HEALTH CARE MUSINGS
On a more important note:
There was a monumental, historical step taken yesterday in the People's House. There were sooooo many issues involved that we could do three hundred blogs (not that we could not find three hundred blogs on the subject over this calendar year) on the two thousand pages of legislation. And each blog could take a different angle.
From a strategic standpoint, I believe that Pelosi went through with the vote knowing that she had the votes. How far left can you take the legislation without losing so many Dems that it would all go for naught?
And she probably thought she had 218 votes and was a little surprised to find a couple extra.
I also believe that the 39 who 'flew the coop' did so with permission from the top leaders for political reasons. Nobody was blind sided in this vote.
One who voted against this historical piece of legislation was Representative Kucinich. I believe that he suffers from something I call the "Nader Syndrome"; a form of mental illness that injures the left greatly along with the rest of our nation.
If the piece of legislation is not perfect, well we can not and will not vote for it.We must have honor.
We must have sticktoitiveness at all times to our values.
We must never compromise with the infidels.
Well guess what? There are over 300 million people in this
country. And only 435 people can represent the millions in the People's House.
And we have the third greatest area of any country in the world.
Which means that Montana's health issues vary greatly from New York City's health issues.
Now, we could have had the best legislation for our national health care problems, in my humble opinion, by simply enacting one sentence into law:
Hereinafter, all citizens of the United States of America qualify for Medicare once they reach the age of 21.
There. Kucinich would have signed on to this bill. But it would have been defeated by one or two hundred votes.
Now the fact is that the Senate will not sign onto everything contained in the two thousand pages. As a process, it will be more than interesting to see how this plays out in this undemocratic Upper House of Congress. Think about it. The Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Vermont, Alaska, Maine, Hawaii and New Hampshire comprise less than twelve million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
But these states get twenty two percent of the votes in the Upper House of Congress. Four percent of the population gets a twenty two percent vote.
California, Texas, NYS and Florida have a combined total of almost one hundred million people. One third of our entire population lives in four states and they get eight percent of the vote in the Senate.
What is is, and what is not is not. If you believe in our Constitution, then this is the structure of things.
North Dakota has different concerns from NYS. But despite the fact that ND has one fortieth of the population of NYS, it has an equal vote.
Well you get the idea. A Dakota Democrat has a different take on things than a NYS Democrat.
Now Minnesota is kind of a middle state. We have nine times the population of North Dakota but only a quarter of the population of NYS. But we are lucky to have two of the most liberal senators in the nation.I believe that we as citizens must make our voices heard. We must communicate with our elected representatives.
But I think we have to step back a little from pronouncing Max Baucus as satan incarnate. I think we have to give a little slack to Senator Lincoln from Arkansas. These people will help get our Federal Judiciary straightened out. They are more likely to vote for important COLA legislation for the poorer among us. Later on they may help us in a number of different areas involving important. legislation.
There are life and death issues here folks. We will get no cooperation from repubs; although there might be a couple of exceptions involving the Senators from Maine.
The Democrats are our only hope. There are fifty eight Democrats and my favorite socialist from Vermont. Hahaha. That is it. I do not count on Lieberman for much of anything.
And there is the problem of cloture or modern filibuster that is correctly pointed out in Café blogs on occasion. But it becomes confusing at times.
The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (For changing of senate rules the pre-1975 rule of a super-majority of senators present, i.e. 67 senators at most, is still used).[9
I think the confusion comes into play with the anticipation of a filibuster along the lines discussed in Wiki's short discussion.
Forty one senators can, at times, stop legislation in its tracks. So if all forty repubs and Lieberman work together, they could stop Health Care reform. Now at that point, I would vote to keep Lieberman out of any leadership position...hell I would vote to kick his ass out of the Democratic Caucus altogether.
But if legislation comparable to the legislation passed last night gets through the Senate, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE OF CLOTURE.Representatives from the People's House meet with representatives from the Senate and come up with one bill. A vote is then had in the House and in the Senate. In order to pass that revised bill in the Senate, the Dems need fifty votes along with the vote by the Vice-President.
So what we need, in order to get health reform in this country, is almost any health bill passed by the Senate that can then be revised later on in Conference.
In order to complete the first step in health care reform in over 45 years, further compromises must be made. Then there will be chess games played after the Senate puts together its bill.LET US PRAY.
This addendum has nothing to do with anything really but it caught my eye and I wondered what you thought about it:
"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."
In a climate where Republicans who criticize Limbaugh come crawling back on their knees (see TPM's "Forgive Me Rush" photo feature), Cantor's office has pointed reporters to the story, emailing the link to Glenn Thrush's post on Cantor's remarks.
It's worth noting that Limbaugh made the comment in question -- "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" -- on Aug. 6. Cantor at the time did not respond publicly to calls from Jewish groups to condemn the remarks
I do not like Representative Cantor. I have seen his appearances on cable.
Usually he just repeats the talking points of the RNC...hell he is the RNC. It never occurred to me that he was Jewish.
But I did not know that he was THE ONLY JEWISH REPUBLICAN in the House of
Representatives. I find that so strange. I mean there are no Black Republicans
in the House, since that fellow from Oklahoma
quit politics.
And I had thought that the Christian Right had accepted the Jews on this strange logic surrounding the end of times and such.
And I know there are hundreds of thousands of conservative Jews in this country; hell look at Michael (The Weiner) Savage.
I just found this interesting is all. And that ends my reading from the Hebrew Text for today.
Thank you for that. I ask you (rhetorically), do you prefer half a loaf, or none?
Or, as Eddie Izzard might express it: Cake, or death?
Before Kucinich runs for President again, I want him to show he can win a statewide election in his home state of Ohio.
What are the odds?
Progress is measured in increments, not leaps, and history has shown us time and again that there is rarely such a thing as a decisive battle. Leyte Gulf, for all its classical naval drama, was not - the war in the Pacific was winding inexorably to a close. The Battle of the Bulge was not either. In fact, quite the contrary - it shows how easily a salient is reduced, as opposed to a broad-front advance.
(History buff here, I ought to note.)
November 8, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Battle of the Bulge happened because two arrogant generals (Eisenhower and Montgomery) were asleep at the switch and refused to believe that Germany was about to mount a counter offensive. Even though all the intelligence (oxymoron ?) pointed to it.
One who had both parents in Europe during the war.
C
November 8, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
While that is the case, it is also a textbook illustration of the inevitable failure of a salient. There was literally no chance of success for the Wehrmacht there, only a brief forestalling of the inevitable and the tragic infliction of numerous Allied and civilian casualties.
November 8, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh goooood. A sympathetic reaction. Of course you and me have come to this conclusion before!!!
November 8, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg and Vicksburg were decisive.
Stalingrad was decisive.
Actium was decisive.
Tet was decisive.
There are plenty of examples of battles that were quite decisive indeed.
The election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was decisive because, unlike our present political leadership, he had the foresight, vision, and courage to lead the nation where it needed to go and not just where he thought the interests would allow him to go.
If this battle is "won" by Obama and the other DLC Democrats it will be decisive in destroying the political future of Democrats for a long, long time because it is a piece of garbage designed to benefit the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, will not cover all our people and will perpetuate the status quo as opposed to changing or reforming it. This is bad politics, bad strategy brought to us by weak leaders who are far more eager to serve the interests of the corporations than the people.
November 9, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that FDR "had the foresight, vision, and courage to lead the nation where it needed to go" when he was first elected President. He walked into a situation that had spent over three years getting worse (and destroying the power of the status quo) and the entire banking system had just collapsed when he took office. Much like Obama FDR found himself scrambling to deal with problems no one knew how to deal with, and a lot of what we consider FDR's foresight and vision grew out of those early struggles and experiments.
Keep in mind that when he ran for President, FDR was quite conservative and in favor of maintaining the status quo ante. He changed after getting into office as a result of the situation he was in.
Obama has not yet gone though the kinds of crap FDR walked into. The existing powers of the status quo have not yet been weakened by the Great Bush Recession the way they had been by the Great Depression when FDR (finally) took office. On top of that, Obama put a band aid on the economy (following the same actions by Paulson), put it into a holding pattern, and has been almost totally tied up in the health care reform since late Spring. When he has had time to look up from that, Afghanistan has been his second top priority.
The Presidency is a limited resource and has to be focused on a given problem to be effective. Obama is doing an amazing juggling job, but he simply cannot handle every crisis that the Bush administration created and then ignored all at once.
No one has the foresight to handle all the crap that is going wrong right now. Most of it built up because the Republicans and Bush thought the problems would solve themselves, and instead they got worse. It is humanly impossible to deal with what is out there all at once. It can be survived and overcome, but the time required has not yet passed. Frankly, just stopping the slide into the Great Bush Depression would be a major accomplishment, and getting a health care bill passed by the House is something no President has ever accomplished.
Then there is the additional fact that what foresight Obama and his crew do have has to be kept from the public because there are so many enemies who will stop any effort by a Democratic President to deal with the crap that is going on. One of the hallmarks of the Obama administration has been that he doesn't show his cards before the showdown. The Obama administration does not share its vision with the media, for very good reasons. Instead it works below the radar to the extent that it can. It works.
So all in all, I don't think it is fair to fault Obama for his alleged lack of vision and foresight yet. We are going to have to wait until he has been in office for a while to do that.
November 9, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of it built up because the Republicans and Bush thought the problems would solve themselves, and instead they got worse.
When will someone point out that the magivc market is a myth and clearly the problems did not solve themselves?
November 9, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is an accurate representation of what occured either in 33 or in 09.
The banking system collapsed and Obama did nothing but cover the bad investments of the banks. He has done and will do nothing to re-regulate the banks or to take charge of the financial system. Obama has clearly missed the window of opportunity he had to change the course of the country unlike FDR who in the first 90 days made huge and significant changes that allowed him to continue on with the New Deal for years to come. To excuse Obama's timid efforts thus far because the powers that be werent' weakened enough is kind of lame. The banks and corporations and the Republicans haven't been this week since the 1930's and instead of taking charge Obama and his administration have been taking direction from them.
I really am astounded at how people simply refuse to look and see with their own eyes that this guy is never going to challenge the status quo. Never.
November 9, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The banks began failing in 1929 and by 1933 were close to nonexistent as a working financial system. Remember, there was no FDIC to manage the collapse of individual banks in those days. When a bank failed, the good loans and the bad loans (the bank's assets) all went down together and the deposits were lost.
These days the FDIC (created because of those very problems) strips out the good assets and the deposits and sells them off or gets a healthy bank to merge and take it over. By doing that over a weekend, the loans continue to be managed consistently and if they were not inherently bad, they can survive. The total cost of such bank failures is a lot lower and the secondary failures of other healthy financial institutions are headed off.
The Federal Reserve in those days was designed to be a lot weaker and to not be able to interfere with the banking system or to manage it. The fed, too, was strengthened because of the total failure of the banking system that caused FDR to declare a bank holiday.
Uncle Miltie (Milton Friedman) made the excellent point that the collapse of so many banks caused the total money supply to sharply shrink. It was the multiplier effect in reverse. That was headed off this time by the strength of the Federal Reserve and its ability to pump up the money supply. We are quite fortunate that Ben Bernanke, an expert on the Depression, has been fed chief and has determined that it was important to simply try some things that have never been done before.
I am not going into the dangers and mistakes that have been made in 2009. There is no room here, and we really don't know what they are yet. Even the experts are still guessing. I'm an outsider looking in, so I have to wait for a consensus by the academics and that damned sure hasn't happened yet, nor is it going to happen very soon.
As for Obama's failure to take the opportunity of bank weakness to reregulate them, I'd say that moment passed in the fall of 2008 if it ever occurred. Besides, any new regulations right now are just more guesses about both what the problems were and what the solutions are. It's going to take another Congressional Commission to begin to determine what has to be done, and I'd bet that as the failures and criminality of Wall Street are widely exposed that we will then have to real opportunity to reregulate. The political pressures in that direction will grow, not decline. That depends on how fast the investigations occur, and they will not really start until after health care is finished.
Politically I don't think that the Wall Street Banks have the competence to overcome their political tin ear. They have had a year to recover from Last September, and they are back to their old games and see nothing wrong with it. Wall Street is digging its own grave. It doesn't hurt that most of the rest of the world has lost all respect for their alleged expertise.
I don't have your faith that Obama and his team are supermen who can simply snap their fingers and get shit done. Somehow I suspect that if they were, we'd have watched him sign a health care bill in August and we'd all be singing Kumbaya today.
When the health care bill stops sucking up all the media air we are going to see publications looking for good stories, and Wall Street is already providing them. The unemployment rate and the failure of consumer spending to return and save the economy is already putting pressure on Wall Street. Meanwhile Wall Street is taking the Fed's cheap money and using it to make trading profits instead of lending it to the real economy. The Dow may be going up, but that's because traders look at tomorrow as the future and consider three months to be long term strategic planning.
The clearest rule of organization decision-making is that if you want to know what an organization will decide to do today, look at yesterday and they will copy it. Then they'll do it again tomorrow. Wall Street is doing exactly that. The crack-down is coming. But health care has to get out of the way first, one way or the other.
One last thing I thing I have perceived in the Obama administration, by the way, it that they do NOT give the media shit until after it has already happened. The media is their enemy and they do not play out their actions in the media the way the conservatives do. The Obama administration's real actions are under the media radar because the media can do nothing to help them and is actively trying to hurt them. That's very frustrating to those of us who consider ourselves policy wonks and want early warning of every new initiative. We simply won't get it. But neither will the active enemies of the administration, and they are legion.
Needless to say I have a great deal more faith that Obama will challenge the status quo than you do, but my reading on him is that he will carefully choose his battles, prepare for them in secret, and he will not telegraph his punches.
Yes, this is quite positive but it is intended as a response to your very negative view. I consider the Obama administration to be made up of fallible human beings, so the real description is mixed positive and negative. I've watched every American President since Ike, and I've never seen one walk into a mess like Obama has. It's not a question of whether he is making mistakes, just how bad they are and how they can be recovered from. But I don't think that his handling of the financial crisis is going to be that bad.
The problem he has is that he prepared his entire team for years to hit the ground running on health care. The financial crisis blew up as he was going from the election to the inauguration, and the Republicans have blocked his personnel appointments. That's like the picadors in a bull fight bleeding the bull before the fight to weaken him. History is going to show that it has worked to an unfortunate extent. His planned and organized reaction to the financial crisis (as opposed to the ad hoc decisions he was forced into last Spring) are yet to come.
A longer reply than I had intended. Sorry.
November 9, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't have your faith that Obama and his team are supermen who can simply snap their fingers and get shit done."
Of course, I said nothing of the kind.
What I would like is for them to make an effort at doing what needs to be done. He and they are not even attempting to do so. They are simply doing what corporate DLC Democrats do best which is lie their way into office promising reforms but once in office do the bidding of the powerful regardless of the ill effects upon the citizenry. Obama ran on the idea of changing the status quo. That was a cynical lie. His every action in office demonstrates that clear fact.
November 9, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look. I happen to think that getting the cap and trade legislation and getting the once-in-a-lifetime health care reform through the House, both in the first 10 months in office when the Republicans are blocking every possible effort and as many political appointees to office as is possible is doing a lot more than just "attempting" to do stuff. He is succeeding.
The Garbage the Republicans have thrown up since last Summer to block health care is the political equivalent of the anti-aircraft barrage that was thrown up at the final flight path over Hanoi during the Vietnam War. Our Constitution and the Senate in particular are designed to give the rural elites a minority veto over the political efforts of the urban masses. The MSM is slanted against Obama and the Democrats. Even when the Democrats win it is spun as good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats. And Obama is battering down the roadblocks.
I really don't know what you expect, but it sure doesn't consider the realities of the political situation. It looks to me as though you are demanding that Obama step up to the podium, present his program, snap his fingers, and everyone is supposed to fall in line. Or maybe he's supposed to hand the MSM the roadmap for his initiative so that every one of the myriad enemies out there can figure out how to block him.
You are demanding the impossible.
November 9, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The function of democracy is to make incremental changes in the way government operates so that it better meets the changing needs of the nation. Changes are made piecemeal, allowing experimentation. Yes, it is very messy.
The alternative to democracy and all its messy imperfect compromises is to refuse to make incremental changes while problems build up and become so great that the only solution is to destroy the existing government and replace it with something new - and dangerously unknown.
That was the lesson of the French Revolution. The destruction of the long useless French aristocracy resulted in the Napoleonic Wars.
Kucinich is supposed to be a pretty bright guy. I wonder why he hasn't figured out that the costs of true civil war are almost never worth it.
November 9, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richard I mean no disrespect to Dennis or Ralph. They have their own agendas.
Kucinich gets good press on this. Hell, on the abortion issue alone he will get thousands of 'love letters'.
And if the argument comes from his side, I at least agree with his facts....
But if his vote made this entire bill go down, I would be as angry with him as I am with Nader for the 2000 debacle.
Just think of the pain and suffering that would have been alleviated if the Supreme Court had not had the opportunity to appoint w? ha
November 9, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they do. And I fail to recognize how they can set their priorities the way they do unless it is pure ego and objection because no one is giving them the appreciation they think they deserve.
I do suspect that Nancy Pelosi had at least one or two Representatives who needed to vote against the bill but would have accepted a good arm-twisting if Nancy had to have them to pass it. Was Dennis one of them? We'll never know how many actually went off the reservation and how many were permitted by the leadership to vote against the bill.
As for Nadar, I think he has passed his "Use By" date and doesn't recognize it. I blame his actions on Robert Michels Iron Law of Oligarchy. From the Wikipedia article "Any large organization, Michels pointed out, is faced with problems of coordination that can be solved only by creating a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy, by design, is hierarchically organized to achieve efficiency—many decisions have to be made daily that cannot efficiently be made by large numbers of people. The effective functioning of an organization therefore requires the concentration of much power in the hands of a few. Those few, in turn—the oligarchy—will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power." Nadar has been at the top of more than one bureaucracy and feels entitled. He knows he is right, and all those who oppose him have to be wrong. So anything he does to get his view accepted is fair, and since he is the guy at the top of his organization, no one can tell him otherwise.
I think, in fact, that that same pattern effects most top executives and wealthy owners. They become laws unto themselves.
Nadar doesn't want to accept responsibility for permitting the Bush administration, so he has to blame the Democrats for running a poor campaign. That's the best excuse he can offer for being an egotistic asshole.
I also suspect that the same dynamic applies to most Senators. It's a form of Narcissism.
I wonder if there is some way we could put Joe Lieberman and Ralph Nadar in the same cage and let them have at each other?
November 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dd in general I loath republicans and wanna-bees like Lieberman. That being said and always willing to play "The Devil's Advocate" you may want to check this out.
This bill does have some things that I do not like at all and I can see precisely why Kucinich voted against it. And if I was in his shoes and had time to read it through, I might have doe exactly the same thing.
Funny...republicans never compromise. But so called progressives are far to willing to roll over and lick anyone's shoes to get even the scraps.
Me...I go straight for the jugular and take the damn steak right off the table.
C
November 8, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I may be a moron, but certainly not Oxy...
No, any and all governments are made up of coalitions. Sometimes it is best to go for the jugular in pursuing something. And other times it is best to demur.
There will be no criminal sanctions against individuals...certainly not in the completed legislation.
In my most humble opinion of course.
November 8, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are 300 million people in this country. If this bill had proposed substandard care for the 12.85% who are black would you still support the bill arguing that all legislation is compromise and it could be improved later?
Some 150 million people in this country are women and it offers them substandard care. Fine by you?
November 9, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No I do not wish substandard care for anyone.
And yet, compared to other Western Countries we have substandard care for most of our citizens.
November 9, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the alternative to accepting the anti-abortionists demands is not restructuring the system (again) the price of getting it "right" is too high.
Instead I'll take this and defer the needed battle on abortion for later. I can already visualize the pictures and stories of women victimized by this provision and the growing publicity campaign about how bad it is. I remember what it was like before Roe vs Wade.
But I won't accept an insurance company win to get the current bill that much closer to perfect. What will this cover? 43 million of the currently uncovered 47 million? My 40-year-old kid is one of those uninsured and unemployed.
November 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey hey hey . . .
Relative to that post at the Prorev blog ... Make sure you go back over there and check out the 3rd comment left @ 5:33 AM. And then follow the bouncing link.
QUACK!
~OGD~
November 9, 2009 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ducky, doin your damn homework again?
I see, it is an issue of disclosure. You have to comply with the Code, you fail to disclose income you are subject to....therefore if you fail to disclose payments on insurance you are subject to...
The fraudulent return...I get it.
November 9, 2009 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amy Klobuchar is NOT a liberal. In her campaign for the Senate, she told the StarTribune that universal healthcare is unrealistic. She did not get my vote and I have not regretted voting for whoever that Green guy was whose name I can't remember.
November 8, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How'd that work out for you?
Enjoy your sanctimonious purity tests.
November 8, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worked great for me. One of the best votes I ever cast. Now, I don't have no responsibility for putting another corporately owned "centrist" in the Senate.
Just say no. Stop voting against yourself.
November 9, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Representatives from the People's House meet with representatives from the Senate and come up with one bill. A vote is then had in the House and in the Senate. In order to pass that revised bill in the Senate, the Dems need fifty votes along with the vote by the Vice-President.
I believe the Senate would still require 60 votes to cut off debate on the report of the Conference Committee.
November 8, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to check this Fred. I cant link it but I have read opinions in favor of my take on things.
You have succeeded in making me relook at this however.
And I hope you are dead wrong.
November 8, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Lieberman will have a problem switching to the Republican party. He's solid against the public option, thank goodness.
With that we just need Landrieu or Snowe or Conrad to oppose it. So I think the public option will fail, thank goodness.
November 8, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you hate America?
Why do you hate Americans?
Why do you want people to die because they can not afford health care?
Why do you want people to go bankrupt because they get sick?
November 8, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hate American people, I feel bad that they are oppressed by the American government.
What would it take to convince you that the free market provides prosperity?
November 8, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence (clearly currently missing) that your assertion is meaningful.
November 8, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now answer the rest of my questions, coward.
November 8, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"coward"?... your momma. lol
I'll gladly answer all your questions.
"Why do you want people to die because they can not afford health care?"
Society is better off if property rights are respected. It is as simple as that.
"Why do you want people to go bankrupt because they get sick?"
Bankruptcies are primarily caused by the fact that hospitals are not allowed to turn away people who can't afford to pay. If we allow the medical industries to turn away care for those who can't, or probably can't afford care, then few Americans will go into debt for health care related illnesses.
November 8, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome, sock puppet. Enjoy your short stay.
November 8, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the welcome Lisa, trust me, I am in it for the long haul.
There is too much intelligence and talent on the left for it to be wasted on harmful socialist ideas.
November 8, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
PR, you make a good argument...
...for a recognition that human rights always trump property rights. No one should ever be injured or allowed to die just so someone else can say they have absolute control over something that they define as Property.
Property is a fiction of government (like all law) and does not exist unless it is enforced by society and especially by government. It is a human mental construct intended to simplify decision-making, and should never outweigh the right to life or health.
The question of what is and is not property, and who has which rights to make decisions regarding any given piece of property has been extremely flexible over human history. The current economic system is based on property rights, but the issue is always what is property, who can decide how it is used and traded, and how that impacts the rest of society. The key is that all those definitions be properly established and changed when necessary, but that they be predictable. That's what the Uniform Commercial Code is, but even the UCC is established state-by-state in America and is often very different across societies.
Property rights have to be exercised within the framework of the Rule of Law so that society has predictable forms of decision-making, but property rights themselves cannot be given priority over essential human rights or exercised outside the properly established written law.
November 9, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grouch, one basic argument for capitalism is incentive. Capitalism gives people more motivation to work hard.
In a society where all possessions are held in common, there is no incentive to work hard. Why work when you'll have the same amount of stuff no matter how hard you work?
We've never seen a successful large scale communist society. It is really impossible. And I realize there are as many definitions of communism are there are snowflakes, but I challenge you to find one that's viable.
We have seen military dictatorships that call themselves "communist". In practice, a place like North Korea does not abolish private property, it just makes everyone and everything property of the Supreme Ruler.
And then there are mixed economies. That's what America is, that's what Sweden is. They come in different shades. All survive because a parasitic and superfluous socialist economy feeds off of a necessary capitalist economy.
November 8, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You act as if socialist and free-market systems are mutually exclusive.
Capitalist systems are not necessarily free-market systems. When certain organizations own the means of production and set prices, they are operating in a capitalist system. But free-markets disallow anyone but the consumer to set prices -- through demand. So why is the consumer potentially powerless in a capitalist system? And what kind of system ensures that the consumer sets the prices?
November 8, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You act as if socialist and free-market systems are mutually exclusive."
No, as I mentioned earlier, mixed economies are very common. We have socialist programs in America, the post office, social security etc. They may exist but they are not beneficial.
"Capitalist systems are not necessarily free-market systems. When certain organizations own the means of production and set prices, they are operating in a capitalist system. But free-markets disallow anyone but the consumer to set prices -- through demand. "
Your definition of free-market is incorrect. Why would the consumer, who does not own the inventory, be able to set the price of something he does not own?
The consumer can negotiate and influence the price, for sure. But the price of the product can only be set by the one who owns the product, the retailer.
"So why is the consumer potentially powerless in a capitalist system? And what kind of system ensures that the consumer sets the prices?"
Just because the consumer can't set the price doesn't make them powerless. Therefore a system which ensures that consumers set the prices is unnecessary.
November 9, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a fair point. A free-market's price system takes input from demand as well as supply.
The difficulty with capitalism is -- in its pure form, its non-mixed form -- no anti-trust laws exist. You would probably argue that without the state, anti-trust laws are superfluous -- since no company could leverage state power to sustain a monopoly. But monopolies are much less of a threat than cartels. Monopolies can be identified and challenged directly. Cartels are, as it were, behind the curtain. They can disregard input from demand in their price systems (especially when it comes to inelastic goods like health care).
Cartels -- by definition -- create false choices. In these situations how can the consumer even impact the price of an inelastic good?
November 9, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The inventory is owned by the hands and minds that create them. That is where your philosophy fails. By creating a property class with consumers feeding at the trough, you are invariably stuck with a power exchange that favors an aristocracy and the consolidation of wealth. You neglect the very fabrication of property as an ideology along with the falsity of surplus value.
November 9, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marriage is a society where possessions are held in common! And boy do spouses work hard! Keeping house and home up, and so on! People also work hard on hobbies - without pay. People cook for enjoyment. Garden for enjoyment. And people share the food they cook and the things they grow.
November 8, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And our friends on the Religious Right should examine Acts 4:32.
November 8, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! :-)
November 9, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Capitalism? Free market?
You wouldn't know the difference between free market and fair market if they both came up at the same time and bit ya' your ass...
Now run your Libertoonian rear end back over to the Mise's Institute and play with that Austrian economic mentality of I got mine and screw everybody else... over there.
~OGD~
November 9, 2009 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"play with that Austrian economic mentality of I got mine and screw everybody else"
That's not the mentality of capitalism.
Capitalists do not oppose charity, we just oppose the violation of property rights.
I realize that being confronted with the truth is painful. I had the same violent reaction when I began my conversion from liberal democrat to libertarian.
November 9, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not fond of the insults being thrown at you, or the attempt to chase you off.
For one thing, I want you to answer a set of questions for me:
(1) Do you agree that monopolies are a natural outgrowth of unregulated free-markets?
(2) Do you think that monopolies don't impinge on your freedoms (or on the freedoms of their would-be competitors)?
I posit that a true "free market" is as politically unstable as true anarchy. It creates a power vacuum that will be filled by something else. In the case of a "free market", the power vacuum will most likely be filled by a plutocracy, especially assuming that estates are passed from parents to children. (On that note, do children deserve to inherit their parents' estates?)
November 9, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, monopoly is a good topic and I will get to your question.
November 9, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bankruptcies are primarily caused by the fact that hospitals are not allowed to turn away people who can't afford to pay.
I practice bankruptcy law. Bankruptcies are primarily caused by people over-extending themselves in credit. That's a point against capitalist systems in general, not a point against emergency care.
November 8, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scary avatar for sure MBH.
wow!!!!!!!!!!!! ha
November 8, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha!!! Thanks dd! ;)
November 8, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW: it's just Plotinus. Harmless as can be.
November 8, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAVE YOU TRIED READING FUç%&@£!ING PLOTINUS?!?!
braindamaged me for life...!
(Dick, interesting point about the cloture thing. Didn't realize that.)
November 9, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's mighty grounding if you ask me.
November 9, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as bankruptcies, we are getting way off topic here, but I view bankruptcies neither as an argument for or against capitalism but merely an infringement on property rights that hinders prosperity.
Bankruptcy laws exist to protect the assets and income of someone who gets into debt due to his or her own choices.
I believe in the primacy of the contract. If you make a contract with a credit card company to agree to put your house, your car and 50% of your future income as collateral for a loan, then you should suffer the consequences if that loan doesn't work out for you. Unfortunately, the creation and enforcement of such a contract would be nullified by the bankruptcy laws.
November 9, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the creation and enforcement of such a contract would be nullified by the bankruptcy laws.
The contract is not nullified by bankruptcy laws. Most of the time, when the debtor files bankruptcy, they cannot keep up with their modified loan payments. The creditor moves for relief and, if granted, the contract is enforced.
Bankruptcy laws are a time out on the contract -- not a nullification.
November 9, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, watching a loved one die because you don't have the money to pay for the care they need to live is certainly preferable to bankruptcy...what planet do you live on? Where is your compassion? Can you not even begin to imagine what it must be like to watch your child die, or suffer from the effects of a debilitating disease while the child in the next bed gets to live and/or be freed from pain because her parents had money?
How do you look at yourself in the mirror without vomiting at the vileness you see in the reflection?
November 9, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry for this Stilli. I was just looking for a little discussion on the event of last nite....
November 9, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have nothing to be sorry for, Arthur...this guy is just vile. You don't get to pick the people that insert themselves onto your posts. :-)
November 9, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you think death is better than bankruptcy? I'm not quite getting your argument here…
November 9, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
That IS the argument.
To anyone with a conscious, it is unfathomable. To anyone capable of sympathy it is unspeakable. Yes, anyone can die to save others money. To a scoiopath, this makes perfect sense. To Spock it is completely logical. Another expression for allowing some to die that need not so that others might thrive is called the Final Solution.
November 9, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're putting Spock and Hitler in the same camp, you're asking for trouble…
(I.e., them thar's fighting words!)
November 9, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Spock had a sense that life has value and societies are measured by how well they care for each other. Hitler, he kind of had a limited vision for who was in society.
Live long and prosper!
November 9, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In his own words:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-0
The first 2 paragraphs:
November 8, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on CVille. A for-profit health car system is an abomination and a human atrocity. Greed has not place in life and death matters and put this country some what lower in civility than the dark ages.
C
November 8, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with him is all. Ideally, I already printed my choice for health care.
November 8, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you about Kucinich but then you would probably consider me part of the problem of the left. However Dd, I do not believe that this bill will reduce costs or increase competition. I think that are giving us a mandate for too little in return. I wrote my reps and asked them to take the mandate out of the bill and get the best reforms they could without it.
November 8, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We made no fault insurance mandatory, in part for health care concerns.
Before that, states were making workers comp mandatory, in part for health care concerns.
In order for there ever to be universal coverage, we must have mandates.
Now the form those mandates take IS at issue.
I DO NOT WISH UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS TO GO TO JAIL.
November 8, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if you do not have "no fault insurance" you cannot legally drive a car.
Does this mean that if you do not have health insurance you are not aloud to have a life ?
C
November 8, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahhahaha. but if you are hit by a car, or you are injured while riding in someone else's car and do not own a car, you have no fault insurance coverage.
You cannot work without workers comp coverage. And yet the worker has nothing to do with it.
There are other ways of looking at this.
We need a balanced 'pool' c.
November 8, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya...and you have to hire an attorney to collect on your workers comp.
C
November 8, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no workers comp coverage. Self-employed people have no worker's comp, no unemployment payments.
November 8, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes of course TheraP.
Bigger businesses use an exception known as independent contractors to get around both mandates.
I should have been clearer. Hell I was self employed for twenty five years. ha
November 8, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured there must have been some "lapse" there... :)
November 8, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big difference DD. Auto insurance does what it is supposed to do: health insurance typically does not.
November 9, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Kucinich. But then I don't take prisoners either.
C
November 8, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will be amazed if a healthcare bill doesn't pass the senate Dick. This bill is a windfall for the insurance and healthcare industries. They got just about everything they wanted in the house version. We get about 20M more insured, and a few sops to keep the rubes happy such as eliminating excluding pre-existing conditions. I respect and admire Kucinich. He may not be much of a politician, but he's got integrity in spades.
November 8, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the repubs believe that this bill leads us down a long road to socialism.
ANd I hope they are correct.
Too many bad evil people do not like this bill for it not to contain some good measures.
November 8, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect DD, that seems a pretty weak argument in support of the healthcare bill. The Republicans oppose everything the Democrats are for. If the Democrats were for a healthcare plan that costs nothing they would oppose it because it's a Democratic idea. They have pulled out all the stops on healthcare reform not to kill it, but to get a bill they like but cannot be blamed for. The Democrats are so fucking stupid they have handed them exactly that: a Republican bill that services the insurance and pharma industries first and foremost, covers some more people at enormous public expense and will not work very well. And whatever people like the Republicans won't mention and whatever people don't like the Republicans will call socialism or fascism or Sovietizing the healthcare system.
November 9, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree wholeheartedly. Well said!
November 8, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we could -- theoretically -- put the Baucus bill through the Senate, just to get it to committee. Then the reconciled bill could just be HR 3962. The House would pass it as it did last night and the Senate would only need 51 to pass it? Can they not filibuster on the second round of voting?
November 8, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politico, Huffpo and Wiki so far confirm this.
But I am still researching this.
Fred (supra) is not so sure.
One exception I KNOW of has to do with BUDGET bills and the Budget committees in both houses worked on this health care bill.
I will do a blog on this later this week but my initial impression is that there is no filibuster in play in a second round of voting.
November 9, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit. That's beautiful.
November 9, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I also believe that the 39 who 'flew the coop' did so with permission from the top leaders for political reasons. Nobody was blind sided in this vote."
Totally so from my perspective. Clinton use to routinely pass bills by 1 vote, it is said. They don't *want* to lose seats in marginal districts, so they give a permission slip. On MSM, though, it's all, this was a *really* close vote, they almost didn't get there, blah-blah.
November 8, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is like MSM is attempting to be one level up from cartoon shows. The lowest common denominator is the key audience aim.
Keith or Ed and certainly Rachel will go up a level or two sometimes. I bet you that tomorrow they cover all this stuff.
The House has, officially now, sent a completed and voted on bill to the Senate. Now the Senate will examine it under its rules, amend it per committee and vote on the new amended bill with the right to make other amendments heard....
We shall see. But you and I know that REid does not have the control over his peeps that Pelosi has over hers. ha
I know this is life and death. There is nothing humorous about this.
But I do like to step back and watch the process.
It is a fascinating process OT.
Of course you already know this.
November 9, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
All good remarks, especially about one level up from cartoons!
November 9, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The insurance industry can pound sand as far as I am concerned. They are maggots and I don't know how they look at themselves in the mirror every day, but this country is short on jobs at the moment, in case no one has noticed lately, and to suck all those jobs out of the economy at the moment doesn't seem like a smooth move to me, as much as I'd LOVE to see them eat dirt.
I do, however support big time, regulating the living crap out of the industry like a utility, forcing it to reform (no preexisting condition b.s., no dumping people because they get sick) severely reducing profits, and throw in across state line competition for good measure. The companies can stay and make a nice little living if they want, or close their doors...poor things.
But no one listens to me.
Single pay just isn't going to fly. You can stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, if you want, but it still isn't going to happen. Not today, anyway. Maybe some day.
Or we can keep on doing what we are doing and watch more and more people be victimized by the industry.
Or we can get on board with the crappy bill we have, which is at least a start, then commit to making it a little better every year. Seems to me that starting here is better than taking your marbles and going home. The political climate isn't going to get any better next year or the year after that.
And you know what else, the dems aren't blameless in this thing...consider tort reform? Hell NO! What's up with that? If you are going to screw with the insurance industry, and big Pharma, why does the Trial Lawyers Association get a pass? They can be as biggga buzzards as the insurance companies (sorry, Arthur!)
November 9, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well you sum up my feelings on the matter. Really point by point. The employment angle is extremely important here.
Oh and I have no love for the Trial Lawyers believe me, but that is a discussion for another day.
November 9, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progress is measured in increments, not leaps, and history has shown us time and again that there is rarely such a thing as a decisive battle.
Hasn't the battle for "health insurance" reform been going on for about a century?
November 9, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it has. 100 years or so. 44 years ago we got Medicare. Then Medicaid. Then SCHIPS.
A great leap backward with this no pill left behind give away to drug companies by the fascists.
A giant step here and there. Smaller steps here and there.
Is the glass a third full?
November 9, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The one sentence legislation--Medicare for all-- is exactly what should have been debated, and if it turned out that way, defeated.
This law will stymie national health insurance for a generation, or two. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect it will be an anchor around the neck of the Democratic Party. They'll lose the Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012 because they won't know how to defend it. It's a weak bill that doesn't go into effect for far too long. It's a nothingburger.
November 9, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not buying into it, huh Tom? A lot of people agree with you.
Well, we shall see.
November 9, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The timing of the bill makes me wonder if it is set to begin working after Obama gets a second term, then it's effects will not be felt until then, so the Obama gets his second term in office before that flushng sound begins to increase in volume. We can talk about the future all we want, but it is going to take a while before the voters actually feel the effects of what is enacted.
November 9, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check Ducky on that Gregor, on his blog.
November 9, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just wrong on this DD. It isn't about a bill being perfect at all. It's about a bill that is actually good for the American people. Kucinich simply has the balls to stick to his principles and signal to the rest of us that the faux healthcare reform bill passed in the House is sham. It's an insurance and pharmacuetical industry subsidy bill more than anything else. It isn't just not perfect: it sucks.
If they pass this piece of crap it isn't going to be a matter of taking an okay piece of legislation and strengthening the areas where it is weak. The fundamental premises are flat out wrong. This bill goes out of it's way to do one thing: shore up the most powerful and corrupt forces in the healthcare industry. It is a bad bill, there will be no tweaking it here and there to achieve incremental progress over time. The bill actually represents a setback of the public's interest because it creates a new system that injects hundreds of billions into the coffers of the insurance and pharma industries at the expense of the people with little or no improvement and tens of millions of people still not covered.
Your conclusion that single payer would lose if voted upon is a curious one. You probably are right, but if that is so then why did Obama and Pelose and Reid so fear even allowing single payer to be discussed? We, as a nation, would be far better off fighting a losing battle for single payer this year and then coming back next year and fighting even harder for it and building public suport and demand for it. But our cowardly political leadership doesn't want that to happen because they don't want the people engaged to the point of demanding what is in their best interest. That would stand in the way of them servicing their primary clients: the richest and most powerful. In this case it is the insurance companies. In the case of the financial catastrophe it is the crooks on Wall Street. In the case of our two pointless imperialist wars is it is the malignant military industrial complex. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have achieved history alright. But the history books will record that their achievement was to delay, perhaps forever, any real chance at changing the American healthcare system for the better. What they will have achieved is convincing the American people that the best way to reform the healthcare system is to give more money to the greediest interests involved: big insurance and big pharma. It is absolutely appalling not to mention an extreme disservice to our children and grandchildren let alone ourselves.
November 9, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Oleeb...then Leiberman may be your best friend...This is far from a done deal. Maybe you will get your way and we will walk away with nothing. Yippee for us!
November 9, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this crummy bill passes we'll get a whole helluva lot more than nothing. We'll get stuck with a massive bill for an unpopular program to provide subsidies for rotten health insurance policies and force others to buy the same crap that will do nothing to reduce costs and tens of millions will remain uncovered all because our leader didn't have the courage to do the right thing by the people and instead chose to serve the interests of the insurance and pharma industries.
November 9, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb...What exactly did you want him to do? Do you really think that if he stood up and insisted on single payer we would get it? Do you really think that anything he demanded was going to get passed?
It might have made YOU feel better, but it wouldn't have changed a single vote...The votes just aren't there for what we want. All the cajoling, begging, pleading, LEADING in the world would not have changed that. The fake dems in congress are responsible for this, not the President. Could Dennis Kucinich have gotten it done? Could Hilary have gotten it done? Not a chance in hell. In spite of what we want, the votes aren't there. THE VOTES AREN'T THERE. The President can't change that.
November 9, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have such patience, my dear....
November 9, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you know me, Thera...dog with a bone!
November 9, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, just make sure the bone is from a Holy Cow!
November 9, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know I haven't said a word about me wanting him to back single payer though it would be good if he had the balls to do that (which he lacks).
I would have preferred had the President not proffered a bill designed by and for the special interests that does little to serve the interests of the people. He could have allowed a debate on single payer in the Congress but instead squashed any attempt to discuss it in order to please those who he really serves. There were any number of ways he could have chosen that would have served the interests of the people short of single payer. All of them are inferior to single payer but he could have done far better than the insurance subsidy bill we're getting. One choice he could have made would have been to stand by his pledge for a strong public option which he has run as far from as he could because it has upset his corporate masters. The gutlessness of the White House to stand by their own proposal on the public option has been deplorable. If there were a good public option included in the bill it might be worth supporting, but at this point there isn't. So, in short, I would have preferred if the President had behaved like a leader instead of just another cowardly corporate DC Democrat.
November 9, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, might make you feel better if he had done that, but wouldn't have changed the outcome. The votes aren't there. The only truths I can see right now are that this is the fault of the dems in congress, and the votes aren't there. All the rest is window dressing.
November 9, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a totally unsupported self fulfilling prophecy. Nobody knows if the votes might have been there or not because our insurance man President took that option off the table. In it's place he offered the public option which he then ran from like the plague. When the leader is a chicken the heard tends to follow and vice versa.
November 9, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant "herd".
November 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, GAWD, Oleeb...go down the list. Whose vote would have changed? Kucinch? Who else? The Blue Dogs are soiling their undies with the watered down version...
Now shift to the Senate...show me the math. It just isn't there. There is no self-fulfilling prophecy. You don't want to admit I have a point, but I just can't agree with you on this, Oleeb. There is no way we could have had the votes. Not with Blue Dogs...they are dems in name only. It is a joke to say we have 60 dem votes in the Senate. Twist yourself into whatever shape of a pretzel you want...Given what we have to work with, we'll end up with the best we can get. It may not even get to a vote in the Senate...if it does, and the final bill doesn't satisfy you, lobby like hell to get the Pres to not sign it. BUT, I think he will sign what ever he gets, because he knows it will be the best we can get right now, and some progress is better than none.
If that just doesn't set well with you, find another candidate to run against him in 2012. When that fails, vote republican, or for a 3rd party candidate (in other words, for a republican) or don't vote (in other words for a republican.)
It's called reality, Oleeb. Face it.
November 9, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's reality: you're denying it.
Obama sold the people out on healthcare just as he has on the rule of law, domestic spying, the banking bailout, the wars, the stimulus. You. Me. Everybody. You should be arguing with the people who are responsible for selling you out, not the people who are pointing out what they've done to you.
More reality: you can't win the lottery if you don't play and the same is true in healthcare or any other political effort. Now while it is true that it's very difficult to win the lottery, the only people who can win are the one's who take the chance and play it. If you make no effort or if you deliberately scuttle any attempt to try and do the right thing ion healthcare it's pretty damn sure going to result in not getting the right thing done. Obama deliberately took the strongest healthcare reform option and took it off the table making it impossible to go forward. He, like you, uses the excuse that it is impossible so there's no need to try. I repeat: you can't win if you don't play. If we had a leader with some cajones who determined we must do the right thing in our country and we must do our best, then things would change overnight. It wouldn't have to be single payer though it should be, but when the guy who can change the whole landscape refuses even to try but instead immediately surrenders, as Obama did, to the insurance and drug industries it does make it impossible to do right.
It's like going to target practice and aiming 20 degrees off to the left of the target and then saying to those who keep pointing out that the target is to the right of your aim that there's no point in trying to hit the target because it can't be done. Well hell no it can't be done when you're not even aiming at the target and making no attempt to do so!
Good thing LBJ didn't pull this same dodge when it came to Medicare as he could have. We'd still be waiting for all seniors to be covered.
November 9, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, so you are going to just ignore the challenge to provide the math in favor of propaganda...? That's not like you, Oleeb.
Be mad at him for all the reasons you have outlined...but on health care you are just wrong.
He lives with the threat of death on a daily basis...I'd be careful insulting his cajones. They seem pretty much extra large to me.
November 9, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not mad at all, just don't have time for that right now. Sorry. And I think it doesn't mean much one way or the other.
November 9, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, still; the President was AWOL for most of it, and the Dems were BEGGING for him to rally the troops. It may be that Rahm orchestrated it all, but the Prez could have done much, much more. They gave away plenty in the back rooms before they handed it off to Congress to deal with from there on out. It was not a good way to get a good bill; we have to surmise that this is the lesson Rahm learned from 'Hillarycare', but I think he learned the wrong lesson, or applied it wrong. With all due respect.
November 9, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rally what troops, Wendy? The real "troops" are already rallied. The fake troops are scared shitless and there is nothing the Pres could have said that would have changed that. I'm not going to climb down his throat for something that he couldn't have changed with all the fancy words in the dictionary. There are no threats that can be made, no carrots offered that can change the minds of people who are either too beholden to the lobbyists or too afraid of losing their jobs...
November 9, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't require anyone 'climbing down his throat'; it is just taking a look at the history of HCR: from Obama's campaign rhetoric until now. If the White House had begun with a simple term, say "Medicare for All," then negotiated from that position, the bill might be better today. The President was all over the map on describing what he wanted, and often was working against Nancy Pelosi on issues and descriptions and demands. Perhaps he thought he could make bipartisan concessions up front, then a good bill could write itself. Much like the stimulus bill; he gave so much to big business, there was little in the end for jobs programs. It's a shame, because there may be no stomach left for another chunk of money for jobs, green, smartgrid, whatever, though I hope I'm wrong on this.
The President needed and wanted to sign a bill; that is pure politics. I hope that this mediocre win IS better than nothing, because it is sure expensive, and I fear many will be worse off than before. Like myself.
November 9, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you checked out OGD's calculator? Are you SURE you'll be worse off? How can that be, since they will no longer be able to dump you when you get sick, or refuse coverage should you lose your job and get a new one, only to find out that you now have a preexisting condition and they won't cover you?
I think many people are getting worked up in advance of need.
I am the first to admit I had hoped for more. But what is, is. There is plenty to be upset with Pres about. To me, this just isn't one of them.
November 9, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you are right on this oleeb. This bill is light years away from what it needs to be and arguably achieves the opposite of what a practical person might identify as requirements for such a bill.
At the very least any healthcare legislation has to take a big bite out of our per capita healthcare cost. It also has to make healthcare available to every American. Those two things are minimum requirements. IMHO any legislation that doesn't achive both of those things is a failure. These are both achieveable but congress doesn't want to do it because congress has placed the profits of corporations before the well being of citizens. You can totally screw over any corporation in this country and the country will still be OK. You cannot totally screw over a majority of citzens and still be OK.
November 9, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of people upset about this. Repubs, conservatives, liberals....
I still think it is a start.
Just an opinion from the lowest of the low.
November 9, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your viewpoint DD but it isn't a start at all. If this crummy legislation becomes law we will be screwed for decades, trapped in a rotten scheme to perpetuate the status quo of today instead of reforming anything. It is needlessly complicated and expensive because the primary purpose of the legislation is to service the needs of insurance parasites and the other industries associated with jacking up healthcare costs like big pharma. They are selling us a bill of goods that isn't worth the paper it's written on and sticks us with onerous mandates and a gigantic bill without even a glimmer of a decent public option on the horizon.
November 9, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Oleeb . . .
What kind of insurance coverage do you have now? How much does it cost ya'?
Do you receive insurance coverage through your employer?
For the hell of it, let's say you're an individual without coverage.
Do you live in a high rate area or low-rate area?
What's your income?
How old are you?
Now take all that info and place it in this interactive calculator and tell us what amount of your percentage of payment would be and what the amount of government subsidy would be if any?
And get back to us.
~OGD~
November 9, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need convoluted subsidy programs (that do more to keep the insurance companies fat and happy than they do those who need healthcare) if we'd simply have a real and genuine public option.
November 9, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't answer the question . . .
But I didn't expect a constant complainer like you to actually come up with an answer or anything of a constructive nature.
Yeah yeah yeah... I know, I know. As you've repeated ad nauseum, "...if all we get is an insurance subsidy bill without a strong public option it isn't reform at all and there will be no benefit for the American people worth the heavy price paid for 'any' bill at 'any' cost."
You only think about what you personally deem is the only way to a perfect solution that is next to impossible in the face of reality.
Tell that shit to the hundreds of thousands of people presently waiting for a bill that will first and foremost, on it's enactment as Public Law immediately...
I'm sure all those individuals will be tickled pink to learn that you Oleeb, personally deem that, "A bad bill is, in fact, worse than no bill..." and that "...there will be no benefit for the American people worth the heavy price paid for 'any' bill at 'any' cost."
Oh well ... Keep up the harping. It'll only underscore how totally out of touch you are in today's political environment and assist the conservative Blue Dogs and naysayers on the right.
~OGD~
November 10, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, IndiePro, What the fuck are you smoking? Whatever it is let me get some of that ;)
I totally agree with DD's theory on Nader Syndrome. There are really some on the left that rather than compromise and get 80-90% of what they want would "on principle" rather throw themselves and any chance at reform under the bus.
I don't know whether it's a martyrdom complex or just an ego thing but throwing away a once in a lifetime chance that, at bare minimum, eliminates some of the most egregious abuses perpetrated by our health care system against the average person because their preferred method (ie Single Payer) wasn't used is IMHO inexcusable.
Single Payer health care is not the be all and end all of HCR. Just look at the health care system in the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. They all rank in the upper part of the top 10 by the WHO and ahead of the UK and Canada. In the case of HCR there are more than one way to skin a cat, and to be so fixated on one solution, especially one that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing Congress, speaks volumes to the theory that maybe there is a lot less altruism, and a lot more ego at play than the sanctimonious, holier than thou "one and only true progressive" crowd lets on.
November 9, 2009 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, not many people up for the 'middle' on this thing. True, this is what happens when real change comes to the fore.
Social Security was a joke in the 30's. It was a start. The first check issued under its terms amounted to five bucks or some such.
Thanks for chiming in. At least I am not alone.
A lot of my close friends around here sure are disagreeing with me.
I do not impute bad intents from them whatsoever.
Some are dearly affected by the mess we have now.
Some who have not chimed in are facing pain every goddamn day and even death.
This is not an easy cluster of issues to deal with.
I do know for a fact that the repubs would never ever come to deal with it.
November 9, 2009 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a hot topic, Arthur, but remember, TPM is not an echo chamber. We aren't here to listen to ourselves talk. I'm glad to see you sticking your elbows out.
Anyone who listens to me knows I prefer heavy "utility type" regulation to either single pay or this crap bill right now, but we can get what we can get. I'd rather come away with something, than a handful of principles. If that makes me sleazy, so be it. None of us are getting what we want. Maybe that's a good start.
And we're political junkies, why?
November 9, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the start, I knew that the legislative process would percolate in ways we could not predict or control. Better something, than nothing. Better rule of law than the alternative.
I'm with you, stilli. Of course I have my preferences and I can imagine a world of compassion and love and mercy. But life rarely provides that. No point in having a tantrum when we're getting better than we have now - for the most part.
November 9, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This country worked much better when we were a little more respective of our constitution and what citizens needed. We have without question shifted gears and are now more interested in capitalism and what corporations need. To say this shift has produced a dersirable outcome is not a supportable argument.
November 9, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I looking for reactions on cable right now. Scarborough is all over the place on this...he has a heightened sense, I feel, of retaliation against the dems.
Mika of course is more sober on monday's and therefore sounds even dumber.
The reactions in our little club, well that is what I was looking for.
You and Oleeb sure do not look to happy about this at all.
November 9, 2009 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink