home

Progressives At St. Helena

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:56:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Chris Bowers writes:

Health reform has passed the House. I feel determined, in that this is just a step in the right direction. There is a long way to go before we achieve universal health care in this county.

I feel sad that it came at the cost of throwing reproductive rights under the bus. Any win that means hurting some of your friends is not a full win. I feel frustrated, because I know we could have won the public option campaign, but it didn't happen.

This is what progressive failure looks like under a Dem Administration and Congress. The health bills reject the progressive vision of health care reform and embrace market based view of health reform. Reproductive rights were sacrificed as were health coverage for undocumented aliens. All for someone else's vision of health reform. Let's hope that the progressive vision is wrong and that the President and the Village Dems are right.

Speaking for me only

< History's Judgment | What's Next? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Progressives At St. Helena | 200 comments (200 topical)
    How can the progressive vision (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    be proven wrong if no one has the guts to enact it as policy?

    Well, the problem is (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by david mizner on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:16:09 AM EST
    The "progressive vision" will be "proven wrong" when this bill fails and/or remains unpopular. According to conventional wisdom, it won't be centrism or corporatism failing, it'll be "liberalism."

    Obama-ism is a problem in particular because it's corporatism passing itself off as progressivism. I'd feel better this morning if the bill had passed over the opposition of the establishment left but most liberals or "liberals" from Move On to Howard Dean to Dennis Kucinich to the Working Families Parties jumped on board. If this bill craps out, as it's likely to, it'll take liberalism with it.

    Progressives should keep their distance from fake liberalism and fake liberals.  

    Parent

    That is a huge problem and (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:31:29 AM EST
    as much as I yell at the TV saying, "This thing isn't liberal or progressive!" it doesn't seem to change a damn thing about the media narrative.

    I am glad that more visible folks than I are invoking the memory of the GOP proposal of the early '90s.  This bill is built on Republican ideology, not on traditional Democratic ideology.  There is no liberal foundation; and there isn't even liberal nuance in the construct of how the bill works.

    Lawrence O'Donnell was on this morning talking about the moral imperative.  I guess that's seen as "progressive" now.  The Democrats are progressive because they recognize a moral imperative and the Republicans are simply amoral.  The biggest problem with our country today is that the Republican Party is so far gone, so out there and so unserious about building good government that a healthy, honest and helpful debate was never going to happen.

    I am one of those people that views our adversarial system of government as a good thing, but it just never really occured to me how unhealthy the system could end up being if one or more of the adversaries were completely off the rails.  None of this is to say that the Democrats don't share in this failure, but without the discipline of an opposition dealing in good faith, I don't think that it was possible to get a good result.  The Democrats did a similarly poor job when they were the opposition for different reasons - but it is the same result - bad policies left and right.  And the coming so-called financial "reform" is not likely to deliver anything better.

    Parent

    If this is a Repub '94 bill (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    then there are 30 or so Blue Dog Dem House members even more conservative than the Gingrich Republicans. that is indeed disturbing and does not bode well for any Progressive legislation coming out of this congress.

    Parent
    The irony is that liberalism is (none / 0) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    experiencing something of a comeback amongst the public.  But on Capital Hill, it is largely still dead.

    Parent
    I'm counting on it catching up (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:28:39 AM EST
    eventually. It would help if we could get some effective liberal policies enacted now to help the groundswell along.

    Parent
    It would help if a faction of our (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    Democratic Leadership would not undermine obviously popular and very SENSIBLE liberal policies.  It isn't so much that single-payer wasn't passed or that the public option didn't get in that really hurts in my mind.  It is that the President and his surrogates actually spoke quite negatively about both on a number of occasions.  They lost an opportunity to lay the ground work for better liberal policy down the road.  They often reinforced the "big government is bad" ideology; and they did NOT have to go that far.

    Parent
    An case (none / 0) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    could be made that Healthcare bills represent are singposts of the consistent rightward shift of the overton window since the New Deal- every major healthcare effort was less progressive than the one which preceded it (excepting LBJ iin 1965) Truman in '49 was more progressive than Teddy in '71 who was in turn more progressive than Clinton in '93 who was in turn more progressive than Obama in '10- of course since Obama's was actually passedc that could mean that it was merely more pragmatic but therein lies the debate.

    As for throwing Women under the bus, this does bring to mind Social Security- which for all its triumphs was essentially racist in its construction in in order to appease needed votes from Southern Democrats.

    Parent

    Social Security was sexist, too (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:49:13 AM EST
    -- omitting, with its criteria, many women who most needed it most -- as I reminded myself yesterday in conversation about how long it will take to turn the bill passed yesterday into the better bill it could have been.  It took several decades to reform Social Security sufficiently.  It took reviving the women's movement, and you know how long that took.

    So it is left to the younger generation, when they gain the personal experience to see the inequities and then gain the collective experience to revive the movement again.  But as before, there is a historical record, a how-to manual, to tell them how to do so -- if they are smarter than were many of us, who were ignorant of that record left to us and thought we had to reinvent the wheel, wasting a lot of time.:-)

    Parent

    That is, to be clear (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    I took some comfort, as ever, in historical precedents of lesser laws that became better laws over time.  (Of course, I tried to forget how hard it was for many folks in the long transitions, as they did not and I will not live to see a better end result.  So I just am focusing on figuring out what I have to do to survive the transition -- having to turn to taking care of myself now, with no room for sending money to others' causes now.)

    Parent
    Social security remains homophobic (none / 0) (#188)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    No way to receive payments from a deceased spouse's account if your marriage is understood to be play-acting. And that's the way your marriage will be understood until there is marriage equality under federal law. The "states' rights" approach won't cut it.

    Parent
    I wonder if the solution is (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:44:58 AM EST
    that by the 2012 election, more "bipartisanship" -- if not a Republican-controlled Congress as of 2011 -- will have led to some changes.  So then, Obama, et al., will be able to say that the plan passed yesterday would have worked, but those other guys must have screwed it up in the interim. . . .

    Parent
    I think the Republicans are going to (none / 0) (#23)
    by observed on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    lose big in November. They've lost their minds, while Obama looks calm and reasonable, and he was SOOO bipartisan too.
    Politically, I give him props for a masterful performance. There's no doubt in my mind now that Obama is truly a first rate politician.
    If he ever is moved to act on truly progressive legislation, he could also be a great President.
    One thing I know, Obama  and Rahm have completely written off Bowers and his crowd now.


    Parent
    Not according (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    to Charlie Cook. He's been predicting the GOP picks up 50-60 seats. I don't think much is going to happen here in the south as far as changing hands but I would be very worried if I were a Dem anywhere else in the country. No one thought Scott Brown could win Teddy's seat either did they? What is going to happen to stop the Dem losing streak this year? The GOP was just as crazy before and they still won.

    Parent
    I thought Scott Brown could win that seat. (none / 0) (#53)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    Democrats often conveniently forget that carpet bagger, Mitt Romney, won the Governor's mansion in Mass.

    Our political class takes a lot for granted these days.  The thing that has changed - and they have largely failed to notice - is that people want something from their government right now - they want more than something, actually - they are looking to government for meaninful solutions to very serious problems.

    A $17 Billion jobs bill pales in comparison to the $1 Trillion that has gone to be financial services industry bailout.  They aren't going to get caught for under-delivering this week, but they are going to get caught eventually.  Scott Brown was just an early warning sign for what's to come.  I don't know if that means huge GOP victories, but I do think that there will be a re-alignment of some sort.  Could be a combo of primaries, a migration away from the two parties and GOP victories - victories that might not last that long.  Someone recently made the point that we could flip flop between parties through a succession of elections which might be the process through which both parties evolve.  Whether that evolution is a net positive gain remains to be seen.  Could just give us all whip last watching government policy radically swing between insane rightwing ideology and "pragmatic" effots to clean up the destruction from the insane rightwing ideology put into practice.  We'll see.

    Parent

    I'm of (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    the mind that it's going to swing between the parties for a few years until the dust settles.

    Parent
    If Obama is proven right (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:00:26 AM EST
    then we did not need public insurance reform.

    Parent
    Okay. (none / 0) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:15:03 AM EST
    Of course, you and I know that that isn't likely to happen.  Meaning that Obama's vision isn't likely to happen given the structure of this bill.

    Somewhere along the line a cabal of the clever and the idiotic banded together to move the debate from healthcare access to insurance reform.  Honestly, the Progressive vision was lost right when the shift in focus took hold.  I'd have to go back and look at the date, but I first saw the move to change the focus when Ron Wyden appeared on Ed Schultz' show last year insisting that we could reform healthcare by better regulating the private health insurance industry.  I wrote a diary about it that was largely ignored except for a few people who thought I was being "mean" to Wyden.

    Parent

    I think more human suffering (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    can prompt more changes at later dates.  As a civilized human being though, I looked to avoid making anyone suffer anymore than we all already have.

    Parent
    I am sure that the change will (none / 0) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    be called for at a later date.  But I do not think that date is coming any time soon.  Most likely about 20 years from now.  The good thing about the medical community is that they are evidence-based in their assessments.  The bad thing about the medical community is that developing those assessments generallyt takes years of evidence-based study.

    The architects of this plan will request and receive time to see if this approach works.  The studies proving that consumer complaints aren't simply anecdotal will take years to design and execute.  It doesn't help that some portion of the Democratic Party will always provide knee-jerk defenses of the legislation because it was Obama's "signature achievement".  Then there's the PTSD that this Congress will have as a result of even wading into the healthcare debate.

    Those things will factor into a much longer delay in addressing even just the fixes that a lot of people expect to be addressed than most understand right now.

    The problem is that people were convinced that tinkering rather than re-tooling was in order.  We moved the wheel base as if that would fix the problem with the engine.  This test drive is likely to be a long one.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    it's going to have to be sooner. I have seen my premiums skyrocket the last 6 years or so. There's nothing that is going to stop the continuing skyrocketing and people are going to be very mad and suffering financially like MT says above. The pitchforks are coming and this bill does nothing to stop that.

    Parent
    I was trying to figure out how to get (none / 0) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    a premium that would total out to be less than $10,200 per anum.  I am pretty sure that the large majority of Americans are going to have a hard time finding those plans.  Irony.

    But you saw how long it took to get this passed.  And 2014 is when it goes into full effect.  So, it is more likely than not that even ridiculous premium prices won't be addressed until the "magical excise tax" is fully tested and proven to be a ridiculous folly in addressing premium prices.

    Parent

    I'm not (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:17:56 AM EST
    saying that you don't have a point. This bill could even be gutted before it goes fully into effect. If the GOP wins the next two election cycles do you think they are going to fund it? I dont think so.

    Parent
    The majority of the bill doesn't (none / 0) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    require any funding beyond yours, mine and most every other American being required to buy insurance.

    I might not be so personally threatened by the mandate if business weren't as dead as it is right now.  But I don't think that there is enough "good stuff" in the bill to keep me from resenting what they require Americans to do for the benefit of private insurers.  I think that this bill is a bad deal for people.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    my point is that the GOP could cut the subsidies and Medicaid and we would just be left with the mandates which would make this bill even worse.

    I'm with you. Overall I see it as a net negative unfortunately.

    Parent

    A major reason the GOPers (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30:23 AM EST
    have been so hysterical about this is that even if they regain total control, they simply are not going to be able politically to get away with reducing Medicaid funding-- you think the states won't scream their bloody heads off if they do that?-- or reducing subsidies that now reach well up into the middle class.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    that's not why they are screaming. They are screaming because they are knee jerk anti Obama politicians. They have no core values either it seems. It's just knee jerk vs. knee jerk apparently.

    We have two election cycles before the subsidies even kick in. It's entirely possible that the GOP may win one or both of those cycles. It wont be hard to cut something that people haven't even received yet.

    Parent

    And you (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    underestimate the GOP's ability to play divide and conquer with the populace.

    Parent
    Wel, no, I don't underestimate it (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:59:58 PM EST
    But one thing they are not going to do in this universe is try to yank subsidies away from middle and lower middle-class folks.  That's their base, honey.

    Another thing they're not going to do is yank millions of dollars away from their governors of their states where most of their voters live.  Not gah happen.

    They would find lots of other ways to sabotage things instead.  They'd want to do away with, for example, restrictions on selling insurance across state lines, ensuring a massive race to the bottom on health insurance coverage.  They would almost certainly cancel the already weak rules about rescissions and pre-existing conditions, and certainly the mandate that ins. cos. devote no less than 80 percent of their money to patient care.  Stuff like that.

    But those things they can't actually make happen as long as there's a Dem. president still in office to veto them.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    They can take away the subsidies because they havent even taken place yet. People won't even know what they are missing.

    You really don't think they'll just roll back the medicaid portion of this bill? It'll be easy to do and then the states won't need the money.

    Surely you jest about not happening with a Dem president? I mean we've got the ulimate surrender guy in office. The minute the GOP starts shooting he sits in the foxhole waving the white flag.

    I mean who would have thought that a Dem president would have caved to the prolifers?

    Oh, I agree that they'll do it the subversive ways too.

    Parent

    The Democrats could cut (none / 0) (#95)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:27:56 AM EST
    the subsidies.  Hey, with Anthony Weiner over at orange begging bloggers to sign his petition to the Senate to get the reconciliation fixes in place, it seems very possible that the additional subsidies that most people think should be there in the first place could never be enacted.

    They should have linked the subsidies to the mandate.  If they go away then the mandate should be triggered to be lifted.  That would have kept the subsidies in place.  But they didn't do that, and based on my Congressional watching over the past 30 odd years, the subsidies are more likely than not to evaporate.

    Remarkable that the subsidy question wasn't more aggressively addressed in light of the SCHIP funding fiasco just over a year ago.

    Parent

    It's (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    really sad that average blogger has better ideas on how to handle this stuff than our elected officials.

    Parent
    My fear is that it wasn't so much (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    that they couldn't come up with that idea.  My fear is that there was no will to make sure that there was some sort of equality and balance inherent in the structure of the bill.

    "The People" were largely under-represented throughout this process.

    Every stakeholder got a piece of the action - the Feds, the States, the private insurers, the President - except The People.  Who basically ended up being bargaining chips instead of beneficiaries of the bill.

    The government can bail on those subsidies whenever they feel it is convenient or necessary, and the private insurers will continue to get a mandated number of customers.  Meanwhile, people will have to figure out how to "manage" and "adjust".  Which is exactly where we started with the status quo that we were supposed to be changing.

    Cool game of Three Card Monty we just played and got suckered in.

    Parent

    Next up! Financial "Reform"! (none / 0) (#148)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    The fun continues...

    Parent
    Excellent comment (none / 0) (#187)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    He feels "sad." (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    That's just so sweet of him.  Reminds me of those guys who feel so sad when they just have to break up with us.  So let me give him the inevitable next line, the one that he can use in his next post:  

    It's not us.  It's him.

    Cream....you are forgetting the most (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:11:34 AM EST
    important break up line.  I still want to be friends :)

    Parent
    Ha. Woman, I wish you (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    had been with me the last time that I got all those standard lines.  I did not stew alone that time; I gathered good women friends around the kitchen table for one of the great fun nights of all time.

    And one of those good friends was part of a great music group, a Capital Steps sort of group.  She got to work putting together the funniest lyrics -- all written by guys, all the things that they say in break-ups -- and put it to the tune of "Go Away, Little Girl" (I know you will recall that song).

    When the guy came back, of course, I suggested a first make-up date would be to go hear that group in its next performance.  Abject as he was, he went along with the plan.  So when the song was performed, it was publicly dedicated to him.

    Ah, but even that it is not the end of the story.  Because he took it well and laughed along with us . . . well, I took him back.  And then I married him. :-)

    Parent

    I love it, too! Any man worth having wants a (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    woman who will challenge him.

    Parent
    I love it (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:31:31 AM EST


    Parent
    P.S. I'm tired of taking Chris Bowers back :) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:33:03 AM EST


    Parent
    I've changed baby, I've really changed! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:29:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Nothing says love like (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    a little public humiliation. ;-) Great story.

    Parent
    'I was thinking of you the whole time I banged (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:48:02 AM EST
    ... T!tzie McClownb00bs.'

    (Ewwww, but thanks for making me feel great by shoving your pathetic @ss out the door.)

    Parent

    What a morning here (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    My daughter just called and her divorce is back on.  Alas, she has discovered him soliciting for sexual hookups on craigslist.  After the fight he has drained the checking account.  She is in town this very minute, needs a babysitter for babies because she just got a job...ON THE POLE.  She says she hates men, and now they will pay up....and I have had no luck detouring her.  When she makes up her mind about something that she is completely furious about that is that.  I wonder where she gets that from.  I asked her how this was a long term good career, but she says she is only going to be on the pole to get her checking account back and get an apartment set up and she is sick of men taking her for a ride.  She says that she will explain all this to her father when he gets home in three days from Afghanistan.  That'll be just fecking swell.  Real life....you just can't make this stuff up.

    Parent
    So sorry, MT (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    And the wheels go round and round.....

    Parent
    I understand she wants (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    to faceplant him...you are getting a twofer there by getting your money back and as much leering as you can get on craigslist.  But don't faceplant yourself in the process....dang it!  I'm thinking her dad will be a more important conversationalist here.  Thank the Gods he's almost home.....sheeeeeeet!

    Parent
    First the neighbor and now this. What (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:45:07 AM EST
    became of that "honeymoon."

    Parent
    One of her friends here (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:00:25 PM EST
    who hooked her up with the job also hooked her up with a lawyer that she spoke to yesterday about the divorce situation.  I asked her if he would help with the dog too :)  She just left here and she told me she won't do the pole if I geniunely feel like it is a bad idea.  I said college again, she has other options.  She says if she goes to college they will only get by, I pointed out to her that being married and young...that was all they had going on as well.  Being single and making it and having a happy home with your kids is fairly wealthy at this time.  I think she's beginning to hear me a little.  It always messes with your head when you leave a cheating spouse.  Of course different kinds of cheating messes with your head in different kinds of ways, fifteen craigslist hookups can't be good for you :)

    Parent
    Where is West Pt. guy? (none / 0) (#177)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:19:53 PM EST


    Parent
    He's still running around here (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 05:30:20 PM EST


    Parent
    I wonder how many women started out (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:30:27 PM EST
    thinking it was only a stop-gap, and are still dancing long after they thought they'd be out of that scene?

    On the other hand, there are a lot of people - and I'm probably one of them - who are just as trapped in their jobs because they can't afford the inevitable pay cut that would come with taking a job they might like better, but not be as qualified for, than the one they have now.  I don't hate what I do, but I'm a little bored by it, and would love to take a step back and do something more satisfying, but...

    Money is such a trap, and I've told my kids for years that the best thing they could do is find work that they love, because if you take a job just for the money, you will eventually come to hate going to work, and hate yourself for getting sucked into it.  Both are on that path, not making a ton of money, but that should get better in time.

    I personally would hate the idea of my daughter on display for ooky men to ogle; I think it would be too easy for the anger and hate toward men to turn inward - with all the accompanying emotional issues that go along with that, and the bad decisions that could so easily follow.

    If your daughter's anything like my two, sometimes you just have to lay it all out and then back off, so they can think and make decisions they don't feel you forced them to make; that's a little scary, at times, but hell, just being a parent is frightening!

    Hope your husband will be able to give her a different perspective on the whole thing and that things will resolve to everyone's peace of mind.

    Parent

    Could not have said it better. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by vml68 on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:03:48 PM EST
     
    I think it would be too easy for the anger and hate toward men to turn inward - with all the accompanying emotional issues that go along with that, and the bad decisions that could so easily follow.

    n/t

    Parent

    Sounds Smart (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    Although, much better to make money from using your body without the anger fueling the whole thing, imo.

    On the other hand, dancing your a$$ off, is a fantastic way to get the anger out, quite healthy, imo. Even better when you are killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

    Parent

    Would you encourage your daughter (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    to follow this career path?

    Parent
    Know it's not directed to me but (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:54:56 PM EST
    Career choice? I'm thinking turning to "dancing" due to hating men may be one of the most illogical life choices on the table.

    Parent
    Career Path? (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    Sounds like a great solution to an immediate problem, imo. And if my daughter wanted to pole dance, I would not have a problem with it, because at that point in her life, she would be parented by me and my partner sufficiently to make wise decisions for herself.

    Parent
    I am not as confident as to the effects (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    of parenting.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    A parent can only do their best to prepare a child for adulthood. Once out of the nest, it is their own life, tragic or glorious as that may be.

    Parent
    Easier said than done.... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 05:50:12 PM EST
    I doubt the compelling need to rescue and/or protect our children ever goes away. I'm quite pleased with how I've detached myself, but that's only because my kids are doing well.

    Parent
    Just Stating a Principal (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 05:57:33 PM EST
    Reality is often another story.

    Parent
    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    they are legal adults long before the frontal lobe is fully formed.  You are just not informed at all!  But hey, pay no attention to me and my Dr. Spock raised offspring :)

    Parent
    Sure....uh huh... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    Have you ever been or when was the last time you've been to a strip club?  If you think it's just dancing on a pole as if it were some trendy fitness class at some upscale gym you are seriously kidding yourself.  

    The "girls" are required to do x number of pole dances, push drinks and lap dances on the floor and entice guys into the VIP/Champagne/Whatever room.  Drugs are freely available, the places are usually run by very shady and usually dangerous guys and with the possible exception of places like Scores and the like, 99% of the clubs and clientele are grimey and depressing.  On top of that, the money's not great and the girls have to pay a hefty fee to work.  Forget about any typical benefits.

    For the vast majority,  the experience is much closer to the Bada Bing spot in the Sopranos than a place like Scores.

    Parent

    Not So Bad (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    Dancers make money than waitressing, and basically do the same thing.  

    I never understood why some feminists can fight for women to have control of their own body regarding "choice", but get all calvinistic about women choosing to exchange sex for money.

    In the end this attitude winds up creating more of a problem for sex workers than less, imo.

    Parent

    Why insist on your point in the face (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:21:44 PM EST
    of evidence to the contrary?  Do you know something no one else does?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:51:48 PM EST
    Several friends of mine during college and grad school, chose dancing over waiting tables, because they made more money dancing.

    Parent
    If I could go back even 15 years, (none / 0) (#186)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    I wouldn't hesitate to learn pole dancing...I would just use it for exercise and fun. It looks like so much more fun than a set of weights.

    If I needed to make money from the skill, I'd teach.

    Parent

    What were the friends' academic majors? (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:35:02 AM EST
    Did they graduate?  Then what happened to them?  

    Parent
    Not Sure (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:01:42 AM EST
    Political Science, Lit Crit..  Yes all graduated as far as I know. Academia, and one went into advertising. They were close to a close friend of mine and I could probably find out more. It was a long time ago, late seventies, early eighties..

    In grad school, artists who graduated, no idea what happened to them.

    Parent

    Attitude? (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by ks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with attitude "calvinistic" or otherwise.  Again, have you ever been to a typical "average joe" strip club?  I suspect not because they do have waitresses and female bartenders and I'm telling you, they're not "basically doing the same thing" as the strippers.  I don't have a problem with "empowerment" though that's come to justify a lot of nonsense but, the sketchy reality of most of the strip clubs is what I said earlier and all the "empowerment" type happy talk is not going to change that.  

    Also c'mon with the "dancers" stuff.  It's one of the pet peeves of some of my friends who are actual dancers.  It's now gotten to the point when they tell people they are dancers, the smart alecks ask "what club do you work in?  While there may be some actual dancers who strip, calling pole grinders and rump shakers "dancers" is like calling me a cyclist because I like to  do a couple laps around Central Park once in a while.  

    Parent

    Yeah Attitude (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 05:43:49 PM EST
    And it is rather elitist of you to imply that someone who makes a living at a strip club by dancing is a wh0re, trollop, or giggilo or whatever put down you have to offer. Yes there may be lots of dancers who have little talent, but the same goes for the dancers you reserve the term for, imo.

    Do you also think that club musicians are not musicians because they do not perform at carnegie hall?

    And my dancer friends who were mostly gay, felt a lot less humiliated by gyrating than by serving coffee. Less hours and more pay to boot.

    Parent

    Oh stop it.... (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by ks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 06:57:41 PM EST
    Get outta here with that elitist nonsense and I never pejoratively labeled "dancers".  You're just trying to use the elitist label against me as a dodge because I called bs on your cheerleading.  If you want to pretend that a) there's anything "empowering" about gyrating on a pole or otherwise, knock youself out and b) that most of those places aren't suspect joints run by assorted lowlifes, knock yourself out.  Sure, there's money to be made but you know damn well that most of the "dancers" blow through that money and/or screw themselves on taxes and wind up no better off than if they "humiliated" themselves serving coffee.

    But really, the "dancer" thing is borderline absurd.  Strippers (and club owners) started calling themselves dancers when the high-end spots like the aformentioned Sorces open in NY and Vegas got but mostly because of the movie "Flashdance".  Aside from Flashdance fantasies, it's as a marketing ploy to a) try and mainstream the industry and  b) play on the vanity of their high-end clientele who wanted to pretend that they were going to a "Gentlemens Club" instead of a strip club like the great unwashed masses.  It doesn't matter because at the end of the day, both groups and gay or straight are waving dollars, pawing booty and getting their privates rubbed.

    The idea that it's simply a question of talent level or where one performs is laughable.  If your dancing experience consists of nights out with the girls or boys in the disco and then you find yourself swinging on a pole, you are not a "dancer" in any remotely meaningful sense of the term.  Sorry you are just not and it has nothing to do with elitism.  

    Parent

    Dancer (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 07:17:18 PM EST
    A dancer is someone who makes money dancing. Simple as that.

    But I am sure that during all the ballets that you attend, you turn your head when the dancers crotch is featured.

    1. a.1.a One who dances; spec. one who dances professionally in public.

    OED

    Skill level and talent vary considerably. To argue that someone is not a dancer because they do not pass your smell test, is nothing but elitism.

    Definitions of what constitutes dance are dependent on social, cultural, aesthetic, artistic and moral constraints and range from functional movement (such as folk dance) to virtuoso techniques such as ballet. Dance can be participatory, social or performed for an audience. It can also be ceremonial, competitive or erotic. Dance movements may be without significance in themselves, such as in ballet or European folk dance, or have a gestural vocabulary/symbolic system as in many Asian dances. Dance can embody or express ideas, emotions or tell a story.

    According to this Wiki entry on "dancer", I would categorize your comment about pole dancers aka erotic dancers, as limited by your social, cultural, artistic and moral constraints.

    IOW: you obviously do not think women who do erotic dance for money are dancers:

    Erotic dance is a major category or classification of dance forms or dance styles, where the purpose is the stimulation or arousal of erotic or sexual thoughts or actions.

    This compares to other major dance categories based on purpose, such as ceremonial dance, competitive dance, participation dance, performance dance and social dance.

    Wiki

    You are entitled to your own personal definition of "dancer", just realize that it is quite eccentric.

    Parent

    Predictable (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by ks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:08:04 PM EST
    Thank you.  That's a perfect example of how a lot of common terms have become bastardized by misusing their literal definitions.  I guess it's sort of a grade inflation writ large.  

    Hey, there's a Madden NFL championship series on ESPN and they get 150K large for winning so although they play football on a computer, they do get paid for "playing football" via the technical definition so I guess they are football players too just like Peyton Manning!  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:49:50 AM EST
    All going to hell in a handbasket.

    Kids these days..  

    Parent

    Whatever gets you through the night (none / 0) (#198)
    by ks on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    I see now that your elitist label failed you've moved on to "luddite!".  The funny thing is that even the Madden NFL tournament players would recognize the absolute absurdity of calling them "football players" like Peyton Manning and laugh in your face.  

    To the earlier "dancers" issue, people are going to do what they do to make money though if we had to take a drink each time someone used the "stripping to pay for college" line we'd all be in a drunken coma.  

    Anyway, when 3am rolls around and, with tipping out, your take home dough is looking short, the pole money is weak and he or she finds themselves getting gropped by drunks while hustling some lapdances, I guess calling yourself a dancer does help you get through the night, and hey, it's much less humiliating than serving coffee. Heh.

    Parent

    Luddite? (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    Not moving on to luddite, but to quote you:
    That's a perfect example of how a lot of common terms have become bastardized by misusing their literal definitions.
    Luddites were nineteenth century artisan workers who feared losing their jobs due to encroaching technology. These days it means a person who fears technology. I was suggesting that you were being nostalgic not a luddite, but was wrong. Clearly you are taking an elitist position about who can and cannot wear the mantle of "dancer".

    Erotic dancing has been around for a few thousand years, so has drinking alcohol, btw. A current incarnation of this form of dance, among others, is pole dancing. People who do pole dancing for a living are dancers, whether they are in college or not.

    Parent

    Alright keep playing around the edges.... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ks on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    Ok not luddite but it's certainly not "nostalgic" either. There's nothing nostalgic about pointing out how silly your use of literalism is in this case.  

    But I do get it.  You really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the "Gentlemen's Club" industry.  You supposedly knew some people who stippped in college back in the late 70s and early 80s.  Turns out, you really didn't know them.  They were close friends of a close friend and, more than likely, stripped as an adventure over a spring and/or summer break to make some play money.  You don't know anybody who actually did it to make a living over a substantial length of time and you probably haven't been to a strip club in at least 20-30 years, if at all.

    So it's no wonder you can't and haven't respond to anything I've said about the actual grimey reality of the job and the industry itself and explains why you're mostly throwing around bogus labels and stuck on trying to defend dubious  rationalizations like stripper=dancer and Madden NFL gamer=actual NFL football player.  The really amusing thing is that I know a couple of erotic dancers and if you told them that the average person working the pole are erotic dancers just like them! they would simply roll their eyes and dismiss you.  

    But on the bright side, I can enter a few bike races now and then and start calling myself a cyclist and if a real cyclist laughs at me, I can scream elitist! It won't change the fact that I wouldn't be a real cyclist but, it would empower me and make me feel much better about myself and I suppose that's all that matters.          

    Parent

    More Grimy (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:05:33 AM EST
    Than working in a sh*tty kitchen?  The labor you are describing as grimy is working class, no one said being an erotic dancer in the sex industry was an easy job, but it is a job nonetheless.

    Is it because sex is included with the abuse and poor working conditions that you characterize it as grimy?

    Or is it that your erotic dancer friends take pride in their craft and think that anyone who is does not have skills is not a dancer? Well they are wrong, the pole dancer who is untalented and unskilled is a simply a bad dancer, and chances are that he or she will not be working very long.

    Parent

    She has my get even streak (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    Date and marry someone who makes more money than they do though, that is a much better get even with cheating men :)

    Parent
    Best revenge..... (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by vml68 on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    first managing to make a good life for yourself and your children without any help from the loser and then hopefully finding someone who treats you really well.

    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:35:55 PM EST


    Parent
    What a mess. A friend's niece (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    quite a better job to do this.  Friend found out her niece actually had to pay to work there.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    I'm so sorry MT. It's always something when you have children isn't it?

    Parent
    MT - I'm sure you've already done this... (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    But tell your daughter she deserves way better in life than what her husband gave her, and way better than what dancing for lowlife cretins will get her. Tell her to go to school and train for a great future that is all her own!

    Sorry for all your challenges....

    Parent

    Pole Dancing has become (none / 0) (#113)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    a new form of fitness exercising. Perhaps she could use her talent to get women healthy :) Really. Check out Sfactor.com --

    Very sorry to hear this...especially where it is showing up just as your reunion with your husband is about to take place.

    Parent

    She can't dance (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:06:26 PM EST
    She got zero dance genes from me. :)  I shouldn't make jokes, but whatcha gonna do?  Her dad will have a tooootal fit, but he's going to work very hard to keep her off that pole.  He went to flight school here.  From his youth he even intimately knows the place she is supposed to go to work at :)  This is a comes around goes around moment, cuz he always joked that his comeuppance would be when his daughter went to work there...one of his workmates got to experience this situation.  And now it's his turn :)

    Parent
    I could find myself very alone (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:12:28 AM EST
    at some point needing to find someone to screw :)

    Parent
    Anyone know the Traveling Wilbury's song (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    'Congratulations'? Would be a good one for today:

    Congratulations for breaking my heart
    Congratulations for tearing it all apart
    Congratulations you finally did succeed
    Congratulations for leaving me in need
    This morning I looked out my window and found
    A bluebird singing but there was no one around
    At night I lay alone in my bed
    With an image of you goin' around in my head

    Congratulations for bringing me down
    Congratulations now I'm sorrow bound
    Congratulations you got a good deal
    Congratulations how good you must feel

    I guess that I must have loved you more than I ever
    knew
    My world is empty now cause it don't have
    you
    And if I had just one more chance to win your
    heart again
    I would do things differently but what's the use to
    pretend

    Congratulations for making me wait
    Congratulations now it's too late
    Congratulations you came out on top
    Congratulations you never did know when to stop
    Congratulations

    Parent

    I realize many people may not agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    but the song I have in my head is the stones:

    "you can't always get what you want
     you can't always get what you want
     you can't always get what you want

    but if you try sometimes
    you just might find
    you get what you need"

    Parent

    More like (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:22:29 AM EST
    Fool Me Once by BB King

    When I was a young man, just gotten out
    I didn't know what this world was about
    I was lied, I was cheated, I played all kinds of fools,
    It didn't take me long to learn the rules

    Fool me once, shame on you
    Fool me twice, shame on me
    Fool me once, shame on you
    Fool me twice, shame on me



    Parent
    p.s. Re the St. Helena analogy (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:11:52 AM EST
    and as European history is not my strong suit, just checking:  Wouldn't the potential for Dems be the reverse?  Didn't Napoleon's Waterloo come first?

    As if these wimps will prioritize repro-rights now (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:32:51 AM EST
    ... that this rotten pageantry is done and Obama got to spike a uterus in victory. Same goes for the other features that would actually benefit people.

    There are no forward steps from here. If they couldn't pass truly historical health care legislation explicitly and unapologetically with a supermajority, this was pure election-year posturing to avoid a November bloodbath.

    Obama's only connection with FDR is that I'm never giving Dems another dime.

    Spiked a uterus in victory.... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    All too true

    Parent
    I'm feeling a bit out of place here (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    While this bill (with fixes) could have been a lot better- PO or even better, single payer, there are a lot of good things in it. Anything that made the Right this crazy cannot be all bad. Some at this site seem to be as over the top in their denuciations as the repubs.

    The GOP (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:58:47 AM EST
    is just knee jerking because it's something Obama did. Knee jerking back that produces bad policy isn't the answer.

    Parent
    It also (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    appeals to the base.  Wouldn't make for good TV or good fundraising if they said "Well, we philosophically disagree, but we live by a system of majority-rule in this country, so we will work with our Democratic colleagues to ensure that this bill really does provide access to good health care for all Americans while keeping costs down."

    Parent
    If the goal is making the RW crazy simply existing (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:59:57 AM EST
    ... will accomplish that. You DO get that the Dems gambled (and lost) the already frail protections girls and women have right now?

    Parent
    You're right of course (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    but you have to accept that in denouncing the hopey changey wing of the Party, many here have become charter members of mopey whiney wing of the Party.

    There are many things we may have liked to have included, but thankfully the Dems in Congress took the advice offered by Bill Clinton who failed at this task over 15 years ago. When it comes to moving the country forward with legislation, take what you can accomplish rather than go down in flames reaching for more than you can get. That way you don't have to wait another 15 years to begin moving forward again.

    Parent

    Good One (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:27:40 AM EST
    mopey whiney wing of the Party..

    Same sockpuppet coin, just the opposite side. Lockstep looks the same no matter what the rhetoric is.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    what if all you're able to get is a bad package? This bill is unpopular for good reason. We could have had a good package that was a win/win but Obama decided that he'd rather cut deals than produce good policy. People are continually missing the big picture when it comes to this bill.

    Parent
    A few good things (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    I really dislike the fundamental direction this bill is going.  I would never have voted for the bill.  I am a 'Kucinich.'

    The bill does help some more of the poorer unisured.  The issue will be the states coming up with their share of cost.

    The bill does help some small businesses.  More employees will get some insurance under this bill.  Employers that do not supply insurance may take a hit if they can't find a cheap policy.  Employers that are already supplying insurance will get tax credits.

    The bill does help those in the individual market.  Mass.  proves that the individual market demonstrated cost savings while the group market did not improve.

    The Right is just bat-sh!t period.  This is their legislation.

    Parent

    Shelved my plans to open a new shop, too risky now (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    Health care / coverage was the tipping point, so I've delayed it. (Who needs that headache on top of the inevitable ones?)

    Instead, I'm collecting debts currently owed to yours truly (starting with the SharkCo's at the top of the food chain and working downwards to the smaller fish.) I figure that getting an early jump while the Hopey Changey craze is still in effect is in my best interest.

    Parent

    Someone posted yesterday that 4M (none / 0) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    More employees will get some insurance under this bill.

    people are expected to lose the insurance once provided by their employers. I have no idea whether that statement is closer to accurate than your prediction that more people will get employer-provided insurance.


    Parent

    4 million fewer is the estimate. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    The House bill would have been 6 million more, the Senate Bill was 4 million fewer and the final bill is 4 million fewer. It was said at the beginning of the Senate's deliberations that they wanted employers off the hook and that is what they did. An employer with over 50 employees will pay a fine if any employee receives a subsidy but that will likely be cheaper than providing insurance.

    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    You couldn't receive a subsidy if your employer provided a plan?  Or was it that you cannot drop the employer's plan to participate in an exchange that I am thinking of?

    Parent
    I'm just trying to find a spot to sit too (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Farmboy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    On one side, the right is screaming foul, accompanied by calls for scofflaw behavior. assassination, and secession.

    On the other side, concern trolls, gloom and doomers, and the "Obama is always wrong" crowd are trying to rain on those folks who are happy that at least something passed.

    Parent

    Sit with the O-bots (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    they are having a party.

    Parent
    So you're sending me to St. Helena as well? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Farmboy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    Marvelous.

    Parent
    You seem pleased with the reform (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:55:17 AM EST
    in this bill.

    That puts you in London, not St. Helena.

    I'm in St. Helena, and you appear to disagree with my view of HCR.

    Parent

    As a progressive who (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Farmboy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    thinks that sometimes a long journey begins with a single step rather than a giant leap, I gather exile is the place for me.

    And as an avowed centrist, doesn't your metaphor place you on the side of the Prussians?

    Parent

    On health care? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    Yes, I stand with the Prussians.

    Parent
    It's your metaphor (none / 0) (#91)
    by Farmboy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:24:39 AM EST


    Parent
    at one point you stated it was better (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    to pass the Senate bill plus reconciliation than not to pass it.  Is this still your opinion?

    Parent
    Pretty ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    If you get your directi0on by what the GOP opposes, then you have no actual views of your own.

    Now I have written about this issue for almost a year now.

    I think I explained my views pretty comprehensively.

    And your response is Charles Krauthammer hates it? That's it? Weak.

    Parent

    The New Republic's screaming headline (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by esmense on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    this morning: "Obama Just Sealed His Place in History."

    Only history will tell if that is true, of course. But if the first and most important thing Chiat and his collegues are celebrating is a politician's success, rather than the achievement of affordable health care for all Americans, that tells you that something is wrong with their priorities, or with these "reforms," or both.

    He's sealing his place all right (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by TJBuff on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:18:42 AM EST
    Time well tell if he's actually going to like it.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:07:24 AM EST
    now I guess it's just too bad that the little women had to take it on the chin eh, Bowers?

    The reason women are mad is because we were asked to take a hit for the team for nothing? we got nothing in return for taking a hit and when people sit out elections or vote for a moderate pro-choice republican dont be surprised in the least.

    It's clear (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    that Obama and the Dem party led by Obama think that women's reproductive rights stand in the way of getting things done.  "We can't get anything done!  All we do is argue about abortion!"

    Obama and his party's answer is to stop arguing about abortion.  Consuequently, as a matter of policy and political philosphy, women's reproductive rights are not part of the Dem platform.  As a matter of political philosophy, women' reproductive rights are the fly in the ointment to Dems getting real things done.  That's the political sea change that the EO and Stupak and Nelson highlight.  It's not just optics, the status quo has been significantly changed and that change will reverberate for decades.

    All the insistence that "Things aren't any worse now then they were before" neither recognizes nor understands this dynamic.  Obama has politically neutralized the abortion issue through anti-choice Democratic policies.

    But will women on the left notice and take it seriously, such that elections will be affected?  It would require directly taking on and criticizing Obama (as leader of the Dem party) and the institutional misogyny and disregard for women he's bought into and obviously incorporated into his policy views and goals. So, I'm guessing no.  Especially if the past is any predictor of the future.

    Parent

    This woman will (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by cawaltz on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    His EO cost him. I will not sit idly by while someone calls me or my daughter a second class citizen and uses my reproductive rights as a bargaining chip.

    I daresay I am the only one.

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    but we're hardly a movement or a significant political force.  

    If pro-choice Dems voted like AFSCME members reportedly did for Scott Brown, then we'd be on to something.  Alas, that will never happen.  Like Bonaparte's retinue on St. Helen's, we spend our days squabbling amongst ourselves while our leaders write their self-aggrandizing memoirs of their gloriousness.

    Parent

    Your writing today (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    is really marvelous, this and the previous comment in this thread and more.  Rivaling Ellie!

    Parent
    Watching FOX news (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    and then reading this blog leads to a very surreal experience....

    Charles Krauthamer last night along with all the other FOX folks was genuinely depressed.  Krautuhamer said that this bill was the beginning of regulating the insurance industry into utility (if only it could be) status, socialism was on the rise, we would end up being just like Europe, etc.  I had wondered if this was just tea party rhetoric--but I think they really believe it.

    You read this blog, and the bill is a sop to the insurance industry passed by corporate toadys.

    It is such a divergence of how one views reality....Always knew that was the case but, wow, this bill really has a huge canyon dividing the two views...

    This is because it would seem the bill is a rhorsach test for each side's fears.  With the worst being projected onto the bill.  Just like the Executive Order on abortion....both sides are quite sincere but both cannot be correct.

    Time will tell--if the bill ever gets fully implemented.....

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:24:33 AM EST
    understand their constant whine about Europe. It never ceases to amaze me either how they admire third world countries and want to emulate them.

    Parent
    So strange, isn't it? (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    Everytime they complain about France, I picture myself sitting in the sun in a field of lavender in Provence, and I say "bring it on!"  

    The French are quite satisfied with their health care, and it is top notch care....

    And, yes, they want the way of the aristocracy that exists in the developing world.....Right wingers here just loved the feudalism in Guatemala.....

    Parent

    regulating the insurance industry? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by SOS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    LOL what planet do these guys live on?

    Parent
    Krauthamer... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    Not too long ago, I met him in an elevator.

    A lot of people have no idea how crippled he is.  He can barely use his hands and he lives in a wheel chair.

    He asked me to help him with something that his condition prevented him from doing and I did.

    What's surreal is that he doesn't support the notion of reforming the American healthcare system.

    What's surreal is that this lefty-liberal girl did not just tell him to do it himself because I am fully aware that if I were in his position and in need of assistance that's probably what he would have done to me.  But I was raised right.

    Parent

    I was convinced that (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    Krauthamer is sincere....I had always thought that the smart wingers were just manipulating the tea partiers....but, no, I think they really fear the future slippery slope.....

    Conservatives do fear right...

    Parent

    I think he is sincere. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    That's the problem.  He doesn't care about people as much as he cares about his ideology.

    Parent
    Oh to hear them (none / 0) (#90)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:24:06 AM EST
    this is massive victory for pro-choice forces adn will lead in short order to federal funding for aabortion - which much like some of the criticism of the EO seems misguided given Hydes lasted for nearly 30 years now.

    Parent
    Not even "lead to" (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    GOPer after GOPer on the House floor last night railed that the bill right now includes federal funding of abortion "for the first time in history!!"  Screech, screech, screech!

    No idea where it could have come from, but are fair number of them literally believe it.

    Parent

    Its so stupid (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    I mean lets assume Stupak and Hagel had magically converted to NARAL members and never introduced their respective amendments-- Hyde still would have restricted federal funds- even arguably the usage of such funds in premium subsidies.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#121)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:14:20 PM EST
    according the NRLC, it all depends where the money comes from.  

    Part 1 of the argument:  Hyde is a rider to the HHS appropriations bill, thus it only restricts funds appropriated through that bill.  That's the language of Hyde:  "funds appropriated in this Act".  Funds that don't come through HHS appropriations are unaffected by Hyde.  Thus, laws have to be passed to restrict spending of those funds.  That all seems right at least on the surface.  I'm not up-to-date on all legislative amendment/extensions of Hyde, so that could mean that this part of the argument is inaccurate.  But, again, on its face without further investigation it's clearly right that Hyde on its face only applies to the HHS appropriations bill.

    Part 2 of the arguments:  NRLC then goes on to say that HCR, including the premium subsidies, will not be funded through HHS appropriations to which Hyde applies, but through general treasury funds to which Hyde does not apply.  I don't know if that funding argument is right.  But if it is, it seems that Hyde would not apply.

    So, if part 1 and part 2 are accurate, how does Hyde apply to funding for HCR reform?  Are part 1 and 2 accurate or inaccurate?

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#122)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:15:49 PM EST
    I forgot to say that NRLC's analysis is only done re:  HR 3200.  I don't know if that affects their basic point.

    Parent
    But the Senate bill (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    extended Hyde to health care reform, no?  

    Or, perhaps thay had some convoluted hypothetical of what might occur....that is usuaully what the fear induces in them.

    The Republicans were just totally off-the-rails crazy yesterday.....

    Parent

    Senate Bill and Hyde (none / 0) (#152)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:29:31 PM EST
    But the Senate bill extended Hyde to health care reform, no?

    Yes, and more than Hyde, through the Nelson Amendment.

    Parent

    Here's some discussion (none / 0) (#154)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:32:01 PM EST
    of the Nelson Amendment.

    Parent
    I'm sure they got it from the NRLC (none / 0) (#116)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    Which basically says that Hyde does not apply to the HCR bills because funding for the bills does not come through the HHS appropriations to which Hyde does apply:

    The NRLC, presuming that Gibbs referred to the Hyde Amendment, said the provision applies only to funds appropriated through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

    "Neither the Hyde Amendment nor any other existing restriction will govern the provisions of the pending health care bills that are the focus of the abortion-related concerns," the NRLC reported.

    The proposed bills contain a nationwide government-run insurance program and premium subsidy programs to help tens of millions of Americans purchase health coverage.

    None of the funds for the public plan and spent by the premium subsidy programs would be appropriated through the annual appropriations bill and would therefore be outside the scope of the Hyde Amendment. The NRLC said this analysis has been confirmed by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

    I don't know what the "government-run insurance program" refers to and the article with the quote is from October, but I'm pretty sure the basic point hasn't changed.

    Parent

    Above my pay grade (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:44:22 PM EST
    to figure this out, but I'm dubious if only because of the early reaction of people like Pelosi, who surely do know what Hyde applies to and what it doesn't, when this was first being raised.

    She was (as were other legislators) flatly non-comprehending about how anyone could suggest that federal funds could possibly go towards abortion under this or any other bill, and was vehement that it could not, and that was pre-Stupak.

    So were the Senate HELP and Budget committees, if I recall, which beat back GOP efforts to insert anti-abortion wording into the bill as entirely unnecessary and nothing more than political grandstanding.  And that was before Nelson.

    Whatever the case, it seems pretty clear that Pelosi et al don't believe Hyde only applies to directly HHS-funded programs.

    Also, fwiw, I've not heard in all the noise from the pro-lifers, Dem. and GOP, any mention of the HHS issue as a reason why the bill would permit federal funding of abortion.  Never heard the words "HHS" come out of their mouths, and I've heard a lot of words!

    Wouldn't it be nice if some intelligent journalist would dig into this and sort it out once and for all?

    I don't trust any advocacy groups on this kind of thing, not NRLC obviously but not FDL, either, because they've lied to me, too, to the point that I unsubscribed from their mailing list.

    Parent

    A reasonable position (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    Obviously, I'm not endorsing HRLC's position.  Just saying what it is and adding comments about what I understand and don't understand.

    Though, if Pelosi et al. got it wrong on Hyde, it wouldn't be the first time legislators didn't understand the legislation they pass!  ;)

    Parent

    True enough, but (none / 0) (#176)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    I don't see how this wouldn't have come up before, multiple times before, since Hyde has been around for so long.  You'd think this whole question would have been settled long since.

    It's a mystery to me and will remain so until somebody whose chops and objectivity I can trust sorts it out.  Can't think of a single soul in that category, though, unfortunately.

    Parent

    Hot Stocks, Monday, 3/21/2010 (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by SOS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:13:46 AM EST
    Tenet Healthcare Corp.
    Bristol-Myers Squibb
    Medical devices makers Medtronic
    St. Jude Medical Inc.

    On the plus side, among other things ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    • GOP momentum is broken -- they may not take Congress this fall after all.

    • The cost curve is decidedly bent.

    • Every incremental Public Option and/or "Medcare for More" initiative bends the curve more favorably, while winning political support from budget hawks ... employers ... individuals ... even insurance companies.

    • Millions more gain affordable coverage that can't be taken away.


    Cost curve (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    I hope the Dems stop saying 'cost.'  They had actually removed it from their list of talking points.  I was disappointed to hear some of it last night.

    The bill is insurance reform.  It did not take on cost.

    There is evidence that mandates do nothing for cost.  The nation has had an average premium increase of 33%.  Massachusetts mandate has not decreased cost.  They have the highest premiums in the country and their average premium increase has been 40% (2003-2008.)

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    GOP momentum is broken -- they may not take Congress this fall after all.

    Still remains to be seen.  If people believe they are getting health care now and start to figure out that it won't be for 4 years and that costs aren't controlled, it could still be bad for Dems in November.  Also, the Rs are energized because their constituents (wrongly or rightly) hate this bill, so they will be out voting in force.

       

    The cost curve is decidedly bent.

    There is no real evidence for this and no one will really know until the mandate kicks in.

       

    * Every incremental Public Option and/or "Medcare for More" initiative bends the curve more favorably, while winning political support from budget hawks ... employers ... individuals ... even insurance companies.

    Hopefully.

       * Millions more gain affordable coverage that can't be taken away.

    Not right away, and it still remains to be seen what "Affordable" is and if it stays that way.

    Parent

    PS- Frum's comments - an enjoyable read (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

    Parent
    Federal rate regulation effective 2010 (none / 0) (#169)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    Likewise small employer subsidies, extended drug rebates, dual-eligible coordination, Medicaid for home care, Medical Loss Ratio regulation. Donut hole relief starts 2010, and Medicaid expansion as early as 2011 (state option).

    Ambinder, Fineman, Frum think the GOP has stepped in it. Energized followers can backlash when they realize the end of the world isn't happening on schedule.

    No "hopefully" about it -- budget factors convert PO/SP opponents into advocates.

    Parent

    &, for a change (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Gisleson on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    you're speaking for me as well.

    I haven't had health insurance since 1982 and I didn't wake up feeling any more protected this morning.

    So now what happens. Do I have to lie to my private insurer about my recreational drug use. If I do have to lie (and I think I'd be an idiot not to) do they have to pay my claims when my blood tests turn up THC positive?

    I think this is just one more law I'll be ignoring....

    "Sad" and "frustrated?" (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by lucky leftie on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:31:06 PM EST
    Boo frickety hoo.  If Bowers' right to self-determination had been undermined by this bill he'd be feeling more than "sad."  Women were a key voting bloc in 2008, they supported Obama 56 to 43 percent and this is the thanks we get. Some feminist.  

    It seems obvious that Village Dems are wrong (none / 0) (#15)
    by Faust on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    about the long term effects of this policy as far as cost goes. It seems to me that if you want to shorthand the problems with health care in this country you can reduce it to two fundamental problems:

    1. Cost
    2. Limitations on coverage

    (1) Is obviously caused by the fact that we have a for-profit insurance industry that organizes health insurance to boost profits year after year. It seems clear that nothing in the current bill will significantly alter the ongoing increases in cost.

    So the bill focuses on (2), increasing the number of people covered in various ways, through subsidy, through elimination of insurance disqualification etc.

    So the question seems to be, will the benefits of eliminating some of the restrictions on coverage translate into further changes down the road? Will the bill be viewed as a limited success that people become fond of and want to extend/fix? Or will it shut down further talk of reform for the next 20 years?

    I think this bill is singularly unexciting but I really don't think that the answer to the political consequences are all that clear. So much of the political discourse in this country seems disconnected from substance, that I wouldn't be particularly suprised if the bill turned into either a stepping stone to further reform OR an albatross around the necks of the democrats. It seems to me that there are just too many variables in play.

    Cost is not just about insurance (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by observed on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:50:41 AM EST
    companies. Look at it this way. Are  homeowners' insurance rates going through the roof? Not that I've heard of. Same for car insurance, etc.
    Now, I'm sure the insurance companies are ripping off consumers, but the price increases are largely due to the increased cost of providing medicine.
    You must address that concern as well. The bill tries to do that in a few small ways.
    I have no idea what the answer is.


    Parent
    Riddle me this: (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Faust on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    Why do we pay vastly more per captia for health care than any other industrialized nation in the world, with outcomes that do not reflect that extra expenditure?

    Parent
    One reason - we have a fundamental idea (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    that doctors should get rich. I had this conversation with an arch conservative co-worker a couple of weeks ago, and it came down to that. I kept asking him why we pay so much. Whatever he answered I just asked 'why?'.

    Most Americans can't imagine a scenario in which doctors were on the same income level as say, the highest level of engineers.

    I'm not saying doctors are even motivated to go into medicine to get rich, but that is the model under which our system operates.

    Parent

    I don't think they get rich seeing patients (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:00:52 AM EST
    in their offices. Though, that certainly provides them a high-end level of comfort. They get really rich when the drug and device manufacturers use them for clinical trials.

    It's been harder for doctors to achieve wealth in practice these past couple of decades...because the insurance companies keep the lion's share of the premiums. Lots of doctors left practice and took corporate jobs in medical device manufacturing, insurance, and pharmaceutical sales. I certainly met plenty of them in the '90s.

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    Doctors spend 8 years (or more) training to get where they are, which costs money.  You are paying for their expertise.

    As someone with $100K in law school debt, and 10 years of post-high school education (including a Master's Degree), I sympathize with this argument.

    And yes, both the law and medical profession are monopolies - you can't practice either one unless you have a state sanctioned license after proving you have the education and training. And it's not easy to move from state to state to practice without taking more exams and paying huge fees.

    While that shouldn't be the only factor that determines costs, it is one that needs to be considered.  It's kind of hard to ask someone who has $100K in debt to work for years on end for $40K a year.

    Parent

    then add in (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:34:03 AM EST
    Malpractice insurance, because while Malpractice and the impact of tort reform has been blown out of proportion on the right, the insurance itself is still costly and can top 30k annually in some specialities (and is generally required to practice). (Not to mention that even with tort reform one of the underlying problems related to torts wont be solved- defensive medicine is a major add on for costs).

    *As an addendum Malpractice insurance is much cheaper in other comparable states due to both damgage caps and state subsidies- again the former isn't somethin that I'm necessarily in favor of here, but is something thats a given in systems like Germany (the UK of course is even more favorable for physicians- as long as NICE standards are followed ruling in the favor of the Doc is nearly assured).

    Parent

    Doctors aren't getting rich. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    The reality is that the private insurers have been the primary driver in cost increase in the past 20 years.  It used to be that they paid claims.  Their aggressive efforts to NOT PAY is a key factor in our explosion in medical costs.  What happened is essentially this: As the insurers started rejecting a higher percentage of claims, the providers had to increase base prices to cover losses.  It was a vicious cycle that in combination with a trend towards for-profit hospital enterprises among other things started to spiral up.  So, yes, insurers have raised their premiums to cover their costs, but their failure to pay really contributed greatly to the cost increases.  Doctors, in particular, have gotten caught in the squeeze - that's one reason why doctors started to migrate over to the reform camp.  Insurers have put so much pressure on physicians that there is a term that has come into useage for physicians in private practice called the "Five minute rule" which basically describes how much time they can spend with each patient if they want to keep the lights on and pay the staff to deal with the insurers' games.  Don't let the AMA's early opposition fool you.  They aren't all that representative of the view of the large majority of physicians.

    Parent
    The only way doctors (none / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    will accept lower salaries (though not massively lower) is if we also make med school basically free like it is nations where physician pay is lower- if you graduate with a 200k+ debt load at around 27-30 (post-residency) you almost have to make 150k+ annually to overcome what owe and build towards retirement.  

    Parent
    Interesting parallel in old Soviet Union (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    as I found out when I met a wonderful contingent of Soviet physicians who came to this country some years ago.

    Most were women.  They kept saying how different it is in this country, where medical sorts make so much money.  In the Soviet system, women had much more access to medical schooling (i.e., funding by the government) than in this country at that time.  And with the Soviet system not enabling physicians to make so much more money than others, fewer men were drawn to the long years of training and hours.  But it was better work than a lot of options for a lot of women, so they said that they were not unusual but representative -- that most physicians in the Soviet Union were women.

    I never was able to verify that but found it fascinating for teaching me to realize how much we have structured into our system in weird ways.

    Parent

    when I went to see (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    The guy who wrote "three cups of tea" speak, he talked about how the biggest thing that improves when women are educated is healthcare and the infant mortality rates drop significantly.  

    In that case I don't think it's so much about the money, it's the fact that those are the priorities of educated women - specifically pre-natal and post-natal care.  Where they are apparently not the priorities of educated men in those parts of the world.

    Parent

    Friends of my daughter (none / 0) (#120)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    were in medical school until the school debt reached a level that was too high. They cut off their education when they qualified as Physician's Assistants. Right now that level is paying very well.

    Parent
    That's what (none / 0) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    my daughter hopes to work towards after getting her undergraduate degree in pre-med this Spring.

    There are programs that offer large stipends towards your education under the condition that you work in an area that needs health care providers for a specified number of years after graduation. Guess they couldn't get the MD's to go to these places so the PA's are getting the call.

    Parent

    It will be interesting to see if that (none / 0) (#72)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    rises once all this is in place. Higher costs and lower outcomes.

    I am troubled by the focus of this being all in insurance. Nothing says doctors can't choose a few insurance providers to work with and refuse patients with any other plan. Mandated to pay the insurance premiums, but no guarantee that a doctor will see them.

    If I missed something in reading the bill, or in discussion that says all doctors will be obligated to see anyone who calls for an appointment, I'd be happy to hear about it.


    Parent

    Example (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    Worked at a hospital for years doing budgets.

    Here's an example of how costs get pushed up.

    Equipment:  

    Insurers will drop the amount reimbursed for equipment that is more that say 5 years old (perfectly good radiology equipment) and will maintain the reimbursement amount for new equipment.  The radiology salesman suggests top of the line... the hospital picks one a little less.  The hospital puts in a new structure and the equipment is installed.  The radiology company is unable to get a trainer to the hospital and could care less the hospital is paying $37,000 per month (I stopped the payments) plus the capital cost of the new structure.

    The radiology company then meets secretly with the radiologists.  Gets them to leave the hospital and start their own practice and supplies them with free equipment.  The radiologists are unable to make a go of their business.  The hospital buys the new building and the new equipment.  The hospital returns the other new equipment but must sue to get the erroneous payments back.

    How about nurses.  

    We had nurses who worked full time with 2 10 hour shifts.  If they were to come in any additional hours, they didn't just want time and a half.   They demanded double time.  Nurses make $6 an hour to be on call.  The hospital had to call 23 nurses once as they all refused to come in.  They still received their on call pay.  Nurses get paid two hours for an on call.  We had a problem with a wave of them coming in for 15 minutes whenever they were passing by the hospital on their way running errands saying they were checking on patients when that wasn't a requirement of the level of care the floor they worked on required.  I remember our Admin was upset when the nurses were unionizing.  It turned out to be a cost control on the manipulation.

    Everyone at every level is grubbing for every dollar they can get out of the system.  Greed is good (for the individual.)

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    Part of that is fewer people are owning homes or buying new cars, so that would have to be a factor in the price of home and car insurance, no?

    Health care, on the other hand is constantly being used, and I would say more and more than even 20 years ago, as new diseases pop up (think bird flu, swine flu, etc.)

    Parent

    modern medicine is expensive (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    that's the bottom line.

    Parent
    Right, but (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:05:12 AM EST
    It's not like other consumer products where people will shop around and buy the product at a price point where supply meets demand.  If you are in a car accident, you aren't going to wait a month to see if the hospital offers a coupon or runs a sale.  Much of health care needs to be administered immediately, when people do not have the time to do research, don't have the access to competition, or frankly are not in the right frame of mind to make an educated choice.

    I can always surf the web to see if I can get a better deal on my car or home insurance.  I can join AAA or check out discounts offered by my bank or community associations.

    Not so with health insurance.

    Parent

    The other hidden tragedy in this 'victory' is ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    ... that by the time a person sees that his or her plan isn't working, it might be too late in the process to recover (physically, financially, etc.) The added burden of having to fight the insurer becomes needlessly brutal.

    The right of refusal should have been equalized, but wasn't.

    Parent

    When/if you buy a car, make sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:53:06 AM EST
    If you are in a car accident, you aren't going to wait a month to see if the hospital offers a coupon or runs a sale.

    You take the highest allowed amount in PIP. That's the insurance that has to pay first if you are injured in an auto accident.

    There are medical coverages in nearly every kind of insurance policy. Know your coverage!

    Parent

    Bad example (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    If you have cut a finger off while using an electric knife, you aren't going to take the time to research what hospital offers the cheapest surgery, or see if you should go to a clinic instead.

    You're right about the PIP!

    Parent

    What's a bad example? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    I gave no example. Quoted the comment I was responding to so I could attach it to PIP as being the 1st insurance to pay out in a car accident.

    Health Insurance companies utilize subrogation more and more these days.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    MY example was a bad example!

    Parent
    The prices are inflated. (none / 0) (#88)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    And there are reasons for that - one is the private insurers' failure to pay claims which sends the providers scrambling for ways to cover losses - not just cost.

    Parent
    Maybe costs might go lower (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    as newer treatments become more common and thus less expensive--assuming technological advances can reduce the costs of providing treatment.....

    Republicans believe that rationing is unavoidable....They believe that such rationing should be done via the marketplace with consumers actually having to pay something out of their own pockets, instead of the government mandating the appropriate rationing....

    I could see much higher co-pays and deductibles for those with means, i.e., $200.....

    Parent

    Could have won it...if what? (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:38:16 AM EST
    "I feel frustrated, because I know we could have won the public option campaign, but it didn't happen."

    I feel frustrated too Bowers, because I can rarely understand what you write.

    Just (none / 0) (#51)
    by SOS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    chain your wallet to your back pocket and secure and nail down everything else you want to keep.

    Parent
    Hey maybe (none / 0) (#55)
    by SOS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    real estate values will go up again. Use the home as an ATM machine to make Health Insurance Payments.

    That worked so well for people the first time (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:42:49 AM EST


    Parent
    It seems to me, that if this bill, (none / 0) (#66)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    that is soon to be the law of the land, is to be even marginally successful, it will need to be presented  in more favorable terms than "accolades/reassurances" such as--it is after all, very similar to what that Republican governor, Mitt Romney did in Mass, or it is really just an old fashioned Republican program, not unlike that offered up by Bob Dole (who never saw a corporatist he did not like) during his unsuccessful run for the presidency. Moreover, it is time to clarify and explain that which was unclear and unexplained for the past year, despite best efforts of determined people.  Indeed, even last night many misleading statements were made, many of which did not indicate the timelines or costs.  For example, it was stated that the dreaded "donut hole" would go away (yes, but not fully until 2010, but for starters a 50 percent discount on expensive trademarked drugs), dependents could be retained on parent's policies until age 26 (yes, but it is not free, but will involve additional costs).  These are reasonable roll-outs, but need to be presented up-front, attenuating subsequent surprises, by the Democrats in an organized manner.  Otherwise, it will be easy for the Republicans to chip away at the Act.  There is already fertile ground for that, no need to aid and abet.

    I think you have a typo in your post (none / 0) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    "donut hole" would go away (yes, but not fully until 2010, but for starters a 50 percent discount on expensive trademarked drugs

    It is my understanding that the donut hole will not be fully closed until 2020. People in the donut hole will get $250. this year and the 50% discount on the (existing not current) price of trademarked drugs begins in 2011.

    Parent

    Heh. Correction (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    The doughnut hole doesn't go away until 20*20*.

    Just showing how tough it is to get the dtails on all this stuff spelled out right.

    The other night on Fox, the loathesome faux econmist, WSJ editorial board member and Club for Growth founder Stephen Moore explained to a puzzled Greta Van Susteren that a big chunk of the Medicare savings were going to come from getting rid of Medicare Advantage (true), but he said Medicare Advantage was the prescription drug coverage program.

    So a whole passel of Fox viewers now think this bill entirely does away with Medicare prescription drug coverage.

    Parent

    Gyrfalcon and Blue, (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:32:46 PM EST
    Thanks, It was a typo, I meant 2020, and, hope, that the context (for starters etc.) helped to underscore my error.  Thanks, too, for the clarification, for me, on Medicare Advantage.  In the Senate bill, Senator Bill Nelson was able to keep in it, although its elimination was bruited about.  At the Blair House conference, Senator McCain brought up the need to get rid of it, and the president agreed.  So, it apparently will be in the final bill... if not eliminated, reduced.  The elimination of Advantage was claimed last night by one of the MSNBC talkers telling me what to think, that this will account for the $500 B savings in Medicare plus some other things, but  too important to mention.

    Parent
    IIRC Medicare Advantage reductions (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:44:43 PM EST
    account for approximately $180 billion of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts.

    Parent
    Just because no nation on earth (none / 0) (#69)
    by TJBuff on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:00:21 AM EST
    has ever made our system work is no reason to think that the Village can't manage it.

    On the bright side: (none / 0) (#76)
    by szielinski on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    Passage of the bill does establish as a principle universal healthcare for American citizens.

    On the dark side:

    Of course, the bill fails to deliver universal healthcare to every American citizen. Nor does it treat health care and public health as public goods. And it probably will lock in to place a the government's role as the bagman for the legal, ologopolistic, rent-taking health care system.

    Once again we have a formal promise undermined by the substantial policy.

    I disagree (5.00 / 6) (#157)
    by cenobite on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    It doesn't make health care a right, it makes health insurance an obligation.


    Parent
    It's both but neither (none / 0) (#164)
    by szielinski on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:17:22 PM EST
    Some will be excluded, some will pay, but the promise is blanket inclusiveness. Inclusiveness is a value and an implicit norm. As the Bill states soon after it begins:

    The purpose of this subdivision [of the bill] is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.

    The bill might fail to achieve its stated purpose and it might create the appearance of inclusiveness by mandating the individual acquisition of insurance when necessary, but it clearly asserts that Americans can rightfully lay claim to health care.

    Parent

    Generally, Progressives don't (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    win....They do move the Overton window....

    By the time the "progressive idea" is adopted, it is centrist....

    Chin up....There must be a functioning Left that challenges Obama even if it does not prevail very often....

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#110)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    There must be a functioning Left that challenges Obama

    Is that meant to be an aspirational or descriptive sentence?

    Parent

    I think the Overton window (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    has moved to the Left....Because liberal ideas such as the public option did not prevail, liberals are disappointed....but it was discussed and became part of the public dialogue on a serious basis....

    It may never be implemented but it does perhaps prepare the ground for future movement in other areas....

    I think the public is more accepting of "regulation" of the insurance industry and the financial sector.....This is miles away from Reagan's "government is the problem."

    As idealists, progressives are fated to be disappointed.....

    Parent

    Excuse me, but that's just bunk (none / 0) (#128)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:32:04 PM EST
    "Because liberal ideas such as the public option did not prevail, liberals are disappointed....but it was discussed and became part of the public dialogue on a serious basis...."

    Discussed by whom? Bloggers? It certainly wasn't dealt with in any serious way by the president or the congressional Democrats. They didn't vote on it. In fact, they totally dismissed it as unreasonable from the get-go.

    Parent

    40 U.S Senators signed (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    a letter supporting it--after the Scott Brown election and via reconciliation.....

    So, it was an "almost."  

    It is probably dead....But it makes regulation look tepid by comparison.....and there will be regulation of the insurance industry and financial sector....

    Parent

    Ah, yes. The sternly-worded letter (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:43:24 PM EST
    from the so-called progressive caucus. The pledge on which they folded like deck chairs.


    Parent
    To continue the analogy (none / 0) (#137)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    Napoleon at St. Helena:

    While his household spent much of the five-and-a-half years on the island squabbling with each other, Bonaparte himself set off on what has been called his last campaign - that of writing his memoirs and creating a legend around his name.

    It was undoubtedly his most lasting victory.



    Parent
    And Bonaparte (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    rose because of Robespierre et. al.....

    And perhaps progressives are at Elba, not St. Helena....

    Parent

    Nancy Pelosi passed a public option (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    out of the House....

    Parent
    Finally (none / 0) (#106)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    Someone in MA did their homework to see how this would affect what we've got here today.  For anyone who's interested, here's the gist of it.

    It is interesting to me that it says the mandate will be lowered under the federal plan than what it is today.  This would only happen if the state mandate was revoked.  I always assumed they would be cumulative.

    For some (none / 0) (#170)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:49:52 PM EST
    ...it might be easier to just pay the IRS fine and be done with it. Keith Olbermann is threatening to do neither, we shall see if his actions match his bluster.

    Ooh! (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    He could go to jail!!

    Don't do either Keith!  

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#197)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:55:35 AM EST
    I admit I wouldn't shed any tears, either.
    Progressives At St. Helena | 200 comments (200 topical)