New Mexico isn't a tiny white state its majority Hispanic/Native American.

That doesn't undermine your argument, per se, but I'm from New Mexico and there's another side to things -- sometimes it sucks to be from a tiny non-white state when big national issues are decided. Like, you know, when people who use nuclear power in the northeast need a place to dump their waste, it goes in your tiny, non-white backyard.

I don't know what Bingaman's playing at here, though. He's mostly a good guy.

After reading the linked article and making at least an attempt at understanding the objections as well as the proffered solutions, I have to conclude that this blog is more of that good old partisan hackery that was so unattractive when the right did it and is no less so coming from the left.

For the people who are linked and/or comprehension challenged, the NY Times piece says the following about what the FINANCE committee is trying to accomplish:

1. Reach the goals laid out by the president to increase access to health care and health insurance.

2. Include a public plan in the form of non-profit insurance collectives that can bargain holistically to achieve economies of scale and offer a low-cost alternative to small businesses, the self employed and those without insurance for whatever reason.

3. Replace an employer mandate for coverage with a fee should they not offer coverage that is equal to the benefits their employees would be eligible for under the public plan.

4. Do all of the above within a cost structure that is sustainable over the long-term even while it addresses short-term concerns.

They don't really talk about some things I would think would be important to long-term health care costs such as corn subsidies, combining all existing federal medical plans into one organization and what the regulations will look like for private insurers when it comes to providing a service to their clients.

I found very little to disagree with when it comes to some of their financial objections to the current plan, even if I would personally like to see different solutions. I certainly don't think the fact that they come states with mostly white populations that this is some sort of racially motivated deliberation. That is actually kind of irresponsible for a front page post such as this without a lot more verification than you provided in this blog or the linked NY Times article.

President Obama is here largely because of the Iowa Caucus, one of the whitest states in middle of the country.

It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.

Couldn't hardly be more screwed up than this. These senators are mostly a worthless bunch of dumbasses and greedy cocksuckers who have their heads up their asses. Making it even worse is the obvious fact they are doing this for money and lie through their teeth about it. They shouild be impeached.

By my math, 1.6mn out of 8.3 mn is about 20%. If minorities are up to 30% of the U.S. population, then these six states underrepresent minorities as a percentage of the U.S. population, but still represent much more diversity than than the Senate itself (1 black, 2 hispanics, 2 asian, 17 women).

Would it have been better if more diverse states like California (2 white women), Texas or New York (1 man, 1 woman, both white) or Mississippi or Alabama(2 white men) were included among the "rump group."

I think your constitutional history needs some work. To our founding fathers the strong federal system was more classist than anything else. White male property owners, some presumably educated were the only elegible voters and the purpose of the electoral college was for a smaller learned elite to override the larger voting public if necessary. The Senate was designed to equalize power between large and small states. All of these checks and balances were because of a larger misgiving about a strong central authority. This is US History 101.

Are some of these mechanisms now anachronistic and counterproductive? Yes. But our founding fathers had good reasons then and it had little to do with race.

Healthcare is more of an economic issue than a racial one. Besides I doubt you'd bring this up if the rump ground included senators from RI, MA or VT.

I'm not sure Newman is suggesting racism is in play. I think his point is underrepresentation of minorities. It's not necessarily racism, but with fewer voices at the table, it's easier to keep your blinders on.

For me, a bigger issue is lack of socio-economic diversity.

Several things

First, we need statehood for New Columbia and the time is now. I know that it won't actually make the filibuster more difficult, but it is a step.

Second, forget Grassley and Enzi -- they would never support anything progressive anyway

But the so-called "moderate" GOP are a problem -- we saw the awful sacrifices that had to be made to pass the stimulus (and I've been harping on the issue on and off TPM w/Nathan Newman and others that we need a second stimulus, including massive monies (starting with what was cut out of the original stimulus) asap, and probably each fiscal year that the slump continues with similar monies for foreclosure relief and for students/public higher education.

There's plenty of reason why a NE DEMOCRAT would be much better than Snowe and Collins, and they know it. It is only the fear that the national Democrats will get their SH together and get at least one or two DEMOCRATS from Maine, a blue state, that keeps them willing to even entertain anything progressive. A pro-choice Republican is nothing compared to a Democrat, even one relatively moderate, who is almost certain to also be pro-choice.

Now we turn to Baucus, Bingaman and Conrad. They represent small states which are either "red" or (like NM) "purple" or swing states, where Democrats need to appeal more broadly, and where even if the public is in general likely to support, say, public option (also in red states) they won't dump the Democrats over that. The Democrats need to solidify politically where possible, and then be a little more disciplined the way the GOP is, and Obama is the one who needs to draw a line in the sand and say 'no genuine public option and I will veto' and seriously bust heads and make deals in Congress (as a president has the pwoer to do), including a little pork where needed, to get a certain minimum of a program through.

I know that Krugman and others will oppose this, but the mandate part, including for employers, is more compromisable for me than public option and the Kucinich amendment (allowing states to opt into a single-payer system without prejudice to their federal health funding)

I have railed here time and again at the fallacy of corporate personhood and have written letter after letter to our elected officials about it.

It is simply impossible to objectively evaluate this and not grasp the ethical, logical and political corruption of this.

Relative to laws that have been passed which have seriously harmed this nation and the laxity of our regulatory agencies which strongly suggest a seriously compromised bureaucracy the only truly possible conclusion is that we have a government where corruption is running wild and is fully out of control. There is just no way to accommodate the astonishingly false statements and absurd positions of a good number of our U.S. Senators without acknowledging the corruption. It cannot be done. These people have totally abandoned their national loyalty, patriotism and integrity for the sake of power and money. We have already been made privy to where this leads and it is assured that things will grow worse over time. Anyone who thinks this isn't going to end in something very bad sometime in the forseeable future has blinders on. No society in all of history has ever survived the degree of ethical and moral decay of leadership we are witnessing without suffering extreme repercussions. We'll not be an exception.

Thanks Nathan. I lifted your numbers for my own post at Angry Bear this morning. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/07/was-it-gang-of-seven.html

Last week it was widely reported that Orrin Hatch had left the 'bi-partisan' discussions led by Baucus. Bloomberg: Republican Hatch Leaves Bipartisan Health Care Talks. Which at the time I took as a positive sign that we might get more balance. But as we have learned more detail about the remaining Gang of Six and their even split between Democrat and Republican this suggest that they were originally a Gang of Seven with a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY. Am a missing something here?

And if we add Utah to Nathan's list we would have a state that per the 2000 census was 95.2% white, only 1.14% black thus throwing the overall demographic imbalance that much MORE out of whack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah#Race_and_ancestry

In population Utah is mid-way between Iowa and New Mexico and so still by any account a small state. Unless my reading comprehension has taken a huge hit we seem to have a situation that is terribly unfair today than a week ago was horrifically unfair.

I am trying hard to not be a Reid basher. But if he allowed an unofficial majority Republican sub-committee to hijack this bill then it gets harder and harder to have any sympathy at all. I get that managing the Senate is like herding cats, but that doesn't mean standing helplessly crying 'Shoo!' and hoping the kitties don't scatter.