« How Tough is Our President? | Robert Reich's Blog | Why the Senate Should Confirm Bernanke But Make the Fed More Accountable, Too »
Why the Gang of Six is Deciding Health Care for Three Hundred Million of Us
Last night, the so-called "gang of six" -- three Republican and three Democratic senators on the Senate Finance Committee -- met by conference call and, according to Senator Max Baucus, the committee's chair, reaffirmed their commitment "toward a bipartisan health-care reform bill" (read: less coverage and no public insurance option). The Washington Post reports that the senators shared tales from their home states, where some have been besieged by protesters angry about a potential government takeover of the nation's health care system.
It's come down to these six senators. The House has reported a bill as has another Senate committee, but all eyes are fixed on Senate Finance -- and on these three Dems and three Republicans, in particular. But who, exactly, anointed these six to decide the fate of the nation's health care?
I don't get it. Of the three Republicans in the gang, the senior senator is Charles Grassley. In recent weeks Grassley has refused to debunk the rumor that the House's health-care bill will spawn "death panels," empowered to decide whether the sick and old get to live or die. At an Iowa town meeting last Tuesday Grassley called the President and Speaker Nancy Pelosi "intellectually dishonest" for claiming the opposite. On Thursday Grassley told the Washington Post that Congress should scale back its efforts to overhaul health care in the wake of intense anger at town hall meetings. But -- wait -- the anger is largely about distortions such as the "death panels" that Grassley refuses to debunk.
This week on Fox News Grassley termed the House bill "the Pelosi Bill," and called it "a government takeover of heath care, exploding the deficit because it's not paid for and it's got high taxes in it."
I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control sixty votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option.
So why does the fate of health care rest in Grassley's hands?
It's not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems on the gang are from Montana, New Mexico, and North Dakota -- states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming, and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population.
So, I repeat: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House. At least that's what I'm repeatedly being told by sources both on the Hill and in the Administration. "The Finance Committee is where the action is. They'll tee-up the final bill," says someone who should know.
It's come down to these six senators. The House has reported a bill as has another Senate committee, but all eyes are fixed on Senate Finance -- and on these three Dems and three Republicans, in particular. But who, exactly, anointed these six to decide the fate of the nation's health care?
I don't get it. Of the three Republicans in the gang, the senior senator is Charles Grassley. In recent weeks Grassley has refused to debunk the rumor that the House's health-care bill will spawn "death panels," empowered to decide whether the sick and old get to live or die. At an Iowa town meeting last Tuesday Grassley called the President and Speaker Nancy Pelosi "intellectually dishonest" for claiming the opposite. On Thursday Grassley told the Washington Post that Congress should scale back its efforts to overhaul health care in the wake of intense anger at town hall meetings. But -- wait -- the anger is largely about distortions such as the "death panels" that Grassley refuses to debunk.
This week on Fox News Grassley termed the House bill "the Pelosi Bill," and called it "a government takeover of heath care, exploding the deficit because it's not paid for and it's got high taxes in it."
I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control sixty votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option.
So why does the fate of health care rest in Grassley's hands?
It's not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems on the gang are from Montana, New Mexico, and North Dakota -- states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming, and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population.
So, I repeat: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House. At least that's what I'm repeatedly being told by sources both on the Hill and in the Administration. "The Finance Committee is where the action is. They'll tee-up the final bill," says someone who should know.
Advertisement
Since when has the Finance Committee given a wet slap about government deficits or tax payer money. This is pure BS. Total and complete BS.
These same JAs have been resolutely silent on military spending, the treasury's bank-fraud money
and nearly every other pork-barrel bill.
The WH and Reid need to tell these corrupt weasels to go suck air.
C
August 21, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't kid yourself. Reid would gladly suck air for them.
August 21, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh....you're most likely correct on that.
C
August 21, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
and probably something other than air....
August 23, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you want a bill or don't you?
Everything even remotely associated with the Budget (which Health Care Reform does) has to go through Senate Finance. Period.
Senate HELP, where they have a Bill we all like, is not the final arbiter of the Health Care Reform Bill. Senate Finance is.
I know they have "Health" in their title, but these are the stupid Senate rules, and we're at war with them as much as anything.
August 21, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I want Medicare-for-all, not a Blue Cross Dog bill.
August 21, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. So do I. You got the votes to pass it?
August 21, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have one vote but it won't be going to the Blue Dog party. I can't vote against Max Baucus, but I can vote against Amy Klobuchar. If they're all giving that gang of 6 the power then they can all be held accountable for the results. I don't care how you vote Al and Amy if you can't deliver, then you won't get my vote. I don't want any excuses that you don't have the votes. Go get the votes. If you don't get the votes, you don't get my vote so just run along and tell Max that your constitutents won't take no for answer.
August 21, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can make that two votes from Minnesota that Amy and Al won't be getting, because they won't get mine, either.
I like where bluebell is coming from. Most of us can't make Baucus pay, but we sure as heck can make his buddies pay. Boy, if more people felt this way I bet you would see the White House stop pampering these obstructionists and, too, you would see Baucus's buddies begin to put the screws to him.
Indeed, this is the way to go! One for all and all for one. Either the Dems ALL do what is right, or we vote them ALL out!
August 21, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh great, that will give the Republicans complete control of everything. How the hell do you imagine that will work out???
When the going gets tough who the hell stabs their friends in the back and gives control over to their enemies??? AN IDIOT!
Please focus on letting Democrats know how strongly you feel so they have more support to get things done, not less support.
August 21, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And giving Republicans total control of everything will be different from the situation we have now how, again?
August 21, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
When FDR got Social Security put through congress it was a vastly imperfect thing that was bolstered by later legislation. The point being? Something social-security-like was first passed, then it was later improved upon.
As to whether Rethuglican control makes no difference to what we have now (please refer back to maybe six of the last eight years, or six of the eight Clinton years as a reference sample)?
Um... . Really? No difference?
Yes, I believe the strongest health care reform is Medicare for All. And, yes: Nothing like that is happening anytime soon.
However, as was the case with passing Social Security legislation, there is a need to pass something.
The authoritarian/authoritarian-followers who march in lockstep that happen to call themselves "Republican" will pass zero reforms or limits on health insurance companies. If we can bar insurance companies from lifetime spending caps, dropping coverage because you get sick or for pre-existing conditions, and cover most if not all uninsured, it is a good starting point if, for no other reason, it is something. No, it's not Medicare for All. But it is, at worst, plus-zero; at best, it's one rung up a ladder.
If we hand Rethugs control again we get zero or less-than-zero. But this time, they ride in on the shoulders of their gun-totting mindless base which they successfully rallied to a frenzy.
You like that idea, then go for it, Right?
August 22, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
At some point you have to understand that a Blue Dog party is not a progressive party. Supporting a Blue Dog run Congress and its Blue Dog agenda is working against your own interests if you are a liberal or a progressive.
I was just hearing Willie Brown on Hardball saying that Dean is helping Obama by being a leftie. Public option is left-wing radical? That's how the establishment is now positioning it. They are already out to knife Dean in the back and say what you will Dean is more genuinely passionate on healthcare than anyone save Teddy Kennedy and the knives are out for Howard already. He has worked his heart out for healthcare and the scum in the establishment is out to make him the scapegoat for the fiasco the White House has made of healthcare "reform".
And beyond that he was saying that we're supposed to ditch the 50 million with no health insurance and just deliver a little tweak on preexisting conditions to the middle class. Seriously. He wants to throw 50 million Americans under the bus. This is what you get from establishment pols. This the Democratic Party today.
I don't know where Obama is on any of this (Martha's Vineyard perhaps?) but the establishment party is going to do what they always do, paint any genuine change in the status quo as leftist radical and they'll choose their scapegoats and trash them like the Swift boaters.
August 21, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama made it possible to see the Public Option as left wing by taking single payer off the table. Obama has a lot to learn. When you want something and negotiate for it, you ask for at least what you want, not what you hope you might get. Then there is room for compromise. Right now Obama has manipulated himself into a position where there is zero room for compromise, if we are to get a health care bill that has any meaning at all.
The sad part of this is that Obama's position even before the primaries was to give up on single payer and go for only the minimum possible improvements.
August 22, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you vote all the Dems out if they don't produce the way you want. Do you put in other Dems, or generic progressives, because if that doesn't happen, the Republicans regain control? How were the 8 years before Obama for you? Republicans are for the status quo. It's almost a definition of their party.
August 21, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing has changed:
...same old wars, same old financial bailout, no labor bill, same old FISA, same old Patriot Act, same old cave in on healthcare, same old poverty, same old unemployment, same old trade policy.....
Republicans say NO and Democrats say THANK YOU.
Time for something NEW. The United States does not have a progressive party. It is time to start one.
August 22, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Nothing has changed..."
Are you bowing to the MSM or FreedomWorks sense of time? You know, the thing where one Obama month equals one Bush year? The one where CNN (who still has conservative guest speakers at a 2-to-1 ratio to liberal guest speakers and parrot Rethug talking points as gospel) gives Obama a 100-day "report card" and then a 200-day "report card"?
And exactly which president during the lifespan of CNN has been given that level of "accountability" before Obama?
Yes, we are at the far side of a 30 year long neoconservative revolution overturning 40 years of progressive progress, and Obama and a Democratic-led congress has had eight months and it's not all better yet!
God-damn! We need us a Bull Moose Party NOW!
Yeah. That worked SO WELL for Teddy Roosevelt, didn't it? Doesn't matter that, 97 years ago when he talked about health care for all as a right and that those who profited most from the "commonwealth" (read that: resources of the country belong to all citizens) owed the greatest debt back to supporting the government (read that: through paying the highest taxes), he was more than just correct -- he was darned-near prescient.
And he was sick of the sameness of the Democratic and Republican parties.
Yeah. That Bull Moose Party changed everything...
...by handing power back to the conservative-dominated Republicans almost all the way to their Great Depression (#1).
Yes. It's been eight months. Throw the do-nothing bastards out and bring back to the do-everything bastards that SO represent our progressive interests.
August 22, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama isn't my issue. My issue is with the party. Obama is a captive of the Baucus/Emmanuel philosophy. Read Greenwald (and Herbert and Krugman)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
There can be no change with the party as it is. OK, swell, I surrender the party to the gang of six, but I am no longer a member of that party. It's no longer the party of FDR. It's the party that will enable Max and Chuck to screw Teddy Kennedy on his deathbed so they can sell it to Blue Cross/UnitedHealth.
August 22, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only difference, apparently, between the Republicans controlling the government or the Democrats is which party will get the blame when the house of cards they are building finally comes tumbling down.
August 22, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's the point. The obstructionists to health-care reform obviously do not care if all Americans have access to affordable health-care because that's, in the end, what this is all about - affordable health-care for all Americans.
(It's really beyond time that we quit advertising ourselves as the Greatest Nation on the Earth.)
August 23, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So both bills won't come to the floor? Could you explain a little more completely WHY the Finance Comm Bill will be the final bill? Thanks.
August 21, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The argument will be that since the bill out of Finance is complete in that it covers areas that HELP doesn't that it should be the starting point for debate. Which by tradition would leave Baucus as the floor manager or if not in a stronger position to beat off amendments.
On the other hand Reid would under Rule 14 be perfectly within his rights to bring the House version to the floor instead and use THAT as a starting point, which would turn blocking power over to the other side. Baucus is playing a big bluff that can only succeed to the degree that Harry Reid allows it to run. Which leaves wondering minds to ask some questions about where, and for whom, Harry stands these days.
August 22, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never forget. This was originally a Gang of Seven. Until Hatch dropped out on July 23rd this group had FOUR Republicans to THREE Democrats.
Washington DC resorts to allegedly bipartisan groups all the time with evenly split membership between parties. You have the Ethics Committees as an example. And the press is reporting the Gang of Six as just such a typical group appointed by Leadership on both sides. It wasn't.
The Gang of Seven was a naked power grab by Max Baucus that said the final say on this matter would be in the hands of Senate Republicans and Blue Dogs. Period. It was never intended to be bipartisan, something that was clearly shown by the fact that it was not originally even BALANCED between the Parties.
From where I sit the founding purpose of the Gang of Seven now Six was to kill the HELP Bill by all means necessary and so give a big F-U to dying Kennedy and 83 year old Dingel. This bill if passed will by convention be known as Kennedy-Dingel. If that is the HELP Bill is part of the starting point. I suspect that a big part of Hatch dropping out was not because of where the bill was going but because he saw the long knives being drawn against his friend of decades.
In any event this Gang was never an honest attempt by Baucus. Bingaman may have been fooled, and possibly Snowe and just maybe Enzi, but Baucus, Conrad and Grassley clearly knew what the game was right from the beginning. They pulled a power-play to cut out Rockefeller (who as Chair of the relevant Sub-Committee should have been part of an original Gang of Eight) in their initial move to cut HELP off at the knees. Or maybe the neck.
August 22, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is so *hard* to avoid the conclusion (but I'm still trying):
Whoever tolerated this had his head SO FAR up his ass!!
August 22, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stand with Howard Dean in support of a Public Option. Sign his petition
http://standwithdrdean.com/
August 23, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naturally, these jackals are using the tea baggers as the excuse du jour... which was the purpose of unleashing the tea baggers in the first place... to point to them and claim that "Americans" are against a public plan. Wallah! Amazement...
August 21, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. They've been handed the rope necessary to hang themselves... now its time to pull the rug out.
August 21, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand this either. Just one Senator has decided, all on his own, to undo the results of an election in which Democrats won a significant majority, in the name of "bipartisanship" that clearly does not exist for the Republican members of the gang?
No, no, no, Senator Baucus! Bipartisanship means that you offer the losing party a respectful airing of their concerns and attempt to find common ground, not that you enable crazies who run around talking about "death panels" and "funding for illegals" in an effort to subvert the will of the people. The Gang of Six has quite obviously gone rogue.
It's really hard to believe that the White House would be so foolish as to give Baucus enough rope so as to destroy it's own health care reform goals. It just doesn't make sense.
Perhaps the Democrats need to start a protest campaign to force Baucus to disband the Gang of Six and return control to the full Finance committee.
August 21, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more than the gang of six, Wordie. There's another gang, a Gang of Seven.
Conrad, Feinstein, Pryor, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh (and more than likely Baucus himself, given how much money he takes from the Industry), these are all Democrats who are lukewarm on Reform, and lukewarm (at best) on the Public Option, if not downright hostile to it.
This is more about appeasing the Gang of Seven than it is Republicans. Negotiating with the Gang of Six appeases the Gang of Seven. Because if any one of those seven votes to maintain a GOP Filibuster, Reform dies.
August 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if we had a majority leader with any balls, the one(s) who does would be immediately stripped of their seniority and committee chairs. This is not complicated - if you're in the Dem caucus, and there's a bill up to deal with something that your party has run on for years and that represents the #1 policy priority of the President of your party, you will vote for cloture. Whether you vote for the final bill or not, you will vote to bring it to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
Unfortunately, what we have is Harry Reid, who's so gutless he can't even stand up to bona fide traitors to the caucus like Joe Lieberman.
August 21, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it is that complicated.
That's from the Senate website.
It's a club, a club with one-hundred egos, all of them looking after each other. The Senate always puts the club first. Wishing it otherwise doesn't make it less so.
When was the last time a Republican Majority stripped a Senator of their seniority? Do we even know that's a card Harry could play even if he wanted to?
Harry sets the calendar. Dick Durbin counts heads. You got 60 votes for Reform without a Public Option. You got 53 with it. What do you got to do to change those seven around.
The Senate rules are arcane, bureaucratic and completely ridiculous. But just because they are, those of us who are going to comment on the proceedings had damn well better know what we're talking about.
I'm starting to think we're in as much of a bubble as the Senators.
August 21, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary. I don't give the hindquarters of a small rodent about the arcane or not rules of the senate.
You are caught up in a marketing scheme. You think that if you spend your time understanding the rules, reading the proposals, comparing every paragraph in every bill, learning how every district is gerrymandered and the exact calculus of every senator's elector campaign, how many rural votes she needs, how much soccer moms, etc., if you know what is cloture and how to get it on every issue, you think you are a player.
You are not. You just got suckered like a couch potato who thinks he is virtually socializing with the club owners because he understand the game well enough to give instructions to the players in the field.
It may be satisfying to you psychologically. After all, we become sports fans because it makes us feel good, and we shop in stores that make us feel like we're family. So if your interest in politics is to feel good, go for it. But don't confuse it with advancing your interests, interests like for example getting better health care. Just as every store is happy to give you better ambiance if it makes it easier for you to part with your cash, so every politician is happy to make you feel like a buddy if that makes you drop your demands.
The senators, presidents, reps and their policy wonks are not my friends, they're not my buddies, they're not my team members. We are not in the same boat. We are not even in a nearby boat. I don't want them to cry on my shoulders. I don't care how hard their lives are. I don't care HOW they serve my interests. I want one thing only from them. I want them to show me the money.
That's all.
You want my vote? It is for sale. Bring the bacon. No bacon no vote. Save your excuses for when you're cheating on your partner.
August 21, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm rather glad you don't. I'd hate to see a bunch of innocent little rodents wheeling themselves around on platforms. Besides I'm sure we'd hear form People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Having said that--you might give something less bloody about those rules if you read them carefully. There is a card game we used to play with newbies...those in on the game invited the victim to a new card game--every time the victim made play which looked like a winner, someone would make up a "rule" which morphed the winner into a loser.
The moral? You can't win a game if you don't know the rules. There is a certain moral satisfaction beating one's self bloody by beating one's head against a stone wall, but I'm sure that there is a group opposed to that form of behavior, even if the rat gets to scurry away, ass intact.
August 22, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't win the game by pretending that you are playing it. In order to win the game, you need to play the game you are in, not vicariously imagine yourself playing somebody else's game.
I am not a Senator. Neither are you. There is a game senators play with other senators. And then there are the games senators play with voters and civil society groups. If you want to win that other game, you need to understand how it is played. That means understanding how your senator is playing you, not how he or she plays against other senators.
If you want to pretend that you and your senator are team members, I wish you all the vicarious satisfaction you can get.
Do the fleas on the lion's tail high five when he catches an antelope? We will start seeing positive change when the voters of the Democratic Party reach the level of intelligence of fleas. There is still some way to go.
August 22, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on your side, and thank you for making it so simple. We have senators, like Feinstein, using the senate rules, which they set up themselves, as the excuse for why they just can't help us, sorry. That is utter BS. Congress is there only because we vote for them. That is the only rule that matters. They have to come through with a good health care bill now, or they leave the senate following the next election. That is the rule of the game I plan to play.
When do we get up off the ground and stop goveling before those multi-millionairs? In my opinion now is the soonest, and therefore, the best time for that. We absolutely have to get them so afraid of us they mess their pants when we telephone them. Democracy is a farce if that isn't the case.
August 22, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have come to the sad conclusion that this was Obama's game all along. Read this:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/the-baucus-caucus-phrma-insurance-hospitals-and-rahm/
and it will all begin to make perfect sense.
August 21, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
...in the name of "bipartisanship" that clearly does not exist for the Republican members of the gang?
au contraire bipartisanship is alive and well
August 22, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same old same old. And the WH is still "playing chess".
August 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny! Playing chess, alright! Super-secret elvendy-billion dimensional chess that we pea-brains aren't smart enough to comprehend. Well, it is clear, isn't it? Public option was a false compromise to progressives that the WH all along planned on dealing away in order to appease the so-called moderates, which is just another word, moderate, for corporate flacks!
August 21, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the 1950s, then-Senate Majority Leader LBJ had a problem. His staffers, including future Texas Gov. John Connally, had gotten caught handing out envelopes stuffed with cash on the Senate floor.
Johnson was "outraged". He immediately (before any loose facts or unruly committees got in the way) commissioned a Senate investigation to get to the bottom of the matter.
The entire investigation was controlled by his own cronies on the investigating committee and (perhaps not so) amazingly all charges disappeared in the resulting fog. (Robert Caro, The Path To Power, I believe)
Does this sound familiar? If you control the process, you win.
Want to make sure that no strong Healthcare bill gets through congress? All you need to do is put some one in charge who has no intention of letting major reform pass. Like maybe the Senator most in the pocket of the Healthcare industry...
The fix is in.
August 21, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fix was in from the get go. You bet you sweet life on it.
C
August 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sweet life IS bet on it! I have no health coverage for my pre-existing condition even though I have "health insurance" and have been paying premiums to Blue Cross for 9 months now ($460.00 per month). I still have three months of premiums to pay before they will begin to cover treatment. It seems as though I will make it over the finish line before I expire although it's in no part thanks to my "insurance". I have paid out of pocket over $10,000.00 in the intervening months to get the medications I require to survive until I get covered by Blue Cross.
Who knows how deliterious the effects of dimished care will prove to be.
I NEED this bill!
August 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've only begun to surrender. Don't assume you'll be any better off. Remember the purpose of the bill is now insurance reform to cut costs and make healthcare revenue neutral. Hint: YOU are a COST.
August 21, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, a more generous interpretation is that they will let the Senate pass healthcare insurance industry bailout reform, get it into committee, and produce a bill that we can swallow. That would give the Baucasses and Gr-assleys the political cover they need to vote for cloture but against the final bill.
That's the Obama 39th chamber jujitsu chess ending.
The totally cool ending is where Grassley will be shown his NSA file and be given the choice between supporting the bill and retiring to spend more time with his family.
The Scooby-Doo ending is where Baucass is unmasked as Old Man Withers, owner of the haunted health co-op.
The DFH ending is where Obama back kicks us in the tenders and Matt Yglesias tells us we won.
August 21, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
minor correction -- LBJ's years as Senate Majority Leader are in Caro's "Master of the Senate", not "Path to Power"...
August 21, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great! We have a few loud mouths hijacking the debate. One loud-mouth gets more attention then five civil voters with another perspective on whether a public option is going to be part of healthcare reform. We do need a major healthcare rally to show Congress that people vote and the dollars spent trying to convince people HCR is dangerous were wasted. The people will decide whether these "representatives" will continue in that capacity based on whether they enact a lasting, meaningful reform or not. As Howard Dean said on The Rachel Maddow Show earlier this week, and I am paraphrasing, unless there is a public option, there is no real reform.
August 21, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record, Max Baucus no longer even represents his constituents since most of us here in Montana, like the rest of the country, support a robust public plan. It has gotten to the point where Max is actively avoiding contact with Montana citizens, only appearing at carefully screened and scripted events. He just sends hapless staffers to his scheduled townhalls where he might actually meet constituents.
August 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDR once said (in connection to an issue that a constituent was complaining about) something to the effect that he was sympathetic, but, "You have to MAKE me be for it".
His message was clear: Just being intellectually or logically on the 'right' side isn't enough. Advocates must raise enough ruckus to make political types think they are going to be rewarded if they DO so-and-so, or perhaps more importantly, really punished if they DON'T.
This (so far) has not happened on our side of this debate. Whatever you make of townhall rowydism, teabaggers, and the like, give them their due: All fair criticism aside, they KNOW what they want, they really CARE, and they are willing to risk a great deal to get it. Until our side can find some way to harness a similar intensity, we're going to continue not to 'get it'.We'll most likely eventually LOSE most of what we're after, while STILL not getting it.
August 21, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're starting to some of that on our side, which has been a good thing.
August 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since we have no direct control over the government between elections, I'm hoping the House will indeed scuttle a bill without a public option.
That is the only avenue by which the left's voice will be heard on this issue, if they threaten to derail Obama's reform bill if it in fact doesn't reform things in a way that makes the average American's life better.
August 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you call $330,000. raised in 3 days as a 'carrot' to Progressives to keep their public pledge of support for the Public Option ???
tens of thousands of phone calls, emails, office visits,letters to the editor, town hall attendance, and getting in early to influence the committee bills are why the Public Option is still a possibility - it's why Pelosi and Grijalva have taken the stand they've taken in the last few days
August 21, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call that "yawn". Let's see how many of those so-called progressives actually vote against the watered down insurance corporation-backed bill that finally makes it to the floor...assuming any bill actually does.
August 21, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so true.
I was listening to a couple of pollsters on Talk of the Nation the other day and they said their data puts it basically half of the country on one side and the other half on the other side. The only difference was that those opposed to progressive reform were way more intense about their opposition.
One way to look at it from congress' (dysfunction) point of view. If vote yes, those opposed will definitely not vote for me, but if I vote no, those in favor might still vote for me.
August 21, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
acamus,
I think there is a lot of truth to that 'half and half' idea. I realize of course that Dems. are currently at good majorities in both houses and have the Presidency, but I don't think the underlying sentiments of the country have really moved all that far from the 47-53% range they have been in for the last 20 years or so. It's simply a reality that many of our current Democratic office-holders are conservative enough to move over next to Republicans at any given time and place.
On any given issue, EITHER side of the public divide can muster a workable majority and can prevail, IF they can unite, organize, and establish a stronger energy level. In my opinion, our side has to stop counting D's and R's all the time, and start working to move IDEAS, one step at a time.
August 21, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have to shift the entire country to the left, whereby both parties are more progressive. Right now we have a dysfunctional democratic party at war with itself and a republican party that is clearly insane.
I think if all the democratic party gets out of this initial reform effort are the revenue-neutral reforms that are sure to make it into the final legislation, they should consider it a huge win and immediately start working toward the next reform package.
None of this was going to happen in six months with a single bill. Even FDR needed all of his 12 years to get the New Deal done and working to improve the country for the next forty some years until we broke it again. One of these days I would love to see these changes become foundational instead of dependent on the particular make-up of Congress.
August 23, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why has it come down to these six?
I am now of a mind that it could have been any six
maybe because so-called Bi-Partisanship has been code for no real reform all along - and the courting them, praising them at POTUS events, has been a WH assurance to the Stakeholders (Ins., Hosp., AMA, Device Makers)as a means to keeping them at the so-called bargaining table and Out Of GOP Coffers for 2010
- it explains their apparent lack of preparedness, the mixed messaging, the flatfootedness, the August delay, etc.
all driven by a self indentified Master of the Electoral Universe - Rahm Emmanuel
Mr Reich, you have been on the inside - tell me I'm wrong
August 21, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, even Reich will tell you...he hasn't been on the inside. He's got a day job at the University of California.
August 21, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Reich was Secretary of Labor - pretty doggone inside - and note my use of "have been"
and yes, I'm a Reich fan
August 21, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhh...duh. Secretary of Labor? How do you think he got that day job at Berkeley??
Point is, Secretary Reich is not in the room now. Even he will tell you that.
August 21, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, to be clear, I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm just trying to correct a point.
And I like Reich too, but do think he's starting to panic, and making you panic as well.
August 21, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect folks...
1) Because this is dealing with the Budget and 16% of the Economy, Senate Finance takes the lead, even over Senate HELP.
2) Max Baucus is the head of Senate Finance, probably the most powerful Committee in the Senate. He may have as much power as Reid, simply because virtually everything the Senate does has to go through him.
3) Why these Republicans are in the Gang of Six is easy to figure. Enzi (sits on both HELP and Finance), Grassley (Baucus's best buddy -- God knows why), and whatever Maine Lady du jour, we're dealing with.
4) Baucus's idea is that by being bipartisan, you can attract the help of the REAL problem in the Senate, the six Democratic douchebags that are holding up reform and might block a Public Option: Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln, Pryor, Feinstein, Bayh.
Everyone here, do yourself a favor today, and at least give Nate's latest a fair reading:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/are-progressives-on-tilt.html
August 21, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So, I repeat: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? "
- It doesn't actually come down to these six.
Despite what Frau Pelosi may have said yesterday, her second-in-command Hoyer said today that he's "for a public option, but I’m also for passing a bill,”....Democrats believe the public option is necessary, useful and important, he added, “but we’ll have to see.”
Reich is simply telling political lies.
The problem with the bills is that it was written by liberal Dems and rejected by moderate Dems. Coasts versus the rest.
That's the reason it will fail, too - the White House declined to be involved at first but by the time they figured out they have a split party on their hands it was too late.
August 21, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it had been written by liberals, it would be Medicare-for-all. It was written by centrist mush in order to appease the Benedict Arnold Blue Cross Dogs (Rahm, I get call them names now that I am a FORMER Democrat).
August 21, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats should never elect anyone from a Red State to majority/minority leader. Today we have Harry 'We need 60 votes to pass bills' Reid, before him it was Daschel.
Bernie Sanders Sherrod Brown or Barbara Boxer should be Majority leader. Complement them with Pelosi or Kucinich and give them a majority then see what happens.
Reid is an albatross around Pelosi's neck.
August 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. Does the GOP have any blue staters as their leadership?
August 21, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were more people at Woodstock, than Max Baucus represents in Montana. Our system is f'd, and so are the eternally wimpy Democrats.
August 21, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh some totally worthless BS Bill will be passed with what - on the surface - looks like a "Public Option" (but has so many restrictions to make it useless). The Dems in the Senate will hope this keeps people satisfied until they either retire or are replaced.
Then something will happen to force the issue, if not H1N1 then something else and the decision will have been made for them.
C
August 21, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real reason for this cluster fuck is our government is peopled by hopelessly stupid and hopelessly self-interested persons who have no qualms at all of breaking whatever law happens not to suit their fancy at any particular moment. Representation in Washington is for corporations and for the top 0.5 percentile of earners. Everyone else should invest in whatever companies make rectal lubricants.
August 21, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call these bastards:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/observer2/2009/08/public-option-senate-contact-l.php
August 21, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to bypass Finance Committee and their "Gang of six" jackasses
August 21, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gang of Six terrorizes Nation of 300 million.
August 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
now that made me laugh (even if it is too frighteningly true)
August 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
now that made me laugh (even if it is too frighteningly true)
August 21, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It defies all logic to assume that Baucus could do this without at least the acquiescence and - much more probably - the active support of Baucus, Reid, and of many other Democrats.
Leaving aside all questions of possible procedural maneuvers, there are doubtlessly an ample set of carrots and/or sticks which could be deployed to persuade / coerce Baucus into reporting a bill.
I can guarantee you that if Baucus actually were, in a cavalier, high-handed fashion holding up a bill that the rest of the Democrats really wanted, then the news would be full of leaks about various embarrassing episodes that Baucus - like any other mortal - has been involved in over the years.
But the news is strangely silent about such events.
So nobody is really upset over what Baucus is now doing.
August 21, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may be talking a good game for healthcare reform, but seem ready to be rolled by the Republicans, Blue Dogs, and health corporations (pharma., health insurance). When liberal congressmen hesitated at approving his Afghanistan/Iraq defense budget, the White House issue forcefully pushed back, warning of consequences in the next election cycle. There has been no such pushback against Baucus and the Bluedogs. So its self evident that if Baucus is leading a charge against the public optio, Obama and the White House agree with that.
I'm an Obama supporter who worked for him long and hard in 08. Now Democrats are trying to mount effective campaigns here in SC for Governor (held by Sanford) and Senate (Demint) in 2010. And thats where I get off the bus. I will not support Corporate-dominated Republican-lite Democrats with my volunteer time or money.
August 21, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama may be talking a good game for healthcare reform"
- Except that he isn't.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360541357223298.html
August 21, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This health care reform debacle has completely baffled me from the start.
In the public debate Obama has been AWOL as a political force as have the top dems with the minor exception of a sound bite or two from time to time.
It really does feel like a rudderless ship at this point - locally as well as nationally.
I do have some hope that the birther/health care scare clowns will have their day in reality court soon as the blow back from all this ridiculousness comes into play but without someone steering the message and the troops what's the hope?
I'm in Seattle where a lot of people want reform and a public option but I feel like there's nothing doing here - same other places or no?
August 21, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 21, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. One thing is for sure: Baucus needs to be punished. It is still a long way off before we can primary the mofo. But the Dem Caucus can vote to strip him of his committee chairmanship. And I think he needs to be threatened with funding getting cut off for his state.
August 21, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baucus, Enzi, Bingaman, Conrad, Feinstein, Pryor, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Bayh are only some of the Dems (how about Nelson?) either opposed to a public option already or ready to be if pushed. So if the current report is correct that the Dem leadership is leaning on them to commit to closure but leave them free to vote against the final bill, I wonder if the numbers (51) are there with Biden as tiebreaker if Kennedy is dead or can't get to the vote.
August 21, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein's for the public option but again, that is NOT the real issue here as I have been ranting for weeks now
The only question worth pondering is the one Reich asks and the follow on - What can be done to shut down Circus Baucus...
August 21, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The political scientist Kieth Krehbiel, of Stanford, coined the term "pivotal politics." Here he means the individual politician in Congress who is at the pivotal point. In the House, that would be the median voter . . . the one for whom 50% are more liberal and 50% are more conservative. In the Senate, it often takes 60 votes, as many people know. In this case this "gang of six" located roughly at the 60 vote pivotal point, can join together. They are institutionally strengthened by being on a key committee, and having plenty of seniority on that committee. They calculate that they together are at a pivotal point, and use that as leverage to to shape provisions of the bill to their liking.
But if they delay too long (or even if they don't), and Reid gets tired of this story, then the pivotal point will be the 51st vote in the Senate, and instead use the reconciliation process.
This might still happen. The Republicans have been given a legitimate chance to contribute to this bill, an opportunity that Obama wants to give them. But there will be a point where it becomes obvious that Republicans are interested in killing health care reform under any circumstance. And then the bill will have to pass with Democratic votes only (expect maybe for Susan Collins or Olympia Snow). Subtract the following: Conrad, Baucus, Bingaman, Lieberman, Byrd (ill), and Kennedy (ill). That leaves 55. There could still be a defection or two (such as Nelson or Landrieu) while still passing the bill.
Of course, given the pervasive effect this bill would have for generations, if passed, it would be nice to pass it with a larger majority . . . but that seems to be a luxury progressives will not be able to afford.
To reiterate, the shorthand explanation for why the Gang of Six gets to "write" healthcare legislation is "pivotal politics." But the dynamics of this situation is that their hold on the pivotal point is tenuous.
August 21, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than join the fracas directly, I'll just toss a little fact on the fire (fact, not fat)
Seniority
Here's the six, together with their seniority positions.
7. Senator Max Baucus, Montana, D.
11. Senator Charles E. Grassley, R.
13. Senator Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico D.
23. Senator Kent Conrad, North Dakota D.
36 Senator Olympia Snowe, Maine (R)
47. Senator Mike Enzi, Wyoming. (R)
The Senate Finance Committee is one of the most powerful in the most exclusive club in the world. If you want earmarks for your state, this is the place to be.--and appointments are made through the party caucuses.
Here's where it gets a little interesting. Olympia Snowe is number 36 in seniority, and Mike Enzi, at 47, is barely in the top half. Why aren't there more senior Republicans in the "Gang of Six"--well, there more senior Republicans on the Finance Committee, with no intention of compromising on anything. So we're back to looking a bit at the motives of Max Baucus: there'd be no Gang without a gangleader. I'm not going to try to pick his brain...I don't want to dirty my utensils. But Baucus wouldn't chair finance if he wasn't 7th in seniority.
Here's another little driblet of information. The transfer of power between the parties means that most of the persons at the bottom of the seniority totem pole are democrats. Here's a list of the bottom 25
five of them are Republicans. As Repubicans get knocked off, other Republicans move up the seniority ladder...the ones left are the most conservative and from the safest states.
I could continue this with other related factors. Safest states generally are the smallest states: hence high seniority. There are some obvious exceptions..but generally the smaller states have more uniform populations and tend to be dominated by one party.
So to return to Mr. Reich's original question,
We did, by tolerating a set of rules which lets these factors dominate. And as long as Senators a bit further down the totem pole can hope to move up a little higher, we can't really expect them to change their archaic rules.Figures are from Roll Call: http://www.rollcall.com/politics/senateseniority.html
August 21, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Dem Caucus needs to strip disloyal Dems of their seniority.
Time for hardball.
August 21, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as Jim Eastland of Mississippi was annointed Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
August 21, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great little chance for a history lesson. In 1964 the Democrats had a 68-32 majority eight more than it has today. For all of LBJ's famed arm twisting ability, and with that colossal majority, the democrats were unable to break a filibuster exclusively with members of their own party. Here's the story
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm
Fifty-seven working days to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and passed only with the assistance of members of the Republican Party in the Senate, led by Everett McKinley Dirksen.
A piece of cake.
It would be for Obama, too, if he had Dirksen for minority leader.
August 21, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to paraphrase Hugo: the idea of health care has come -- #1 is controlling costs.
That means fighting the hundreds of billions in profit-from-illness now reaped by the industry, spent to buy Senators and Ads.
----
Unless we have billions, we would have to use people-power & leadrship.
-- That's why I thought *we* elected Sen. Obama!
August 21, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words (I'm a historian too) -- the world has moved on -- to Howard Dean, B. Obama, OFA, and the Internet -- it's just not being used!
August 21, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long did it take the nation to learn to drive and then to organizer an interstate highway system?, or for that matter, a system of state highways which actually connected with each other? http://www.gbcnet.com/ushighways/history.html (lousy web design, at least on my computer, which will prove the point I'm about to get to).
We're about at the same stage of development as the creation of the automatic starter--remembering that most cars still could be cranked up in an emergency--. We don't know how primitive we are in terms of mastering these tools or even in understanding them. The first drivers of Model T's didn't know they were primitives either....they were modern and up to date. After all, didn't they park their tin lizzie in front of the garage and go inside to crank up the victrola to listen to cylinders of Caruso singing Celeste Aida (or maybe Scott Joplin playing Maple Leaf Rag)?
The internet will be used more effectively in 2010, and even more effectively in 2012. If I make it to 2020 I won't even recognize the intertubes--beggaring the question whether I'll recognize myself.
Nice to see another historian around here, by the way.
August 22, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Amike. I would be interested to know your thoughts on the constitutionality of the filibuster. I am inclined to think that the founders never intended one chamber to become dramatically more powerful then the other (wasn't that the whole great compromise), and therefore a strong case can be made that this power through gamesmanship is not constitutional. Am I wrong on this.
August 22, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1964 the Democratic Party was largely a southern state party, with some northern staters in it. The Republican Part was not an exclusively conservative party then either. So, the tactics and processes used in 1964 have no relevance to today's world, where the Democratic Party is largely a northern state party, and largely an urban party, and the Repubs are exclusively ultra conservative. New times, new tactics needed.
August 22, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Benen
August 21, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good question for Grassley and Conrad on Face the Nation???
August 21, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
MIA for nearly two months now
August 21, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate Finance Committee .... the real Death Panel ......
August 21, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not bad at all.
Happy days.
August 22, 2009 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, your fans await you.
August 22, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Reich.
I was workin' for Obama in rural NC on Nov 1-2.
I won't lift a phone for Baucus & Grassley -- their bill will only cement Huge Profits and Huge crash in place. Obama needs to show some leadership -- he had it in Nov-Jan.
Blue Cross Dog Bill -- Yep!
August 21, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fix healthcare by throwing self-serving politicians out of office
Why did Barack Obama attack pharmaceutical companies before and now he has teamed up with them to promote his health care plan? Why are all the tort lawyers big democratic supporters and multi-millionaires? Obama’s true intentions are so obvious that even the left is starting to express concerns. For example, on August 10, CBS Evening News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson filed a report stating that “the White House agreed not to seek price controls on drugs for seniors on Medicare and would not support importing cheaper drugs from Canada.” According to Attkisson, “The pharmaceutical industry is now so firmly in the President's camp it's developing plans to spend up to $150 billion promoting it with TV ads.”
According to the acting president of Public Citizen and founder and director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, “An all sort of off the record deal was reached that is very bad for the American public.” Other experts say that for their cooperation, Obama is allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge $50 for a $2 pill and is assuring them that there will be no changes to the laws that make it near impossible for less expensive generic drugs to reach the American market.
Unless tort lawyers, the pharmaceutical lobby and other special interest groups like the AMA, ADA and the AARP are dealt with to preserves the Constitution and the free market system, while also protecting the medical provider and consumer, no healthcare plan can work. Please view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe2bpV1QlkE
Cybercorrespondent http://cybercorrespondent.blogspot.com
August 21, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This political battle here isn't really about healthcare it's about Corporations vs "The People." The Corporations are winning easily, because they have most of the power because they have most of the money.
Compounding this is the fact that The People don't even realize they are being snookered.
For instance there has been a single-payer "Medicare for All" bill in the House, HR 676, which has been languishing for the last 3 Congresses despite having over 90 co-sponsors.
It’s received little significant press because the mainstream media are owned by big-money interests. They have little sympathy or concern for our well-being.
August 23, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care is 1/5 of the economy- true reform will put a lot of people out of work. Sure its necessary, but in an economy like this who wants to do it? What will replace the jobs?
Damn'd if you do, damn'd if you don't. Let Baccus fuck with it. See what the public wants, let us build plausible denialability (public option is not a line in the sand) while blaming a bunch of nobodies with nothing to lose (gang of six). Lets see where the econ is in the fall and which way the winds are blowing.
Something will happen and hopefully we can blame someone else. or who knows. shit this economy sucks.
August 22, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a travesty. I watched Olympia Snow proclaiming that she wasn't allowing anything out of the Senate that DOES have included, a public option, and Nancy Pelosi stating that there won't be anything NOT including a public option out of the House.
And in the mean time, there are still those folks at these public meetings whining about "Why are you all in such a RUSH to change the health care?" and on and on.
It seems to me that we've been trying to fix health care at least as far back as the Clinton Administration when some tried to villianize Hillary for her efforts. Hmmmmm that would be way more than a decade, if memory serves me right. That may be a mere blip in geological time, but it is a long time in one generations experience.
Health Care issues must be faced and remedied now.
August 22, 2009 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to have this reform to restructure our economy so we are more in sync with our global competitors on the cost side of things. We can do a much smarter distribution of our available resources than we are.
Most of our competition has an arrangement where healthcare is on the cost side of their overall economic balance sheet while we have ours positioned more on the profit center side of things. In real terms though, how we do this is false because at the end of the day healthcare is on the cost side of the national economic ledger. That means we need to implement a change that gets those costs in hand.
That is crucial if we want to improve our employment picture, our balance of payments and a whole host of other things. I think if we don't do this the dollar will be displaced within two decades as the primary currency by which all other currencies are pegged. There are other things we need to do to prevent that happening but getting healthcare costs under control is a prerequisite.
The senate finance committee, the congress in general and the right wing nut jobs screaming socialism need to get their heads our of their asses and consider this broader picture. Right now they are oblivious to this. Their myopic view of the world is going to sell the entire country down the river if they don't wise up soon.
The most advantageous thing we could do is create a single payer system. That would provide the greatest overall benefit to the economy by far. It would open the door for us to bring back manufacturing jobs that are the lifeblood of every global economic unit. Anyone who thinks we can survive with a service based economy is full of shit.
August 22, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
SUGGESTION
It appears at this point that a health plan even acceptable to pragmatic progressives (as I consider myself to be) will not come out of Congress. My own position is STRONG support for single-payer nationally as BOTH the most equitable and cheapest approach but willingness to accept, as a major step forward, the Obama Administration approach with a STRONG public option and the Kucinich Amendment. (My understanding of the Kucinich Amendment is that it allows individual states to opt out of the national health program with their own single-payer plan -- WITHOUT PREJUDICING THEIR FEDERAL HEALTH FINANCING. If this needs further explanation, someone plz provide it, and send it to me either by email or TPM msg, so I'll be sure to see it).
OK, so it seems at this point that whatever comes out of Congress (if the whole issue isn't effectively torpedoed, which is at least a possibility, albeit not a likelihood) will be so truncated as to be noxious to progressives like me. There might be something CALLED public option, to satisfy progressive demands for one, but watered down almost to the point of worthlessness, just enough to split the 60 some odd insistent progressives' votes. Let's suppose it comes through Congress, Obama signs it, hailing it as a 'compromise victory' reflecting the give and take of the Democratic process, and the MSM for the most part look at the grumbling (and perhaps smattering of dissenting progressive Congressional votes) on the part of progressives as 'proof' of the plan's moderation, implying therefore sensibleness.
OK, what do progressives do now? My suggestion is that progressives in BOTH Houses insist on a SUBSEQUENT vote, a STAND ALONE FLOOR VOTE OF THE ENTIRE BODY AS A MEASURE AND NOT JUST AS AN AMENDMENT, of a variant of the Kucinich Amendment that would allow individual states -- or, my own unresearched variation, GROUPS OR COMBINATIONS OF STATES -- to opt out and establish a single-payer system without prejudice to their federal health financing. This would not be like the pro forma vote on single-payer overall, after no extended debate let alone hammering out of the details of a single payer plan has taken place, a sop to politicians who want to be able to at least go back to their constituents and say that they voted for single payer. The details would be left to states to hammer out in developing their plans, and the amendment would not upend the national plan overall.
Since the GOP and the blue dog Democrats (who I prefer to call "blue nose" Democrats) will surely torpedo the measure, what's the point? Well, it provides a platform for progressive Democrats, particularly in so-called 'blue states', such as NY, NJ, PA, CA, CT and so forth to call out politicians and build a broad force in the Democratic Party for future modification of the health plan. Since the health sector is itself about 1/6 of the US economy and growing, this would be a large part of (hopefully) the alternative overall united progressive economic platform (to the left of Obama) that I have been whining about incessantly with no response. It would provide a political basis for the future, in the face of what promises to be a most disappointing outcome for progressives on the health plan issue
August 22, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
William Greider wrote an excellent book several years ago, Who Will Tell the People. What the people don't know and that nobody will tell them is that the special interest organizations have taken over the goernment, and the voice of the people counts for nothing.
This is the unfortunate reality that we have to come to terms with. What every elected official learns after being elected is how circumscribed their power and influence is. Whether one looks at state governments or the federal government, the governor or president and legislators are the second team. The first team are the major special interest associations.
I think Obama read the cards early after being elected and realized that all his eloquence could not defeat the major health industry lobbies. So, I think he compromised and communicated his willingness to accept whatever they put together.
I'm sure all of you read Bob Herbert's column in today's NY Times. When Obama looses Bob Herbert, then he as lost the closest and most steadfast supporters he has.
Not only hve we lost healthcare reform, we have lost our democracy.
August 22, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
HE'S BAAAACCCCKKKKK........
The most despised, loathed, Blue Dog S*&T of them all is back on CNN this AM campaigning against healthcare.
Yes, that's him the number 1 warmonger of them all. The let's spend a trillion in the middle east but let the children die in America Senator.
Mr. Democrat is back.
Just one more reason that I can say that leaving the Democratic Party a week ago was the wisest thing I've done in a long time. To think that Democrats have allowed a snake like him to remain in their party is beyond comprehension.
I give him to you oh Obamabots, your fellow Democrat, one of your honored committee chairman (Ha, Ha, Ha, remember you gave him back his chairmanships because you needed his vote, ha, ha, ha, it hurts, what total utter fools), campaigning again against your very own hero.
JOE LIEBERMAN.
August 23, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather see Lieberman exit the party than you, or any of us.
August 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sign the petition. Stand with Howard Dean in support of a Public Option:
http://standwithdrdean.com/
Howard Dean needs at least 500,000 signatures on his petition. So far he has just over 402,000. Please sign.
August 23, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why these six? Because Obama doesn't want health care reform. He wants a bailout of the health insurance industry before it undergoes a Malthusian collapse.
August 23, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Matt Taibbi about a month ago:
Now, Taibbi presents this as a fait accompli. I'm not so sure that that's the case. But if something halfway decent gets done, it will be in spite of these folks, not because of them. It will happen because of the work of Jane Hamsher and Eve Gittleson over at Firedoglake and elsewhere and all the rest of the DFH netroots Obama-hating crazy socialist Chicken Little hand-wringing panty-wetting loony lefty blogger types who instead of STFU like so many of the TPM commentariat (and Rahm, of course) have been telling them to, have been slogging along for so many months now while the deals have continued to be cut behind closed doors (and, oddly, not on C-SPAN) in Washington.
August 24, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink