    I think what Obama is saying is close to an outright lie, in its implication that people will be able to get the same coverage as Congress gets.

    Parent
    YOu don't see the quote as misleading? (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    Obama is suggesting that people will be able to buy the same kind of insurance Congress gets, at the same rate. I am sure that is FAR from true.


    Parent
    Well, what you clearly do not (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    understand is that the insurance Congress gets is heavily subsidized private insurance - heavily subsidized.  That private insurance is basically exactly what the rest of us get without the big price tag - and generally less subject to challenge by an insurance company because if you're lobbying the Congress to take care of your industry, you're not going be dismissing politicians or their staffers claims - but that's a whole other discussion.  

    But the bottom line is that he isn't technically lying about being able to buy the same plan that Stupak can buy, actually.

    Is he over-selling the merits of that aspect of the plan?  Absolutely!  But he isn't technically lying.

    The problem is that a lot of Americans and even fairly well informed bloggers, media et al, seem to believe that Federal Employee health insurance is some magical and wonderful alternate universe of no fuss health insurance and healthcare access.  It is not.  One of my best friends, who is federally employed, was - last I checked - still battling her insurance provider over payment for a very legitimate procedure she had about a year ago.

    Parent

    Not "technically" (none / 0) (#77)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    doing it? Okey-dokey.
    Intent matters.
    Hey---I just saw some WMD!


    Parent
    you are SURE (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    wow,  how exactly are you sure?
    got a link?

    Parent
    Just go away. I'm tired of cheerleaders. (none / 0) (#26)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:43:16 AM EST
    YOU don't know anything, by your own admission, and yet you are TIRELESS in advocating this bill, and slamming those opposed as wanting poor people to die from cancer.
    You're not worth a moment's more time.


    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    no link then

    Parent
    No, no (none / 0) (#35)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    Just yesterday he said he believed this was largely a lousy bill. It's hard to just skip his comments...they dominate every. single. thread.

    Parent
    and thats a pretty good trick (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:12:40 AM EST
    since I generally only do this during working hours

    Parent
    Captain, I guess they think you (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    talk too much...

    Now, if only you could toss a couple of verbal grenades Obama's way, you might be worth listening to.

    Parent

    if you looked at my comment (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    history you would find plenty of verbal grenades heaved at Obama.


    Parent
    have you not noticed (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    some of the Obama haters accusing me of being an impostor?
    that is because during the Primary I made their arguments for them.  
    then Obama became the president and I want to get things done.  

    Parent
    Domination...or plain ol' clogging? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    He made 138 comments yesterday, and since Monday, a total of 253.

    Yes, I counted.

    Parent

    You know, there was this guy (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    named Armando who posted all the time everywhere in a different blog....

    Captain is on-topic and doesn't take up so much space as to prevent others from commenting....

    Parent

    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    there would be fewer comments if I didnt need to do things like the definition of irony.

    Parent
    Hello Kettle, or is it Pot (1.50 / 2) (#80)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    Considering that you are the queen of TL elegantly pompous essays, usually full of red meat for the cult, not sure you want to be criticizing anyone here about blog-clogging or volume of any sort.

    lol

    Parent

    That was mean Squeaky (4.20 / 5) (#82)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:55:30 PM EST
    Anne's comments are well thought out and well written. She's a huge asset to this site.

    Parent
    I would expect nothing less from (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    squeaky than the comment he/she made; they are all of a piece, usually, and like the Capt. - who may have been studying up on the technique - he/she always seems compelled to ascribe opinions he/she doesn't agree with to post-traumatic primary disorder (see his/her reference to "the cult").

    Insults are just part of the package with squeaky - you really just have not "arrived" until he/she has stalked you through the threads, lol.

    Squeaky can defend the Capt. til the cows come home - but notice he/she didn't say he/she liked/appreciated Capt. Howdy's comments, just that I was a fine one to talk about clogging up the threads; guess it's hard to defend 138 comments in a "day" that may have spanned 8 hours. :-)

    Parent

    Hypocrite (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    Insults are just part of the package with squeaky - you really just have not "arrived" until he/she has stalked you through the threads, lol.

    Again pot or kettle? Bet you can't even tell.

    Now, why don't you call your friend Beavis and the two of you can ring doorbells and leave flaming dog poop on people's porches before you run away giggling; Lord knows you've left enough of that here the last couple days.

    Oh well, so much for the pomp.

    Parent

    I strongly agreed with squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Spamlet on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:56:43 AM EST
    when she said this:

    As far as commenting goes, I do not have the skills or temperament to stay in the ring, and be able to keep an intense focus on other things. . . . Besides, if I kept up the banter here, I would, at worst, have been banned, lol, or at best caused Jeralyn to waste time dealing with complaints.


    Parent
    Oh Well (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:29:43 AM EST
    I understand that from your perspective things never change, Hillary love and all, but hate to break it to you, things change, obviously as I am back in the ring, so to speak.

    And I do feel welcome, but thank you for your concerns. Sorry to ruffle the foam on you Kaffee Klatch cappuccino, or is it a mocha frappe?

    Also feel free to take your complaints to the management, as I know that you value the fluffy quality of your steamed milk.

    Parent

    Where in this entire thread (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Spamlet on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    did I mention Hillary Clinton?

    Answer: nowhere.

    Where in this entire thread did anyone but you mention Hillary Clinton?

    Answer: nowhere.

    You are the one who is obsessed with Hillary Clinton. You bring her up at every real or (usually) imagined opportunity.

    But why not, since you have such an active imagination, especially when it comes to imagining what might be going on in other people's minds. That imagination of yours is almost as big as the chip on your shoulder. Your whole routine is childish and tiresome.

    As for my alleged "Hillary love," I am an independent who votes with policies and platforms in mind. I voted for Hillary Clinton in my state's primary, and then I moved on. I wonder why you haven't, and why you evidently feel compelled to keep picking fights with people about Hillary Clinton. Maybe you just don't have enough to do.

    Now go ahead and have the last word, or the last "LOL," as you so love to do, little Hillary-troll.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:51:25 PM EST
    Must have been when you were using your other screen name.

    Parent
    thank you (none / 0) (#104)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    Squeaks (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:57:38 AM EST
    Never disappoints.  Always the last word and always something erudite. <snark>

    Parent
    they really think they (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:41:13 AM EST
    have the whole who is welcome and who is not thing in their pocket dont they?

    surprise!

    Parent

    getting (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    popcorn

    Parent
    Mean? (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:05:35 PM EST
    The truth hurts. As far as Ann's comments go, they seem like well polished soap to me. Probably would be a good romantic novel  writer (Walmart) for bored housewives when they are not watching the soaps.

    Parent
    Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#69)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    Do you stand to gain personally if this passes? Do you work for the insurance industry, or have you heavily invested in them?

    Parent
    you got me (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    I am a 51% share holder in Well Point

    Parent
    and really (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    relentless would be more accurate

    Parent
    oh no! (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    red alert!  A mildly misleading statement by a politician!!!!!!!!!!  OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Meanwhile, he is not actually suggesting that people can buy the same insurance Congress gets, if you read it again.


    Parent

    Of COURSE that's (none / 0) (#27)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    the inference he wants people to make. The statement is VERY misleading. What's the point of making the comparison if he doesn't want to imply the coverage will be similar? It's a slimy sales pitch.. more than slightly misleading.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    and "If you like your insurance that you have now, you can keep it." Except when our legislation forces you to lose it.

    Parent
    Correct, with unwritten conditions (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:55:52 AM EST
    "If you like your insurance that you have now, you can keep it."

    1. If it is employer-provided, it is employer selected, so if you like your insurance, make sure you don't change employers under any circumstances. and,

    2. As long as the insurance company doesn't decide to rewrite the policy so they can give less when they have trouble raising your rates.

    Think of the shrinking food packages.


    Parent
    I was referring to employer plans (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    that will be effected by the excise tax and Medicare Advantage plans which people will not be able to keep even if they wanted to because of the provisions in the legislation.

    Parent
    I'm just glad they closed Gitmo and the president (none / 0) (#11)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    is no longer slave to his chemical dependencies. Last time I checked Dems still didn't have enough votes. Just checked the polls. Only a third want the bill passed, a highly motivated 49 per cent don't and 15 just don't care.

    I supported Kucinich until he flipped and now he's dead to me, just another sell-out flogging his own brand of indispensable self-promotion.

    Seething might be the best way to describe the reaction of the right if this bill passes and BTD' cautions about an unmotivated base ring truer every day.

    Kiss me like you mean it.

    We're not quite there yet, but this is really starting to feel like Jimmy Carter time. I don't recall that period as a happy time.

    Fired-up? Some folks are ready to combust. If Dems can pass this fair and square tempers might cool somewhat, but I somehow doubt it.

    Why (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:31:37 AM EST
    did you ever believe Kucinich? I mean anybody who's watched his political career should not be suprised at what he did.

    Parent
    Guilty as charged (none / 0) (#22)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:40:57 AM EST
    I'm a hopeless romantic. I thought there might actually be a shred of integrity inside the man.


    Parent
    I like Kucinich (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    and he has seemed very consistent.  Even under BTD's theory of bargaining, Kucinich played it to the very end....Perhaps he does believe the bill represents some good.

    He has been very consistent in his attempts to close the School of the Americas, and is one of the few elected officials, maybe the only one, who has attended the yearly protests at Ft. Benning....

    Parent

    if he had only done what they wanted (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:53:25 PM EST
    they would be singing hosannas for him.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    but anyone who watched him run for President in 2004 should have no doubt about him and how willing he is to throw his so called "priciples" under the bus when it's convenient for him.

    Parent
    You mean the endorsement (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    in 2004 for Edwards as second choice in the Iowa Caucus?....

    Trying to manuever himself, no doubt, but so what....

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    I'm talking about how he's always been prolife and then once he decides to run for prez voila! he's now pro-choice!! How deeply held was either belief if he could change it overnight like that? I'm sure there's other issues that he's done that with that I don't know about until this HCR came down the pike.

    As far as the primaries, I could have cared less about that but it but a ding in his halo to many.

    Parent

    Like Gore in that regard (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    But he seems clear on the issue now....

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:04:46 PM EST
    Gore's mind changed over time not overnight like Kucinich so I don't consider that the same.

    Parent
    or not (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:08:59 AM EST
    * A third of the nation is highly engaged: According to our latest NBC/WSJ poll, one-third say they know "a lot" about the filibuster procedure in the Senate. And these folks are split on whether reconciliation should be used to bypass a filibuster on health care: 44% of them say they favor Democrats using the procedure, while 42% say they oppose it.


    Parent
    But my bet (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    is if you actually ASKED those people how it works, they'd have no idea.  Even members of Congress are split on what really can be done, what kind of legal challenges they can mount, and what can come of it, so I highly doubt the average Joe on the street or who reads blogs really knows either.

    Parent
    you might be right (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    dont see what it has to do with the point

    Parent
    Not sure what your point was (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    in posting a meaningless statistic

    Parent
    I was correcting (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    disinformation upthread.

    Parent
    Jimmy Carter? He's trying to be (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:31:20 AM EST
    Ronald Reagan, in style AND substance.

    Parent
    Brought up Teddy Roosevelt (none / 0) (#14)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    "He couldn't do it, but I can!"

    Blecch. The rest was just BS and obfuscation. He didn't answer the legitimate question about, if this is such a good bill, why did he have to browbeat and bribe and threaten and cajole fellow Democrats to vote for it?

    Well on that point (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:00:11 AM EST
    I think I do not want him to tell the truth about how the Dems have to to be browbeaten and/or injected with a spine in order to do anything the least bit controversial. That conversation can not end well.

    Parent
    not to mention it is completely (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    irrelevant and happens with every single piece of legislation ever passed.


    Parent
    Yup - was there no (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:12:21 AM EST
    browbeating of Republicans when Bush wanted something passed? Please.

    Parent
    Hey, that would have been a good answer (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    for him to give. Maybe next time!

    Parent
    maybe he didnt think (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:33:17 AM EST
    there was any point in responding to a republican talking point

    Parent
    Why not? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    He's bent over backwards to kiss their a$$es - why not respond to a point?  Unless of course, he agrees with it.

    Parent
    he didnt really look to me like (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:11:06 AM EST
    he was "agreeing" with that interviewer.  actually it looked to me like he kicked his butt all over the set.

    Parent
    Thanks to Woodrow WIlson (none / 0) (#37)
    by beowulf on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:02:00 AM EST
    Teddy Roosevelt didn't endorse universal healthcare (or whatever the term of art was 100 years ago) until he tried to "unretire" and run against his Republican successor W.H. Taft and the Dem nominee Wilson.  He came in second, so he never got a chance to fulfill that campaign promise while in office.

    Which is a pity, he was a better man than Wilson (TR sent his kids to an integrated school, Wilson imposed Jim Crow on federal departments) and such a force of nature that if TR had won, we would have had universal healthcare system for, oh, the last 100 years or so.

    Parent

    More trouble in paradise? (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    The nation's largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization has announced it will oppose the health care bill being considered by Congress unless major changes are made during reconciliation, presenting a potentially damaging late-stage obstacle to the bill's passage

    The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) released a statement to the Huffington Post on Thursday morning that recognizes the need to tackle reform but argued that the Senate's version of legislation -- which is the basis for the entire bill -- is a non-starter. link

    Anti-choice Democrats are threatening to kill the entire project over the abortion language in the Senate bill and Congressional Hispanic Caucus members are rebelling because of its draconian immigration provisions. link


    Unions got their's (none / 0) (#66)
    by coast on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    now I want mine kinda thing.  Suprised its taking this long for some of these groups to come out with their demands.

    Parent
    Seems a little late (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:24:54 PM EST
    but hey, go for it.

    I'm quite sure they have legitimate grievances, but the last minute gamesmanship is getting quite annoying. I'm cranky today.

    Parent

    I actually think (none / 0) (#93)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    it's smart for them to do this if Pelosi or Reid really needs the votes. If that is the case last minute wheeling and dealing could net them results. It also makes sense too because I believe immigratrion reform is on the slate to be dealt with. It allows them an opening position and to draw the initial line in the sand.

    Parent