The Progressive "Victories" In The Health Bills

Chris Bowers has a long post arguing that there are progressive wins in the health bills. At this point, there is not much more to say. Either you will believe it is so as Chris does and as the Village Dems will argue. Or you don't. This part made me chuckle though:

Medicaid--Even wash
Progressive proposal (House bill): 150% FPL eligibility with no exceptions; $425 billion in outlays; 15 million people covered

[. . .] How did it happen? By an odd circumlocution, [Ben] Nelson actually did something good for the bill. [. . .] Just about every state gets Ben Nelson's deal for Nebraska, now. The proposed outlays from the White House might exceed those in the House bill.

A big progressive win for Ben Nelson! Of course it wasn't. It was an escape hatch from the Cornhusker Kickback. I have advocated for a similar type of progressive win on the Stupak Problem. Chris has a different take:

9. Reproductive Rights--Mostly Conservadem victory

[. . .] Conservadem proposal (House bill): Stupak amendment that would prevent any insurance plan on the exchange from covering abortion procedures.

Result (Senate bill): Stupak amendment, but on an opt-out basis.

Umm, result? Maybe I missed it, but I thought the Stupak Problem had not been solved yet.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Morning News and Open Thread | Insisting On A "Progressive" Parade Could Hurt Chances Of Passage Of Health Bills >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, sure (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    I believe, as Chris and the Village Dems do, that there are tons of progressive wins in the health bills.  I believe that if I close my eyes, click my heels together and chant "There's no bill like this" three times, it will magically solve most of the health-care problems.  I also believe that there will be rainbow-colored ponies for everyone, and that monkeys will fly out my..........Oh, never mind.

    the problem though (none / 0) (#26)
    by bocajeff on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:51:34 PM EST
    Is that no bill or system is perfect. There will be problems with every type of insurance. Single payer Canada style has problems. Great Britain...please! Pick a program - pick a problem...

    I would much rather have the Canadian problems w/ (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    their current system than the problems we're going to have with Obama's BHIP-PPP (Big Health Insurance Parasites Profit Protection Plan).

    I'd sure rather have my choice of doctors and hospitals, not the BHIPs'. I'd really like keeping my health CARE COVERAGE in case of job loss or illness, instead of going bankrupt. I'd sure like my government fighting to keep prescription costs within reason...or let me reimport form, oh, Canada.

    I'd prefer France's problems, even Great Britain's, to paying double per person, with still many of our people NOT covered. I'd love to have an ER system which comes to my house if I really have trouble getting to the doctor's office. Dental and vision, as could be done under Medicare (Improved!) for All...with a robust private option, with savings currently of $400B a year -- that's what I'd like.

    But, hey, some people like being hosts to parasites. Shudder.


    True - nothing's perfect. (none / 0) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    But there are some things in life that are less perfect than others.

    I honestly don't (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:16:31 PM EST
    get the Single Payer Hype- I mean if we're going to do a massive Healthcare Overhaul why not go with a Public-Private hybrid like the French, Germans, Japanese, etc. use it'd be easier to establish and is according almost all studies both more efficient and more effacious.

    Because nobody trusts the government to heavily (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    regulate the insurers, which is required to make a public-private partnership work.

    Well that and we have a history with single payer - Medicare - so that it's not something Americans don't know (they know and love Medicare) and actual legislation that would accomplish it.  


    Bingo (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 07:31:17 PM EST
    (Not that it's that hard to figure out...)

    Hope this is not OT, but who saw Obama (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    at the school in PA today?
    I'm sorry, he just reeks of used car salesman in his pitch.
    My opinion (yeah yeah, it's worth the paper it's printed on as you read): the actual dollar cost of the mandated insurance buys will shock people.
    There's not enough good in the bill to outweigh the negative side of the mandate, as it exists in this bill.

    Yep, since 30 cents on every dollar... (none / 0) (#20)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    ... goes to health insurance company CEO salaries and bonuses, profit, and the call centers to make sure people don't get care.



    So, are you suggesting, (none / 0) (#27)
    by bocajeff on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    that getting rid of high salaries, bonuses and profit would make every industry work better? Or is it just health insurance? If so, why?

    It IS dysfunctional (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    to suggest that it is healthy for a HEALTH CARE system to be have a system that highly incentivizes DENIAL OF CARE.

    I don't begrudge anyone success, unless it's done of the backs and lives of other families. Then I start to think that MAYBE it's wrong for people to make millions of dollars off the strategy of different ways to deny a sick person who has paid into your system with the belief that when he/she got sick they'd have care, the actual care they need.


    Parasites (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    That's what the health insurance industry is.  They don't provide anything that is needed in exchange for the money they siphon off, which is why they need to be killed (before they kill any more of the host).

    Insurance is something that you pay for because, in theory, it protects you against greater losses.  In other words, the product insurance companies offer that is theoretically worth their profits is insurance against financial calamity.  Given the number of people who buy healthcare insurance and still end up in bankruptcy over healthcare costs, it's pretty clear that the insurance is more or less worthless since it does not insure you from bankruptcy (which is the entire point of insurance).  Then there is the stupidity of tying your insurance to your job.  As James Kwak pointed out at Baseline Scenario, most people do not actually have health insurance, even those who think they do because they pay a company for it.

    So why pay a company to provide you with a worthless service that will only last as long as your job lasts when you can ban together with your fellow citizens and get it cheaper from your government (also freeing up the capital wasted on health insurance parasites to go to more economically important activities, like say building businesses in your community instead of continuing to pay to outsource call centers to Asia)?  

    To subsidize businesses that are failing and provide defective services isn't capitalism, it's stupid.


    It isn't the salaries, etc. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dkmich on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    For-profits are chartered for one reason - to make the greatest profit off their product or service they can.    Some things should pay well but still not be for sale to the highest bidder:  courts, police, prisons, medical care, teachers, Senate, elections, etc.  

    Most industries don't profit off the misery (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by esmense on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:43:49 PM EST
    of others. Initially and for many decades health insurers (such as Blue Cross and Blue shield) were mostly non-profit, enjoying tax exempt status as "welfare organizations." Early in the last century, when various forms of pre-payment plans for medical care were first being tried and coming into relatively common use, sick and dying people weren't seen as likely sources of profit, or, for that matter, appropriate sources of profit.

    Things began to change after the introduction of federally supported "managed care" in the early 70s. Managed care made it possible for insurers to profit from the DENIAL of care -- and that invited, for the first time, the interest and participation of both for-profit insurers and the financial markets. Gradually, health insurance become almost entirely for profit (and the tax laws changed too). Now this huge for profit industry, that wouldn't exist without the HMO act of 1973, is so financially and politically powerful that it is dictating the terms for all future government "reform" of the system.

    Ironic, isn't it?



    What actual value do insurance companies bring to (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    providing health CARE? Medicare (Improved!) for All still has the same private providers, which the patient selects, at lower cost (5 cents out of every dollar vs 30 cents on average to the BHIPs (Big Health Insurance Parasites), and with the robust private option people can opt to pay the high rates if they wish.

    Again, what value do they add? Medicare pays for care with vastly lower overhead. What does the 30 percent give patients?

    We know it gives a large donar base to politicians. It creates some extra Uberwealthy CEO's and execs. What else?


    It is different (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    when someone is selling you something you don't take possession of until you need it - and even then you have to apply for it and have it granted to you. And the executive bonuses depend on how well they deny you what you think you bought.

    I don't begrudge anyone a bonus if they sell me a good or service that is worth what I am paying for it.


    Let me answer that question by asking one (none / 0) (#56)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:04:00 PM EST
    What value do the health insurance companies bring to the transaction? Anthony Weiner asked that, and nobody seems to be able to come up with an answer.

    NOTE No, I didn't say that applies to every industry. Obviously.


    Notice how Bowers and Klein have managed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    to move the goalposts. You started by saying that progressives effed up in their negotiating strategy. They responded by saying "nuh-uh, there's progressive stuff in this bill!"

    So you have analysis, and they have a laundry list. They essentially filibuster the discussion with long-winded post that aren't responsive to your point.

    Jobs for the boiz (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    When Klein takes over Broder's desk, Bowers can have Klein's blog.

    That's what this is about, and that's all that it's about.


    Bowers next assignment is to work on SocSec (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    and entitlement costs for some new think tank. Think he'll see the light about need to make cuts?

    Here's a list of contradicting statements from Bowers that VastLeft drew up over at Corrente.


    Boy, they're really talking to Obama (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    aren't they?

    I dunno (none / 0) (#10)
    by cenobite on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    It doesn't seem so much like goalpost-moving as damage control.

    Nah (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    They're just justifying their own beliefs.

    Goalpost moving... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:39:49 PM EST

    I've long felt the administration has done a poor job explaining that its health-care bill is an incremental, centrist compromise that resembles nothing so much as the Republican health-care bills proposed in the 1990s.


    But the fact of it is that this bill represents an enormous leftward shift for American social policy.

    Those statements, I suppose, could both be true (although they never appear together in one article).  But damn, that is a sad state of affairs for progressives.  If this approach is going to continue then we aren't going to get very far in the next 3 years on progressive legislation...and we may wonder if it was worth it to tread so lightly around Lieberman and other conservative Senators in the hopes of not pissing them off and securing future votes.  


    Not enourmously leftward for (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    those of us old enough to remember what left really is.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:57:27 PM EST
    this is what I find funny from an Obama-hearting "progressive" point of view:

    1.  Bill Clinton was actually a Republican and he sucked!  (Remember this mentality?)
    2.  We need Change and not more of the 90s.
    3.  Let's pass a health bill that looks like Bob Dole's.

    Did GW Bush really destroy this country so greatly that the best we can do is the 90s?  I guess he did, but damn, nothing good will be accomplished in the future if progressives run around rationalizing every compromise Obama makes.

    And.  Progressives like Bowers act like these small victories are worth the sacrifice of the public option.  They sell themselves short - they elected Obama (they can argue that anyway) and were responsible for the most popular aspect of health care reform (the public option).  They act like some marginal fringe group, when in reality wingnut "death panelers" were...nonetheless, "death panelers" won.


    What does Ezra really know (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    about Bill Clinton?  Did he go to DC and visit the White House when he was like ten?  By the time he was four or five, the old great lefty liberals were already pretty much gone or marginalized by the end of the Reagan/Bush era.  Empty suits like Evan Bayh were on the rise.  He's writing his own version of history which has little to do with actual history.  He hasn't a clue what "left" is.

    I remember left. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by dkmich on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    I remember when almost the entire Republican Party was more liberal than this group of pragmatic corporatists claiming to be Democrats.

    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    I remember when Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter looked like they were from the right's version of planet loon.  I had NO idea how much farther right people could get.  Of course, I always loved our country and our democracy.  I remember when the Reaganites came to DC to dismantle government and I just couldn't understand how or why they were so hateful and resentful.  Those people seem tame by comparison these days.

    Dennis Gets It (none / 0) (#53)
    by kidneystones on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 07:00:50 PM EST
    TPM: Will Dennis Kucinich be the Ralph Nader of Health Care Reform?

    There's your TPM Village Narrative. The DFH's are killing hcr. I'm extremely busy and figured I'd simply read and rec a few comments here and there. I wanted to point go Dennis as a good Dem, but the proof is in the pudding.

    Village Dems are going to make Dennis the fall-guy for their own failures. You can almost taste the bitterness of their anticipated defeat.

    Seeing Dennis stand tall where so many have capitulated must really burn.

    Three cheers for Kucinich!


    The TPM comment thread makes (none / 0) (#59)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:53:29 AM EST
    this place look like Friends.
    Most people just want to "pass the damn bill"; anyone who questions that position is attacked mercilessly.

    This is a superb site (none / 0) (#60)
    by kidneystones on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 07:51:21 AM EST
    IMHO, Jerlyns has.

    Well, if I ever was here before (none / 0) (#62)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    I learned some lessons about how to behave reasonably. Otherwise I just learned them from watching for the last few months:)

    For me, the most helpful thing is to avoid a long back and forth with one person with whom I disagree. I still violate that sometimes, but I'm better than I might have been before.


    Um Ralph got it as well (none / 0) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    How is what Nader did in 2000 any different from what Dennis is doing here- If Gore had simply shifted his platform to match Naders he wouldn't have lost those votes- sure we can argue that it was stupid, and self-defeating but that's the exact same argument that people are mounting against Kucinich here- its just viewed with more sympathy.

    I'm beginning to think BushBoy did just what he (none / 0) (#50)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    was put in office to do: Get more ultra conservatives on the Supreme Court and run up the debt so that any lib/progressive Dem who became president could do virtually nothing.

    Wall St realized just about any Dem was going to win the presidency, so they took a hand in assisting the selection of a center right Corporatist Dem. A friend in need is a friend indeed...

    So, Bush suffers ignominy (as if he can), but has his wealth, his Paraguayan landgrab, and there will be Repubs and willing MCMers* to rehab his record. Just wait.

    *MCMers -- Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media


    1st Ezra - 1/29/10, 2nd Ezra-3/8/10--5 weeks makes (none / 0) (#48)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    such a difference!

    Ah, Ezra: The Internet remembers, even if you don't.


    Scorekeeper's Note: (none / 0) (#38)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    Bowers tallies gains and losses with respect to the state of draft at an intermediate point in legislative history (as does BTD, mostly), as a proxy for negotiating finesse.

    One could choose different anchor-points, with resulting differences on the negotiating scoreboard.

    None of this scores the outcome with respect to the status quo ante.

    Likewise, none of it scores the legislative outcome with respect to alternative futures governed by alternative legislative histories (with consequent alternative political and economic histories).

    I know you are clear on this, andgarden, but the context may lead unwary readers into confusion.

    "Just covering all possibilities. Zathras does not want you being confused."


    As the economy hurtles toward the (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    second crash, I can't even manage to get mildly excited about any of it....not even the medicaid part.  Certainly not about any kind of subsidies, don't you have to have a job to be able to need a subsidy?  I think that most of the fixes I need will show up about the same time this bill would have gone into affect, but I think my fixes will come with pitchforks :)

    Move the opportunity to lose your house... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    ... and all your assets before getting care up the income ladder.

    That's what Medicaid expansion means. Go, progressives!


    Reminds me (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    I haven't paid you in awhile for a being a gloom and doomer :)

    You couldn't pay me enough! (none / 0) (#55)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:01:33 PM EST
    There's gloom and doom for you!

    I thought (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    we were supposed to be partying in the streets at the inclusion of an Insurance Exchange.

    9. At the time, speculators speculated that ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:30:43 PM EST
    ... by the time Ben Nelson's "Nebraska Kickoff" stopped bouncing around, the political dynamics would result in a more federalized Medicaid financing model - and a counter-intuitive progressive win!

    Of course, I know little of such things ... but I may have posted on the prospect somewhere or other.

    Speaking of speculations, here's the latest chart on InTrade's proposition wager that HCR passes by 6/30.

    It was all a progressive plan to (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    federalize Medicaid.



    In RonK's defense (none / 0) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    I remember when he posited that this might be a shrewd move by Reid and I remember agreeing that if it was so that Reid definitely executed an awesome chess like move that would move things left(more would ask for Nebraska deal).

    Call me a skeptic (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    I seem to remember you having said (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    that it would be a possible outcome.

    But I don't think it was the goal all along. Senate dems are not that smart.


    It wasn't the plan (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    Just like the excise tax fix that Obama has ended up at wasn't the plan either.

    These were not progressive wins so much as accidental good outcomes from over dealing.


    Yup (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:02:46 PM EST
    Just as Medicare expansion almost was IMO.

    W/ Baucus's former chief of staff on Obama's staff (none / 0) (#51)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:02:33 PM EST
    --working on health insurance for both men-- how could Baucus really do things Obama did not want? Or, maybe Obama just didn't know he wanted them, and was bedazzled by Jim Messina?


    I think Obama wanted a Baucus-type bill; otherwise, he would have put a Kennedy staffer in the WH to shepherd the health legislation through the Congress.

    But Obama wanted a health INSURANCE reform, not health CARE reform. So, please give Obama credit for what he's accomplished.


    Nothing wrong with being skeptical (none / 0) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    Particularly when in both of our opinions Reid's done a lousy job supervising and ensuring the health care bill was as palatable to the Democratic base as possible.

    I just think that it is within the realm of possibilities that ol' Harry Reid may have been shrewd and out smarted Nelson on this one area.

    I can be gracious enough to give RonK this one thing to crow about.

    I'm still not budging on Stupak and the House though. (It's where WE vehemently disagree BTD and I think you are underestimating the ire of females who believe in choice who will still rightly see this as an expansion of hateful anti choice legislation).


    I like you, BTD, I really like you ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    ... but I might have liked you even more back when you said you didn't know much about this HCR stuff and consequently wouldn't post much on it.



    Not surprising at all (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    You never could handle being challenged.

    100 Senators, 100 Strategies (none / 0) (#18)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    But unplanned scores count just the same, do they not?

    On a tangential note -- credit Sen. Cantwell (D-WA) for jamming as much good old-fashioned American socialism as the market would bear into the Senate version (which - if I knew anything about such things - which of course I don't - I might have suggested somewhere would dominate the end-game deliberations, for reasons of institutional structure and coalition dynamics.)

    And if I knew anything at all about such things - which of course I don't - I might hypothetically speculate that Rep. Stupak doesn't swing as much weight in the end-game as many imagine ... for reasons closely linked to some of these other things I know nothing about.

    And in the same preposterous hypothetical, I'd might even run off at the mouth "concern trolling" about Sen. Nelson's abortion language in the Senate/Obama result being even more pernicious than Rep. Stupak's language in the House version.

    Fortunately for all, I know next to nothing of such things.


    Explain (none / 0) (#23)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    please, how Stupak doesn't swing as much weight in the end game.

    How many divisions has Pope Stupak? (none / 0) (#47)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    As you've no doubt read here and elsewhere ... I know nothing of such things.

    But those who do know or pretend to know will be publishing more whip counts than you can count.

    The armchair fan may find this one from the Hotline organized in useful fashion.

    Note: to be properly included in Stupak's "dozen", the Rep in question must be:

    1. a deliverable "No" in case Stupak's amendment fails (whether or not he gets a vote).
    2. a deliverable "Yes" in case it succeeds.

    The first Stupak Amendment vote was taken before Sen. Nelson of Nebraska propounded the Senate version's anti-abortion plank (which might well satisfy many House Stuppers).

    Most Stuppers are also fiscal conservatives (I'd label them budget alarmists), or represent Blue Dog districts.

    Some of these, Stupak can't bring to "Yes" anyway (because they have underlying objections to the whole thing).

    Some of these, Stupak can't hold to "No" (because the more conservative Senate/Obama version relieves enough underlying objections).

    Some of them will be satisfied short of voting "on principle", given a sufficient fig leaf to show to home district voers - which can usually be arranged.

    Further, all of them will be subject to the very considerable combined personal sit-down you-are-the-deciding-vote persuasions of the White House, House leadership, and some Party leadership (national and home state/district).

    And Pelosi has other places to shop for votes, giving these hold-outs less incentive to hold out (except as posturing for home-district consumption - for which purpose Pelosi will grant only as many free passes as she can afford, and not one more).

    At least those are some of the considerations I might entertain, if I knew anything at all of such matters - which of course I don't.


    I hope for your parties sake you are right (none / 0) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    about Stupak and if Nelson's is more pernicious and it gets included you better equally worry.

    I spent 2008 enlightening Republican women that their birth control pills were now considered an abortifactent(and you'd be amazed a how many didn't know). Since I didn't have to canvas for Obama and all and I had decided that I would not activiely oppose him. I will have no problem in 2010 enlightening Democratic women as the depth of the Democrats betrayal on their reproductive choice.

    While the Democrats and Republicans play games I look at the end sum game. I will not care that you passed a health care bill unless that bills value exceeds its negatives(hint: we won't qualify for the exchanges, we barely miss the excise tax, and we are a 2 female household which means paying more for our services(even though I know that my daughter will likely earn less than my sons). Short of the fact my soon to be 18 year old will get an additional 7 years of coverage and I will never need to worry that the fact that a derm saw a mole on my daughter she thought warranted consideration will never mean she never has to worry that she will outright be denied-you notice I didn't say the bill meant she'd get affordable care- the takeaway is more bad then good. That doesn't bode well for your side. Particularly since I will NOT be saying this time I around I will sit on the sideline and let others weigh things.

    I might "concern troll" that if I were you instead of worrying about assuaging the Nelsons and Stupaks that you worry about actually figuring out how to pass something that actually achieves the plank of the Democratic party platform.


    and I'll tag along (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    and ask them if they've ever considered going Green Party  ;)

    They're taking their cue (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    From the WH, who puts their chances at 51% of passing the bill.

    'They' means any number of bettors ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    ... wagering their own real money. [routine disclaimers elided]

    Here's another perspective on the apparent bump in fortunes, from Marc Ambinder:
    Perfect Storm Nearly Killed Health Reform; Another Storm May Save It


    The change of some bill, any bill is 100% (none / 0) (#57)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:07:43 PM EST
    The bill was cut loose from any policy moorings -- aside from bailing out the insurance companies with our tax money, just like the banks -- quite some time ago.

    I've decided NOT to "bailout" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:28:00 PM EST
    those poor, poor insurance companies. Like I do with my food and other services, I'm buying local. Support your local public health clinic! My new new 'hood has some decent clinics from what my research says and they also just got some more Fed $$$$. I figure some paying customers will help them out also, no?

    You know, nycstray (none / 0) (#61)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    I like that idea -- a LOT. My state has several community health centers (one even has a dental clinic), and payment is based on your ability to pay. I know my ability to pay is much higher than the average person going there (their statements say that 98% of people who go are below the federal poverty level) -- while I have a job that is!! -- but I'd be more than happy to pay extra and consider it a donation to a worthy cause. If Obama wants to force me to buy insurance I will decline and give my money to these health centers, instead. (And pay the fine, I guess, but that's the breaks.)