2 + 2
Today,"centrist" Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (N-CT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) decided to band together to try to thwart the effors of the administration and the Democratic leadership to get a healthcare bill passed by August. In typically smarmy coded prose, they leapt on the CBO's inability to measure reductions in health care costs that aren't specifically mandated by Congress to try to stall the bill until after the August recess.
. . . in view of [CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's] statement [that, based on an incomplete analysis by CBO under rules that don't allow CBO to recognize savings ], there is much heavy lifting ahead. We support the efforts of the Finance Committee to produce a bipartisan bill, despite calls from both sides of the aisle to rush forward or delay indefinitely. While we are committed to providing relief to American families as quickly as possible, we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every indvidual in the U.S.
We look forward to working with you to develop legislation that is vital to the well-being of the American people and urge you to resist timelines which prevent us from achieving the best results blah de blah de blah de blah.
July 17, 2009 letter by Slimey Six to Senate Democratic and Republican leadership (emphasis and blah de blahs added).
Brian Beutler has a more sophisticated analysis than mine of the motives and actions of the Slimey Six and wisely recommends following Obama's perrenial advice not to get caught up in the breathless news cycle and "turn every microdevelopment into a make or break moment for progressive change" That's usually my line, indeed my creed. Hell, I'm even one of the people who kind of rolls his eyes at the word "progressive." I doubt that these self-important asshats are going to be able to slow down progress.
But, seriously, the problem is equally on both sides of the aisle? "bipartisan bill?" "Bipartisan result?" Who the hell do they think they're fooling? They're in the damn Senate. They know the score. There isn't going to be any "bipartisan solution." The Republicans only objective is to kill it. We know it. Reid knows it. Obama knows it. It is absofrakkinglutely impossible that the Slimey Six don't it because, they're in the goddam Senate. The mere fact that they sent this letter to McConnell as if he or anyone in his rotting animated corpse of a party have ever, at any point, had the slightest intention of allowing health reform to happen is intself an insult to the intelligence of anyone with half a brain who's been even half-assedly following this issue. (A description which, unfortunately, excludes Wolf Blitzer and most of the Beltway MSM).
So what are the Slimey Six doing this and why today? Whose side are they on and whose agenda are they serving?
Well, by the most remarkable coincidence, on the same day the Slimesters sent their letter to Reid and McConnell, good ol' Sen. Jim DeMint made the answer to that question perfectly clear. Today, DeMint frankly explained how delaying a vote on health care reform until after the August recess is crucial to their plan to both stop health care reform and "break" Obama:
Conservative leaders will push delay any vote on health care reform until after the August recess to capitalize on what they say is a growing tide of opposition to reform measures, they said on a conference call with "tea party" participants today.
"I can almost guarantee you this thing won't pass before August, and if we can hold it back until we go home for a month's break in August," members of Congress will hear from "outraged" constituents, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said on the call, which was organized by the group Conservatives for Patients Rights.
"Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America."
"If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said.
The founder of Conservatives for Patients Rights told the 104 participants in the call, which was organized to coincide with the National Tea Party Patriots group's protests at the offices of members of Congress today, that polling suggests majorities oppose a "government take-over," which is how Scott's group casts the Obama plan.
Rep. Mike Pence, also on the call, also said the tide is turning.
"Every single day more dems are expressing op to government-run health care," he said.
Ben Smith's Politico blog, 7/17/09, 12:31 pm (bold facing and italics added, hyperlinks in original.)
(Parenthetically, being a Politico tool, Ben, of course, didn't feel the need to note that "Conservatives for Patient Rights" is an astroturf front group funded by the guy who founded HCA and ran it until he was outsted in the wake of a multi-million dollar Medicare fraud scandal and set up by the same folks behind the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.)
So whose agenda are the Slimey Six serving? Whose side are they on? Do the math. It's easy as 2+2.
And that's my insight for the day. The Slimey Six may not be able to affect the timetable and their letter today may be yet another futile corrupt Blue Dog fart in a hurricane, but it crystalized for me that the time has come when sides must be chosen. DeMint, although completely insane, made both the stakes and the opposition's strategy clear. Delay health care until after the August recess. Harness the the teabaggers and the rest of the astroturf battlebots that the sociopathic insurance industry flacks have been buying since the mid-90s to generate some phony constituient traffic to the offices of selected congressmen or senators from purple states or districts. Upon receipt of these missives, these congressmen will lose bladder control, ignore the polls showing public approval for a public option remains highand vote to kill the public option and, if they're really scared, the whole bill. Health reform dies, Obama's political capital is gutted oh, P.S. and by the way, so is the entire liberal agenda .
Grandiose? Yep. Delusional? Maybe, but we dare not take the risk.
As former CIGNA PR executive Wendall Potter made clear, the insurance companies have been preparing for this fight since they killed the Clinton reform effort. (Yes, I linked twice. His interview with Amy Goodman is, in my view, even more important than his Senate testimony last month.) In close coordination with their allies in the GOP and conservative media, they are preparing to spend tens of millions of dollars if they can delay a vote until after the August recess. They want to take advantage of the traditional August MSM Mind Meltdown--the "dog days" period when the cable asshats' brains traditionally turn into liquid shit and ooze out of their ears--to pump so much Luntz-approved disinformation into the air that people get scared and scream for their Congresscritter to save them from the socialists. And, of course, there will be sockpuppets aplenty on the blog comments (they're already showing up at TPM, did you notice?) and lots and lots of oh so very sincere letters to the editors in the eighteen surviving local newspapers in America.
And that brings me to my real message tonight, which I offer in the hope that those to whom it is directed will at least give it a little consideration before they rush into the comments to call me a dissent-suppressing jackbooted fascist or a fawning Obama cultist.
There are still a lot of folks on the left of the ideological bellcurve who are adament about the need for a single player plan or who are otherwise upset with one provision or another in one or another of the bills that they deem "sellouts." More power to you. If we didn't have all this pesky political, social and historical reality to deal with, I'd be over there with you. As it happens, we do and, as Howard Dean noted tonight on Democracy Now, whether the continuation of private insurance with regulation and a public option it is the best, most economically efficient or socially desirable plan is quite irrelevant.
Yeah, look, I don't position myself against single payer, but I position myself for giving the American people a choice. I think what the President understands is the country is a conservative country with a small "c." That is, they want change, but like most human beings, they don't want so much that they're uncomfortable. And so, the genius of the Obama healthcare plan is it's not the healthcare plan that an academic would write in the ivory tower, but it starts from where we are, not where we would have been
* * *
The thing I love about Obama's plan is it's politically practical. Instead of saying, "This is the right thing to do," as Dr. Young said, "and this is what we're going to do," he says, "Look, you decide for yourself. We're going to give you an example. We're going to allow people under sixty-five to sign up for what people over sixty-five have. And you make the choice." And what we're all betting is that the private--and I agree with his comments about the private insurance industry. Their behavior has been reprehensible, cutting people off when they have illnesses and charging huge--executive salaries of the big three are over $20 million. The guy that runs CMS, which has a billion claims a year, probably makes $150,000 or $200,000. I mean, it's ridiculous. Let the American people choose. If they make the choice themselves, they will invest emotionally in this system, and I think that the insurance industry will be forced to behave in a much better way, or they will be put out of business. But it will be themselves that's putting themselves out of business, and the American people, not the Congress, doing it.
I highly recommend this broadcast and encourage everyone to listen to it or read the transcript at the link above. I found Dean's argument tonight to be the most pursuasive one in favor of the way they're trying to do this than any I've heard yet. He talked me past my own real ambivelence and onto the bandwagon in a way that no one else had managed to do before.
But DeMint's "Waterloo" statement is what really made me commit. He's the one who conviced me that, though it makes me gag a little say something so Shrubby, we have arrived at one of those rare moments when the knuckleheaded platitude is true: if you're not with us, you're with them--with DeMint and CIGNA and Luntz. This is the with us or against us moment and its not just healthcare that's at stake. The Republicans have gathered themselves for this one last counterattack against our agenda--to the extent we can quit squabbling and agree on what that might be. If they win this, not just healthcare but everything we hope to accomplish over the next decade could set it back for years, or even another generation.
Conversely, however, if we win this, we break them. Once and for all. Or at least for a long, long time.
So I'm not calling on anyone who's passionate about single payer to STFU and and get on board for the big public option win. Quite the contrary. Your pressure is indispensible. If, by some miracle, you get enough of the public on your side to win the debate, I'll cheer. Even if you don't win, however, the pull you are generating from the left is essential to counter the black hole to the right that's trying to suck reform into annhilation.
However, if you're in the "no reform would be better than less reform than I demand" camp, you are. Jim DeMint's bitch. Frustrating though you may find what you perceive as Obama's tepid incrementalism, he is doing something that is absolutely critical to the left's ability to implement its agenda--he is steadily pulling the center line of political opinion leftward. Everytime he succeeds in accomplishing one of his tepid incrementalist goals with public support, formerly "leftist" ideas becomes mainstream opinion. Help Jim DeMint kill reform and the mainstream backlashes rightward against the useless, chaotic Democrats. That's their plan. For that reason alone, if you don't pick a side one will be chosen for you. The Slimey Six have chosen. Will you join them?
















2 + 2 = 5.
July 18, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what you are saying is that we hang togeather or we hang seperately. Concidering that we have been hanging seperately for three decades now. I think you have a good point.
You lead a parade with the bandwagon you've got not the bandwagon you wish you have and we better get on before the vandals take the wheels off.
July 18, 2009 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally with your analysis on this. I fervently want to get to single payer as soon as possible. This is the smart, and probably only doable, way to get there--critically, so long as the public option that comes out in the final version is robust enough to be a viable option for people who aren't on the highest risk/most-expensive-to-insure part of the spectrum.
The others don't surprise me totally. But I really, really do not get what is up with Ron Wyden.
July 18, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant. Hope this stays front page long enough to add more. But for the moment, I'd be giving you a standing ovation right now, except that typing standing up is not one of my major strengths.
July 18, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The tone and tenor of this blog seems overly hysterical about a delay of a couple months to address the very important points raised by the CBO report. The idea that such a delay is Obama's Waterloo or will kill health care reform for perhaps another generation is equally unlikely.
The idiots in Congress may practice their idiocy under the hot lights of a 24-hour media, but that doesn't mean they are speaking for America. The persistence and loudness of the broadcasts give their pronouncements a heft that they would not normally have standing on a street corner with a megaphone. Doesn't change actual reality, but it can be disconcerting.
This whole discussion is much more complex than this blog seems to allow for. There are a number of ways to reach a reform bill that half the country doesn't actively work against as the inherent weaknesses discovered by the CBO keep the plan from succeeding. One reason the plan doesn't lower costs might be it lack of focus on prevention, including the nation's food supply. It will be hard to control health care costs if we don't take all the environmental and social causes into account in addition to the ones focused on the business of health care.
Obama can't afford to sign a bill that won't be affective. That would be as bad as not getting a bill passed at all or having it delayed for a few months while we design a plan that will work. I am not convinced that all opposition to the health care reform bill currently on the table is worthy of such fervent condemnation. It is hard for me to support a bill that may not actually accomplish what we need it to because it doesn't take all the factors into account when fashioning our national solution.
A bill that leads to an ineffective medical system could set reform back a generation more than taking our time to craft the right solution. I am tired of the same assholes in Congress - left and right - peddling the same shit legislation and calling it innovation.
July 18, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Jason on this.
And I add that the reason we are where we are is because of what people 'believed' was possible... not because it was true but perhaps a mindset combined with the incredibly unhealty dynamic that keeps being perpetuated between democrats and republicans in congress. The republicans have perfected attacks and outrage to the degree that the democrats behave like they are dominated even when they are in the majority. I think it is frankly 'unhealthy' for us to go along with this BS.
And NC I am no one's bitch.
July 18, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the fact that many on the left assume the idiots in charge of the republican party don't make the rank and file in the party cringe as well. They assume that the silent majority of conservative America isn't pissed that their "leaders" are providing nothing of substance, yet are as complacent as democrats were as the DLC took the party far from its more noble past performances.
July 18, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the details are complex--it's health care, 17% of our economy and the cutting edge of our technology focused on issues of life and death.
The politics, and the macroeconomic factors driving them, however, are surprisingly simple. We do not have one chance to get this right. We do, however, have one chance to get this done. If we fail, we're looking at another decade at least and at the real possiblity that healch care reform gets deemed politically radioactive and is never attempted again.
And we're also looking at the likelihood we'll end up with an Obama Administration that, like Clinton's after his failure on this issue, never has the political capital to attempt anything big again. There are certainly plenty of people around here who've been predicting just that for months now. It's not at all unlikely. We've seen it happen twice in a row. Big policy failures cause the party in power to fragment and indulge in intramural squabbling and recrimination and the party out of power to unite and advance.
It is how Clinton went from boldly proposing big ideas and big reforms in 1993 to proclaiming the era of big government over in 1995. He did a great job of playing defense from then on, and thank God, but he was on the defensive for the rest of his presidency. Much the same thing happened to the Republicans after his brilliant scheme to privatize Social Security failed, but because Democrats are naturally prone to squabbling and recrimination, big policy moves are always riskier for them.
We do not have to get it perfect on the first try. All we have to do is get it right enough that it makes a noticable improvement in the way things work. If we do that, we have a paradigm shift in the way people think about the issue--a new normal and a new set of assumptions about government's role in health care.
Those new assmuptions are what create the political space necessary to deal with the CBO's concerns, to the extent that they are real rather than the product of the limits of the CBO's methodological, practical and political constraints. It's not necessarily easy to amend a law, but its a hell of a lot easier than it is to to get a law that's going to disrupt a multi-trillion dollar status quo onto the books in the first place.
We are at a unique moment when it is possible to get something done. The alliance of physicians, Big Pharma and the health insurance industry that's thwarted all previous attempts at reform has fractured. The insurers spent the fifteen years since they helped kill the Clinton effort finding new and ever more inventive ways to piss off doctors and are now shocked to find physicians arrayed against them. Big Pharma has, for the time being, has decided it would rather be at the table than in the trenches. Voter attention to the issue is finally high enough that a fear of the voters exceeds the value of the insurance industry's campaign contributions.
The insurance industry's only hope to salvage the status quo is to get enough time and media space to launch a coordinated disinformation campaign. They've already discovered that that kind of thing cannot get traction when it's got to compete with ongoing news indicating momentum toward passage of a bill. August, the month when real news slows to a crawl and the asshats are desparate for any kind of "content" to maintain the breathless tone of urgency demanded by the cable news format, is their best chance.
August is a unique time in our political and media culture. It is the time when counterfactual narratives and outright stupidity have the best chance of taking hold. It's the month when we get stories about attractive young white women in peril, nonexistent spikes in shark attacks and, of course, the terrible, terrible trouble Obama is in. That's what this is about.
July 18, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, Steve. Rambling much?
I really have to stop trying to write, eat and watch TV at the same time.
July 18, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rambling or not, that's well put Steve. If these bills don't pass the House and Senate before the August recess the cablenets will spend August saying Obama has failed to reform healthcare.
July 18, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! There is now a political stake to this bill that has a much bigger implication. While we may be concerned that a delay could lead to Obama losing the faith of the people, [The MSM is pulling their hair out because he may be under 60% in popularity, as though 60& was some mark against him] we could as easily prognosticate that a victory for Obama by August would be the Waterloo of the GOP.
Who was the megalomaniac with colonial pretensions toward the Middle East anyway? George III, errr, the 3rd President named George, not the Ruler of the British Empire who lost the United States. Oh hell, George W. Bush. This is his Waterloo, delivered, by proxy, into the laps of the GOP, who so unapologetically, even to this day, supported him and his agenda. Well, George W. Bush and his Regime. If we are going to make Waterloo comparisons, we should be sure the funny hat goes on the correct little Napoleon.
July 18, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
AND THE BIGGEST PART OF THAT 1% OF OUR POPULATION WILL LAUGH AT THEM.
July 18, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with any of this, but I am far from convinced that this particular bill will do everything you envision.
I am not saying we should seek perfection, but the idea that any objections amount to obstruction doesn't seem quite right to me either. I think there are some important considerations that must be accounted for if we want a reform package that will do more harm than good.
The "stimulus" package was presented as the same sort of "pass or we die" legislation. We saw how good that worked out. TARP was the same sort of scenario. I am not convinced that this current bill does what we need it to. That doesn't make me stupid or naive, just cognizant of the enormous complexities of the issue that seems to scream out for calm and deliberate action that leads to desired outcomes.
That is something the federal government doesn't do well.
July 18, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is up with Sen. DeMint's language of "break him"???
Is Pres. Obama in Sen DeMint's view a horse or worse yet, a slave??
Someone in the MSM really should call him and any others out for this kind of insulting submissive language every time it is used.
This coded language is getting ridiculous.
July 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a little historical tidbit, four of the six senators who signed that letter voted for the massive Bush tax cuts that were rammed through in May of 2001 without anywhere near the same level of public debate that has occurred over health care reform in the past two months.
Fucking hypocrites.
July 18, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're seeing a bit of rhetorical overkill with this post. It is extremely unlikely that final passage of reform legislation can be achieved before the August recess, and so that issue is moot. The notion that the recess will allow opponents to kill the bills is also questionable; they will try, but advocates will also lobby hard for passage, or at least they should. In particular, President Obama, who has been relatively subdued until recently, will now have an opportunity to work with legislators, even on a one-on-one basis, to push for passage of robust reform legislation.
Although passage before the August recess may be impossible, there will still be an important need to maintain momentum, so that by the time of recess, the various committees will have a chance to finalize and vote on proposals. That will shorten the time after the return of Congress for full votes on reform legislation.
I do agree that ultimately, the legislation will not be very bipartisan, but 60 votes will be needed in the Senate, and that will probably require at least one or two Republicans - e.g., Collins and Snowe. (The hope that reform legislation could be passed by a reconciliation mechanism requiring only 50 votes has been pretty much dispelled by analysts who predict it could not survive parliamentary rules on the issue).
July 18, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The perfect is the enemy of the good".
Without overly nit-picking the details of timing, public relations, tactics, and all that (I just don't know, there - there are a lot of cross-cutting factors that are hard to guage, harder still to predict), I still maintain (completely intuitively) that we need to get 'points on the board', the sooner the better.
In other words, if I'm given a choice in this environment between a flawed option barely doable NOW, and a stronger option we might hope to pass by consensus at some theoretically ideal point down the road, I say go NOW with our best shot: Getting SOMETHING dragged across that first threshold as a starting point is the hardest part. It is highly unlikely that whatever is passed will be 100% right on the first try anyway (changing something this complex is a process, not an end in itself), and correcting in small strokes after the fact is going to be a lot easier than getting in the door in the first place.
July 18, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, I'm glad you have the guts to point out the political necessity of getting the important stuff done incrementally.
We know Washington is all about politicians raising money to stay in office. They care more about holding office than serving the people, so they're not going to do anything to scare off their cash cows.
The GOP is too shamelessly unscrupulous to be allowed to run amok during the August recess. Health care reform cannot wait. While the push for single payer is commendable, it won't happen this go round. The good thing is it will keep the issue front and center. People who have decent insurance need to hear the stories of people just like them who don't -- and lost everything. They need to be shamed/guilted, whatever, into supporting real reform.
Prevention and taking responsibility for one's health should not be a novel notion, but it is. There has to be a major push to help people understand that what they put in their bodies and how much they move has a direct relation on the quality of their physical and economic health.
I've been seething ever since I heard about the gang of six and Demint's asinine comment. Then I turned on Moyers for a while and heard about how Obama hasn't been aggressive enough on energy and climate change legislation. At least Moyers pointed out that Obama has done far more than any president in recent history.
With all he's dealing with, I wonder if he ever thinks, "just take this job and shove it." Who would want to put up with all this crap?
July 18, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should be: ...has a direct impact on...
CM
July 18, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too hasty:
...have a direct impact on...
July 18, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
July 18, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Universal Single Payer Healthcare...NOW!!!
If not that, then the option to choose.
Great post Steve. co-sign
July 18, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
All well and good, but no one to Wyden's defense (acting on Obama's behalf)? Slimey?
July 19, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink