Half empty or half full? It's not that simple.

  I think lobbyists, insurance companies, Wall Street, and Big Pharma all have glasses full to the rim with the finest champagne tonight.
The American People? Not so much.

More like we're paying 7/11 prices to charge a half-empty glass of beer on our Citibank VISA at 24% interest.

There is ZERO health care cost containment in this bill. That WAS the other primary reason we were supposed to be doing health care reform.

Kari, Maybe the argument that healthcare costs are rising at an unsustainable rate that will bankrupt America if not checked, was just some old-fashioned fear-mongering. It wouldn't be the first instance of the Bush/Cheney playbook finding its way into this administration. But if that's the case, it was absolutely vital to cut costs here. Yet, time and time again, this part of it was not only ignored but worsened. Big Pharma actually IMPROVED their lot in life through this. Yes, covering more Americans is a noble goal and it's great if that happens. But what we could be seeing with healthcare as with the military industrial complex, is a death grip on power so fierce that we can't free ourselves from it even when the survival of the country is at stake. This process has been truly frightening to behold. It wasn't a debate as much as watching a boa constrictor tightening its grip with every exhalation of hot air. There's a question for you: Has watching the way this played out made you more hopeful or less hopeful for the future of America? There's 300 million of us. Maybe adding coverage for 20 million more is just a spoonful of sugar to help the poison go down.

Kari cites a veritable rogues gallery of the people who represent the fraudulent elitist masquerading as populists, progressives, and Democrats. Monk in particular is a real piece of work that Kari just happens to prominently cite.

Monk outdid evil itself when she attacked Ratigan for quite legimately shaming Wasserman-Schultz's with the underhanded tactic of accusing him of bullying "a breast cancer survivor", a fact which clearly had no bearing on the merit of Wasserman-Schultz's argument that consisted solely of mindlessly repeating empty and false talking points about the reform effort. She didn't have the integrity to mention Jane Hamsher, who has been mobilizing competent, honest, moral opposition against this immoral fraud. Someone should put her on the record and ask her if that could be because Hamsher is also a breast cancer survivor who has as at least as much understanding of the true corrupt reality of the private health insurance industry? (Wasserman-Schultz also in the end voted for Stupak because once the HR 3962 was amended by Stupak, anybody who voted for HR 3962 voted for Stupak. But she is so dishonest she won't take responsibility for that.)

Monk also was so intellectually dishonest as to misleadingly cite the work of Dr. David Himmelstein, a single-payer advocate with Physicians for a National Health Program to support her argument. HIs work actually argues against a system based on the private health insurance industry because people will die in a such a system that ineveitably leaves millions of people with inadequate or no health care.

What Kari and the dishonest propagandists defending the Democrats in the Senate he cites can't hide from is the ultimate Orwellian reality of how Monk and the rest he cites are monstrously arguing that this bill will save lives when in fact on balance it will cost thousands of lives a year. The Democrats, having proven they have a filibuster proof majority, have on their hands alone the blood and tears of the thousands of people who won't have medical care they would have if we had a national health insurance plan that would enable people to access far more care for less money. Kari is an apologist for Democrats who have made the cowardly choice to sacrifice those lives while forcing working people to fund welfare for the corrupt health insurance industry.

And by the way, not surprisingly, Kari personally lacked the moral integrity to note over at FDL, Jon Walker thoroughly demolished the bogus economic arguments of Ezra Klein. Klein has no publicly known qualifications in economics. Kari, has Klein allowed you to join his JournoList?

And Kari, Hacker is not the father of THE public option. He is just a self-promoting author of his particular very limited version of A public option. But you, like Klein, can't be bothered with actually researching the truth, you just repeat what you read in a partisan political opinion magazine.

I have to agree with Bill McDonald that this bill is a giveaway to the health insurance companies, big pharma, and health care providers who have Medicaid contracts.

Personally, I am with Jane Hamsher in opposing an Individual Mandate. I agree with her reasons and have my own to include.

The Individual Mandate opens up a pandora's box to what Government can tell individual taxpayers what they can do with their own money.

If Government can legislate that individuals have to carry health insurance or be criminalized via the IRS, then what "mandate" is next? Life insurance? Flood insurance?

Regardless, I will look at my options and do a cost/benefit on whether it is feasible to pay the IRS fine of 2% of my income opposed to throwing away up to 8% of my yearly income for a service that my 25 year old body just doesn't use and with my lifestyle, a very, very little likelihood of needing.

Take out the Individual Mandate where the young and working subsidize the old and sick, then I will support it. Otherwise, kill this sucker.

My glass is half full - of piss, which my own (former?) party has rained down upon me with this piece of legislation.

If Obama and the Dem majority had told us last year that they simply wanted to expand Medicaid to cover another 20 million folks, most of us would have yawned and said fine, whatever. But this was billed as a reform of our entire health care delivery system. Ha Ha Ha.

So far as I can tell (and disregarding the purchasing pools which smell more and more like insurance company BS), the non-subsidized middle class gets nothing from this measure. Employers currently offering health insurance get nothing from this measure. Healthy 20 somethings get nothing from this measure. Insurance premiums can continue to rise unchecked and are expected to double between now and 2014 when most provisions of this train-wreck of legislation becomes effective, forcing employers and covered employees to either abandon their health coverage or shift more and more income to paying premiums to health insurance companies instead of buying luxuries like food, shelter or supporting our children or grandchildren.

A couple of days ago there was an excellent post on DU that basically put me into the "pass it now and improve it later" camp.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x80261

Here are some highlights:

• Extend health insurance coverage to 31 million more Americans, including 14 million lower-income, working people through Medicaid
• Prohibit insurance company discrimination based on gender or pre-existing condition -- and make sure you can't lose your insurance when you get sick
• End the upward, unsustainable increases in insurance premiums
• Increase funding for community health centers in 10,000 communities across the country, enhancing primary care for more than 25 million people who have traditionally been uninsured or underinsured
• Close the prescription drug "doughnut hole" for seniors
• Require insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their income on patient care, not executive pay or profits
• Cut the federal deficit by $132 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office
• Increaces CHIP
• Expands Health Care for Native Americans
• Eliminates co pays for preventative care/tests so that more people will get earlier diagnosis and much cheaper treatments
• Pilot program to find a way to transition from "pay for services" to "pay for outcome".
• Modernize Medical record keeping to reduce costs
• Controls gross margin, net margins and plan profits

The reason that all progressive Senators are signing on is that it is going to save lives and reduce costs but beyond that it puts the federal government in charge of approving the price, coverage, profit of plans that will be in every state exchange. Every state will have plans that must include a non profit plan and multi state plans negotiated by OPM... This bill gives a floor of federal government control for health care and allows states to improve on that, creating an opportunity to improve upon that.

Clearly, our political system as it stands today is not capable of giving progressives very much of what we feel we and the country need. But until that changes (and if you think passing single-payer would have been hard, try getting corporations out of running our government...), I think this makes a good argument that this bill puts in place a foundation that would enable us to get there, slowly, over time, while saving lives and expanding coverage right now.

Thoughts?

Any program which makes buying health insurance mandatory will never have my vote, or likely my participation. At 52, barring the 14 years of parental coverage, I've had exactly 4.5 years of health coverage, and 3 of those years were in the Army. Why is it so hard to make 'necessary' care available to all and let those who desire buy the frills? My husband and I are actively looking for another country to move to. Just about had it here.

Real health care reform was left on the drawing room table months ago. This has become nothing more than a dick measuring contest between two political parties. The recent behavior in Washington (such as a conservative member of the house calling the President a liar on the open floor and certain Dems referring to opposition conservative members of the Senate as being members of white hate groups) is disgraceful. These are only a few examples of adolescent like behavior from the elected. Together we can make a difference? What a joke this governing body has become. Of course the final product is now a reflection of all that disagreement, rather than consensus on anything. I can't stoop low enough to support any of this.

jaybeat, nice example of how propaganda works: Cite what every decent person knows the Democrats with a filibuster-proof majority should pass in a good bill, without setting them in context to sell this very bad bill, which is nothing short of the final systematic corruption of our Congress, the Democratic party, and our health care system.

Even what you cite contains an internal examples of the immorality of this bill and your propagandistic advocacy of it:

• Require insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their income on patient care, not executive pay or profits.

If the Congress actually were doing the right thing, we'd have national health insurance plan that puts at least 95% of the monies paid in right back into health care or a strong public option that puts us on a path to that. That means you're defending Senators who are willing to sacrifice the lives and health of people that would have health care services to put that 10% money of the corporate welfare money working people are now forced to pay into the pockets of the private health insurance companies as their payoff for sacrificing the lives and health of people of those people for whom they and the Congress prove they have little regard.

Shame, shame, shame on you.

If you were an honest, decent, moral person, you would in fact give due discussion to Hamsher's 10 Reasons the Senate Health Care Bill Should be Killed (and Klein's "rebuttal" is anything but a valid argument against these points), as well as to why this bill should be scrapped unless the Senate amends it to reflect would be fixed by Walker's 35 Ways To Fix The Bad Senate Health Bill.

On top of the immoral, intellectually dishonest distortion of the true nature of this bill you mindlessly parrot here, you add the hackneyed appeal to the false promise of incrementalism that has become a favorite tool of the slimy propagandists in this matter I think this makes a good argument that this bill puts in place a foundation that would enable us to get there, slowly, over time, while saving lives and expanding coverage right now.).

If you had a shred of character integrity, rather than just attempting to distort reality to rationalize your cowardly position, you would try to make a critical argument against well defended arguments against the myth of incrementalism in a today's piece by Walker Warning to “Pass Anything” Camp: Reforms Don’t Always Get Better Over Time. You made an assertion in defense of incrementalism, if you are not just an empty-souled propagandist, you have a moral obligation to argue just how you think a Congress that was incapable of passing good legislation that puts the people first is going to actually carry through on any of the massive amount of regulatory actions and other reforms even needed to make most of what the propagandists for this bill selectively cite work?

The real question jaybeat, is whether you are a professional dissembler as your polished prose might suggest, or just one of those disgusting sheep that illustrate the utter banality of evil in furthering the evil ends of propaganda work by uncritically just repeating bits and pieces of what you read? The moral choice is yours to make and you owe it to those people whose health care you are compromising when you argue for giving 10% of the money that should buy health care for them to the private health insurance industry who have corrupted the entire process to be the real winners in this, and that, at the bottom line, are who you are really defending.

Shame, shame, shame on you.

One standard tactic is to insert good things into a bill through the early stages much as each new city of Portland project comes with pious promises to do this or that for the poor, etc... But as the beast moves forward, the good things are shed like the skins off a snake. So when people list all the good things this bill does, remember, we still have a ways to go here. This bill was about public option for most of the year, 'til it got near the end. Jaybeat's list of things that sound good will certainly help this get around the track and head for the finish line, but don't be surprised if some of them get dumped to the side as the final vote gets near, just as the city of Portland starts cutting back on helping the poor once the fat cats get what they want.

As Health Insurance Reform it is a huge step forward. As Healthcare Reform, it has some possibilities.

Most benefits will not be visible in 2010. Many elements don't kick in for years. This means it will have no built-in constituency for some time, assuming it lasts long enough for them to kick in.

Republicans will batter relentlessly in 2010 on the individual mandate, but no one will have experienced it yet which will soften the blow.

The glass is empty. Your huckster buddies have cheaply painted a water line on the outside of the glass. Would you care to mention the point from the last post, still unanswered, about why you're treating it as finalized leg? Seriously, do you know something about that?

I'll give Kari credit for being the only one that has probably read the bill. I made myself get through it, after listening to Franken. As far as I'm concerned, those arguing from someone else's summary, this far into the debate, have lost their right to an opinion.

It is tempting to take the incrementalist's approach (which would include RyanLeo's significant tweak). How American is it to respond to a plea for help by criminalizing the sufferer's lifestyle? The big problem is you find items like Modernize Medical record keeping to reduce cost, mentioned above. That is code for "take blank check Information Technology" to new levels, using Government monies. Yes, it needs to be done. The problem is that the consultants and third party contractors that it involves add to the cost hugely, they do an abysmal job of migrating existing business rules into the new system, and there are no "best practices". Yeah, there are plenty named, but they don't lead to a better outcome than having none. Software isn't bid like building a new courthouse is, and you get the predictable result.

That, BTW, is a really good example of the kind of "progress" we're getting from the Dems. The IT bit was mandated under Clinton, then watered down to the point of non-existence by Shrub. Now, Dems are getting back around to what was supposed to have been completed this decade, with a big handout to the equivalent of .com frauds. That's Dem progress. Instead of using the Congressional oversight powers during the Shrub admins, and holding the Administration's feet to the fire on what had already been signed into law, they allowed monied interests to grease their campaigns, and 10 years later are "progressive" by passing the same leg again.

Real health care reform was taken off the table, literally, day one, when Obama said "single payer is off the table". As I see it, there are only three options. Take the incrementalist's route, and you had better be damned sure that people like it. Second, do nothing until you have better organization in the Senate. Third, penalize the Repugs for their bloody mindedness by starting over, with single payer prominently on the table as a punishment for such behavior, and do it right.

Unfortunately, the debate has proven that we have no say in the matter. Obama is the kind of middle of the road, spin it, wishy washy Dem that will ALWAYS take the first option. So that's what we get. I wish I was terminally ill. I would blow my brains out on the Capitol steps. If many did, maybe they would get the message that we're deeply disappointed with this bill, and living this way isn't living.

Whether people like it or not will come down to those devilish details. How will this align with Oregon's MM initiative or DWD? It could easily be used as a Federal steam roller. Listen to us, we sound like god damned Rushies. How inept does the Dem handling have to be to leave progressives with the right's bogus talking points as our only rebuttal? Reading it, I was shocked how much could have been done. When "Stupak" was an issue, why didn't progressives use the prevention stick to beat anti-choicers off by saying "if you ban abortions, we'll hand out free contraceptives, and it'll be on big pharma's tab". They've played a charade throughout this, that the conservative elements of both parties are closer mirrors of the average American. That is not what the data say. This is why the Party yielded to established hacks rather than turn the reigns over to new blood on this. The argument was that they didn't know how to play Washington hard ball. Is that what the vet Dems did? That Harry Reid sure is a big league pitcher!

Ditto, Nope. I've tried three times and ended up in an untenable position, simply by virtue of being an American. I fear it can't be done right, without revoking citizenship. International perception isn't very good, where we're concerned either. Everyone assumes you have AIDs, are stupid, and must be a loser not to enjoy ripping people off in the US. Bottom line, not many places say, "yeah, we need more of those kind of people". It's stupid, because if you were that way, you'd like to stay, and not relocate. But think about how easy the attitude is. When you see an Arab, do you think "he probably hates us" or "he probably hates life in his country"? The latter never occurs to most. With climate change, there will be more and more refugees every year. Low quotas will become zero quotas. All I can say is I deeply regret my ancestors' decision, almost 500 years ago, to emigrate from Essex. I'm sure the English Civil War wasn't fun, but for almost 200 years we've gotten the short end of the stick and they could have stuck it out better than we're making it here, now. I just turned 50 too. If not, I would be living rough in New Zealand, as a better alternative, in a heartbeat. FWIW, I suffer from illyitis and have not been to a doctor in 34 years, and then it was only because I insisted on an upper GI series for my 16th birthday. They wanted me to take muscle relaxers for the rest of my life. I suffered and found relief with dietary control, until I turned 25, and discovered that weed relieved the symptoms before I could even exhale. Now I live under a rock, unprotected by MM leg, because my condition isn't covered. I'm sure that isn't even remotely unique. My point, following on from yours, is that our society has largely wasted boomers' lives. I still predict we'll be the first generation to experience shorter life expectancies than the previous. We're just tired of it all.

This bill could have done a lot to help the problem. It doesn't.

Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 22, 2009 12:29:59 AM

not that anyone's ever paid much attention to Howard Dean's actual words (except for us freak deaniacs), but he said kill the Senate bill & work to pass the House's thru reconciliation (and he admitted that wasn't going to happen). i'm pretty sure that, since he knew the Senate was going to pass its bill, he was trying to get people fired up to contact their Reps during conference & work for as much improvement as possible there. but he never said kill the bill — period.

You sure about that?

I say kill it, but I agree that there are a lot of details to be worked out that could make the bill slightly better or a lot worse. The fine print on the excise tax to be charged against "Cadillac" employer health plans is one area to watch. It appears they will start out taxing the richest plans which are primarily avaiable to unions and some Wall Street types, but the inflation indexing on the excise tax threshold could cause the excise tax to quickly apply to run of the mill Blue Cross type plans. The penalty for failure to carry insurance appears to be a moving target. Lots of people including me are skeptical that a 2% gross income penalty will cause people to run out and spend up to 8% of their gross income on insurance. Seems like the penalty will move upward either from the beginning or through some sort of after-the-fact compliance monitoring system. Also the federal insurance premium subsidy rules need to be fleshed out. Not clear whether the subsidy is available based solely on gross (or adjusted gross) income, or whether there will be some sort of means testing along the line of what Medicaid does now. Will the system provide free or very low cost federally subsidized insurance to a 60 year old with $15,000 a year income because he retired early with a million dollar 401K? And finally, none of the financing works unless Congress has the balls to actually cut Medicare spending. Telling granny that she can't have the "free" power chair paid by Medicare to tool around the grocery store is going to piss off the power chair manufacturing lobby, perhaps AARP, and probably the television broadcasting industry which will lose revenue when the 100 commericals per day for "free" power chairs go away.

Kill this turkey. If it can't be killed, stand back and watch the Repiglicans take over Congress. Hell I might even vote R next time since the enemy you know (R) is less dangerous than the enemy you don't (D's pretending to be independent from their corporate masters).

A billl that has passed can be improved upon.

"I have to agree with Bill McDonald that this bill is a giveaway to the health insurance companies, big pharma, and health care providers who have Medicaid contracts."

This should come as no surprise. Obama took lots of money from the health insurance industry to finance his campaign. After he was elected, he tried to stack the deck in favor of his donors by appointing Tom Daschle to be his health secretary. Daschle gained a lot of notoriety for his links with insurers. (Google for "Tom Daschle insurance industry" for information about his moonlighting there.) Kathleen Sebelius has a more respectable history than Daschle (not too hard to beat), but she is obviously a loyal player on the Obama team.

Then there were Obama's promises about negotiations being open and on television - except, among other instances, when Billy Tauzin was in the White House rigging the system for Big Pharma.

And, let's not forget the key players in Congress who are on the insurance industry's campaign donation list. Max Baucus, for example, wouldn't even entertain the appearance of single-payer advocates at his committee hearings. To the contrary, single-payer advocates were ejected from his hearings.

What people seem to be forgetting on this thread is that the senate bill is not the final bill. What we will get is what comes out of senate and house negotiations. Then we need to read the fine print. Congress is notorious for including loopholes you can sail a battleship through. Because in Congress it is always the season for hustling campaign donations, you can bet the key players will be doing what they can to meet the lobbyists' demands.

Until the final bill is created we should all raise hell and let the senate and house negotiators know these bills are not good enough, and if they don't do better they will pay a price next November. We may have to compromise eventually, but now is not the time.

Thanks for the added analysis, Kari. Seems you're right. Maybe Dean's saying that we should heavily lobby legislators for changes is his way of killing it?

Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 22, 2009 9:49:32 AM

I say kill it, but I agree that there are a lot of details to be worked out that could make the bill slightly better or a lot worse. The fine print on the excise tax to be charged against "Cadillac" employer health plans is one area to watch.

While we've totally backed down on the principle in the last 250 years, it's good to remember Samuel Johnson's definition of excise tax, "A hateful tax levied upon commodities, and adjudged not by the common judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid.

EPF:

Wow! Usually I get bashed with such vitrol only by the trolls.

You seem to be confusing my falling on the "half-full" side of the argument for actually approving of its approach as the best or even a good solution to the problem. Wrong.

If I had my way, there would be no profit in healthcare, only an honest living for providers. I do not, in fact, "argue for giving 10% of the money that should buy health care... to the private health insurance industry"--I say limiting that % at all is a step forward, especially given the obvious reality our government doesn't work for us, but for the corporations. As evidence of this I need present nothing other than the fact that this bill is the best effort that has been put forward by our government since...EVER.

Living as I do in the reality-based universe, I live in world where private insurance pays for most health care in the US for those who are not very poor or over 65, and where the companies that profit by selling that insurance spend a great deal of their vast wealth on making sure that continues. Please explain to me how, in this reality, we could actually achieve single-payer, Medicare for all, or any of the other more progressive ideas that I fully support over this extremely over-compromised turd of a bill?

You're welcome to think that it is not better than leaving things as they are. But for someone who rants endlessly about my "moral obligation" to those harmed by this bill, where's yours to those harmed by the status quo? Because, wait for it...

THAT'S THE CHOICE HERE!!

The choice is NOT between this bill and the Kucinich amendment, or Senator Sanders' amendment (both of which I support). It is between this, now, and who knows what later, and who knows what later.

Knowing what can be done with one-vote majorities through reconciliation (changing numbers in existing law, but not making new law), a lot of this bill could be made a LOT better by changing the numbers. We can do that w/out Nelson, Lieberman, Landreu and the rest. It may not by easy, it may not happen at all, but it is more possible than single payer and a pony in this Congress. And I personally wouldn't bet on the next one having more Ds in the House, or Senate.

Would it have been better if Obama had come out strong and hard for a better bill? I bet it would have. But we have the Obama we have, not the Obama we'd like to have. Same for Congress. Go out and try and get more progressives elected next time. But if it gets more Republicans elected instead, don't expect me to thank you.

To characterize modification to the Senate Bill in such a way as to incorporate, for example, provisions that John Conyers is advocating for as "to the left" is the type of spin doctoring that has ruined the process.

This terminology is meaningless in a process where forteen thousand people a day are losing insurance coverage and forty-five thousand people a year are dying for lack of coverage. What is "left" or "right" about allowing people to die or forcing them into bankruptcy. It is a matter of right or wrong. But then I come from an era where hucksterism had not progressed as far as it has today. Eighty billion more for drones in the new appropriation bill. We who pay taxes must pay three and one half trillion dollars for the Iraq war so that Royal Dutch Shell can get seventy-five percent of the profits from their oil? What is left or right about that, Kari?

The glass is 20-million-more-Americans-covered full. Prohibiting insurance companies from exempting patients with pre-existing conditions is a huge step forward. Let's pass this bill and keep working on unfinished business. There are plenty of problems with the bill -- the abortion stuff, the pharmaceutical restrictions -- but the transactional reality is that even with its weaknesses, this legislation will improve the lives and care received by millions of Americans. Pass it.

Pro-Single-Payer Physicians Call for Defeat of Senate Health Bill

The sad thing is you guys will see, but only when its too late. Cap n Trade, Bail Outs and Health Care is not about helping Americans. I predict you will see the taxes kick in but few benefits. Its economically not possible. You must attack the giant at the jugular to win health care change. You must stop big pharma. The same senate that claims this about covering more Americans did this: http://www.miamiherald.com/business/breaking-news/story/1383485.html?storylink=fbuser Wake up people. This is not about helping us, but using our ignorance of the rule of law and government central planning to empower and enrich themselves. We have to get out of the stone age and quit using government coercion to achieve social change.

Half full or half empty--either way, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

It would be nice to be in a position like the Senate Democrats. Pass a bill that taxes everyone now but gives little benefit for four years. Show the tax revenue for 10 years and the benefit costs for 6 years. Only in this way can they even dream of calling this a revenue neutral bill.

The biggest single reason to KILL THIS BILL is that we can't afford it. Like the Stimulus it has enough pork feed an army.

Disgusting. How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?

Is it true that Senator Merkley had a "Manager's Amendment" added to the Bill which would require construction companies with 5 or more employees to provide health care? It was my understanding that firms under 25 would not be required to provide health care but I have heard that Mr. Merkley is paying back the Carpenter's Union with this addition. Any truth to that?

Posted by: Charlie Burr | Dec 22, 2009 10:16:31 AM

The glass is 20-million-more-Americans-covered full. Prohibiting insurance companies from exempting patients with pre-existing conditions is a huge step forward.

I've worked as an actuarial. What is to keep them from charging exactly what the risk costs? Great, I can get covered in my 2nd year of remission from lung cancer. Do you realize that the premium will be more than my mortgage?

If you're on a sinking ship, and the lifeboat hold 50, but you set off in a crazed manner, swamp the boat, and lose 40, do you say, "that's 10 that were rescued" or do you take a few minutes longer, do the job right, and rescue all 50?

Of course, we can the repugs and Mr. Weiss' position and say that we should use the boat that holds 20 because it's easier to steer.

The Huffington Post dot com has three articles opposing the senate health reform ? plan, including one that advocates not killing the bill but reforming it. Makes a lot of sense.

This bill doesn't have to be passed by Christmas Eve. Another couple of months getting it right, or at least improved, would be well spent instead of forcing through something that close to half of the people with opinions object to. Getting it right, or better, won't be easy, but if we all send messages to our senators and reps. letting them no we won't vote for them in November it might help.

As for the Wonk Room's (Democratic Party acolyte) chart about Medicare going broke, guess what? The Pentagon will use up all of its budget on next September 30th. Does that mean we shut the war department down? Unfortunately, not. If Congress can waste trillions on war and devastation, it can divert some of that money to health programs.

"The bill is getting worse as time goes on, not better."

If that is the case, then the people need to get off their butts and let Congress know it's time to change course. As long as the people continue to take it lying down, Congress will walk all over them - and piss on them at the same time.

Posted by: Galen | Dec 22, 2009 10:25:55 AM

The sad thing is you guys will see, but only when its too late.

No, Galen. Many said this is exactly what we would get BEFORE Obama was elected. No one has said, "boy you were right". We're still trolls. The arrogance and primate ingroup think that led to erroneous conclusions are not seen to be at fault. It is too late for health care reform, yet still they do not see.

Like all non-profits with full time staff positions, the Party and their various hangers on, the foundations and institutes and such, all put their self sustenance ahead of their raison d'etre. The final nail was when the Clinton administration sold us on the fact that civil "servants" should be able to expect the same career and compensation they would get in the public sector. Shrub argeed with the thinking, calling himself the CEO President (before 9/11). On here, the idea that servants do service was called "the dumbest idea I have ever heard" by one of the founders, and the sentiment was accused of being the cause of third world dictatorships.

It's like the sentiment that says "what's good for business is good for America". Pols honestly believe "what's good for me is good for my constituents". Both are excuses to play hooky from your real duties. The only hope is that many that can draw an original conclusion, are starting to see this like the last loan they give their brother-in-law. He will be shocked when they say "no", but their hearts have hardened. Let's see how many pols jump ship in favor of progressive causes when this comes home to roost. That'll be their second shock. We're taking names, and we're going to remember.

I agree with Jack Roberts. Kitz is likely to be a beneficiary of this bill, but if and only if the Wyden amendment on state choice survives. Wyden passed an amendment that will allow states to go their own way on public option or even single payer. Sen. Sanders is also working with Wyden on this. I fear for its survival in conference, though.

Some paint the Senate bill as a flawed first step to reform that will be improved over time, citing historical examples such as Social Security. But where Social Security established the nidus of a public institution that grew over time, the Senate bill proscribes any such new public institution. Instead, it channels vast new resources – including funds diverted from Medicare – into the very private insurers who caused today’s health care crisis. Social Security’s first step was not a mandate that payroll taxes which fund pensions be turned over to Goldman Sachs!

We ask that you defeat the bill currently under debate, and immediately move to consider the single-payer approach – an expanded and improved Medicare-for-All program – which prioritizes the advancement of our nation’s health over the enhancement of private, profit-seeking interests.

Oliver Fein, M.D., President David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Co-founder Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Co-founder Physicians for a National Health Program

It's less than half full and should be put out of its misery. The 2% penalty hardly promotes the personal responsibility that Obama supposedly supports.

Health insurance reform doesn't have to be that complicated. Mandate eligibility, mandate portability, but most importantly ALLOW insurance companies to identify pre-existing conditions, and exclude coverage of those pre-existing conditions, BUT ONLY for the first two years (or some other reasonable period of time). You could even get bipartisan support.

Getting costs under control is a whole 'nother issue, but this bill does nothing in that regard except ration care for seniors.

The glass isn't half full. It's maybe one-fifth full, at best. And the water is tepid and a bit muddy. Nonetheless, there's still a little water in the glass and it's drinkable if you have a strong stomach.

Clean the bill up as best as possible, pass it, and then get back to work trying to push meaningful reforms -- like a strong public option (such as giving EVERYONE the option to buy into Medicare) that can pass the Senate through reconciliation.

Half empty? Hell, they aren't even giving us the glass. The anti-women stuff is outrageous, and forcing people to buy "insurance" they can't afford? I've been voting Democratic in every election since I was 18 (yes I did vote then....back in the days when you had to pass the school budget and as a teacher's kid, we knew every vote counted in our rural red Oregon town). As such, I'm very concerned that the general public is going to be outraged when they get fined for not being able to afford this corporate subsidy. If the Democratic brand is not already ruined, it will be when they roll out this shit sandwich.

I'm truly shocked that any "Democrat" would roll back women's rights in this way as well. And don't give me any crap about Barbara Boxer. Very depressing.

Just confirmed on Senator Merkley's website that he did author a "manager's amendment" to force construction companies of 5 or more employees to participate in the “shared responsibility" program or provide health care.

He even brags about the fact that he is paying back the "Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association, Mechanical Contractors Association of America, National Electrical Contractors Association, Finishing Contractors Association, International Council of Employers of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and The Association of Union Contractors."

This, like much of the bill, has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with paying political debt.

The Bill is bad. It is far too expensive. It does very little of what needs to be done. I say Kill it. Then start over.

Make a list of all the things you want: Single Payer? Insurance Companies able to write policies across state lines? Portability? Ban on Pre-existing condition insurance denial? Medical Record Keeping Reform? Acceptance of Witch Doctors? Everything. Now write a bill for each individual item and only that item - no pork or "manager's amendments" - and have an up or down vote on that Bill. In the end you will get lots of reform, and, you will save billions in pork not provided. You will also know where your representative stands on each issue.

Aside from the fact that this would strip much of the power from the multi-term incumbents, it would allow honest debate about the issues and result in better law at far less cost.

So how many women do you think will be on the conference committee.

This is from an email from Dennis Kucinich:

Values of Health Care Stocks Increase Fearlessly as Public Option Is Dead

Wall Street Celebrates Senate's "Significantly Watered Down" Health Care Bill

Dear Friends,

Wall Street is celebrating "Health Care Reform." According to an industry insider report yesterday by MarketWatch (Gibson and Britt) health care stocks rallied as the bill moved through the Senate, particularly since there is no public option in the bill to compete or compare with insurance company rate-making.

"Health care investors find themselves having confronted their greatest fear, and, while there will be legislation, it will be significantly watered down ..." said Mike O'Rourke, chief market strategist at BTIG LLC. As a result, shares of Aetna gained 4.7%, while Cigna rose 3.9%. United Health and Wellpoint "rallied to 52-week highs."

Once the bill becomes law, insurance companies will gain at least 26 million new customers and as much as $50 billion in new annual revenue from private-pay and from government subsidies as people will be required by law to purchase private insurance. While certain expenses are capped in the bill, it appears that premium costs are not.

The Senate's move prompted Gregory Nersessian of Credit Suisse to raise his price targets [predicting greater strength of stock performance] on seven insurers: Aetna, Cigna, Amerigroup Corp., Humana Inc., Molina Healthcare Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Wellcare Health Plans Inc.

" ... the [bill] is a positive first step" Nersessian said in a note to clients. "The heavy lifting will come when Congress is forced to slow the rate of medical cost growth through more aggressive payment restrictions and utilization controls down the road," he said - meaning that this particular industry insider is predicting limitations on benefits.

Marketwatch also wrote that none of the new standards on how much the industry must spend on medical expenses will "impose great hardship on any insurers."

Tomorrow: My analysis of the health care legislation as it currently stands.

Sincerely.

Dennis

Tom, If the ability to sell insurance policies across state lines (regulated by....?) was such a great idea, why didn't it pass when it was voted on back in the days when Republicans controlled everything?

Maybe even some Republicans know something about that?

Posted by: Charlie Burr | Dec 22, 2009 10:16:31 AM

The glass is 20-million-more-Americans-covered full. Prohibiting insurance companies from exempting patients with pre-existing conditions is a huge step forward.

Why does doing exactly what Gore-Lieberman proposed on the campaign trail 10 years ago not feel like "a huge step forward"? And their proposal had a lot fewer moving parts. Simply extend Medicaid to age 55. As mentioned, in two posts, without public option rate control, they can easily exclude pre-existing conditions by making their coverage rate prohibitive.

Rah, rah. Nice try.

Selling medical insurance across state lines is Repiglican code for allowing lowest-common-denominator states to set ground rules for medical insurance policies sold elsewhere. Want to buy a medical insurance policy meeting the strict guidelines of Alabama? I have never read the Alabama insurance code, but it would not surprise me to find that Alabama allows the sale of "white people only" health insurance policies (just kidding, but barely). But I would bet you that Alabama allows health insurance policies to be sold in that state which do not cover contraceptives, or procedures related to women's health, or whatever. Do you really want those same policies sold in Oregon? Not me. If you want an Alabama quality of life, move there.

The United States is supposed to be one nation. Its people are noted for their mobility; therefor, it is absurd in situations such as health care to have a hodge podge of different plans for different employers and different states.

As for the glass is half full/half empty metaphor, this is one of the more significant signs that the senate bill is deeply flawed. It has to be if it suits a sizable portion of the people but it leaves another sizable portion out of luck. It also suggests a prominent attitude of "I'm okay, but tough luck if you lose."

There is a reason why insurance stocks peaked when news leaked out that this bill would pass.

Some of us on here are old enough to remember John Kenneth Galbraith. He was a pragmatist, even a capitalist. In The New Industrial State he accepted oligopolies such as the insurance industry but then he insisted there must be "countervailing forces" (e.g. seriously powerful trade unions, government regulation that is omnipresent and that has teeth, consumer watchdog groups that can act quickly) in order to rein in oligopolistic concentrations of power.

Now, as a Marxian, I believe he was mistaken, because I believe that the evidence shows that such oligopolies regularly overwhelm the government and become the government. I am much more sympathetic to C. Wright Mills' analysis . . . the people doing the "regulating" turn out to be more or less the same people, or their families and friends, as the people driving the oligopolies.

Still, my point is that even by the standards of lukewarm Democratic liberalism (e.g. Galbraith), this bill accomplishes every little good and a great deal of bad.

Everyone should read carefully the critique above of the Physicians for a National Health Program. From a human, humane point of view, this bill is going to cause suffering, not ameliorate or cure it.

But the big takeaway is this: it is going to further enmesh us in a marriage with ABSOLUTE FRAKKING EVIL. Kari says above, well, we didn't get into this to punish the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I just cannot express how weird and wrong completely mistaken that whole attitude is.

Kari, and other apologists for Obama and Wyden et al., why do these health-profit machines exist? To become wealthier by offloading cost and taking in as much money as possible. Is there anyone anywhere on this planet that believes that this statement of their essential nature will change because this bill is signed? No, not the silliest romantic apologist for hope and change who drifts by would say that!

And yet we've just handed them the health of EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN for the foreseeable future and said: see what you can make of it.

Forget the "we can't afford it" crap from the right wing jerks. They're always going to blather about that. That's just noise. This, this is where the landslide down the mountain happens. Right when we click the handcuffs, lock the car doors, and admire the tattoo on our inner thigh, the unblinking logo of our slavering corporate masters.

And what if we don't choose to live as wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations? What if we don't wish to think of education and air and water and health as commodities? What if we still believe in the commons and the public good?

Is our only recourse to emigrate? Is that today's message?

Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 22, 2009 4:46:41 PM

Selling medical insurance across state lines is Repiglican code for allowing lowest-common-denominator states to set ground rules for medical insurance policies sold elsewhere.

It's classic. They only scream states' rights when they disagree with the outcome. Remember all that progress that was made with all the states that allow Death with Dignity and Medical Marijuana? No more. Has anyone asked those 20,000,000 if they want to extend their health coverage- even their lives- at this cost?

I guess the industry must be really stupid to write homeowners policies by state. Obviously they could have lumped it all together. Or is health insurance simpler than home owners' policies?

"Is our only recourse to emigrate? Is that today's message?"

No; although, it is a tempting thought. The problem with taking a hike is that you abandon the courageous and honorable people who are fighting to make this a better nation. The abolitionists didn't emigrate. They stuck around and helped eliminate slavery. Similar with the suffragists, labor leaders, opponents of child labor, civil rights campaigners, and others. We are outnumbered by the regressives and their enablers, but progressive policies are worth sticking around to fight for. Just don't look for much help from the Democratic Party.

"Now, as a Marxian, I believe he was mistaken, because I believe that the evidence shows that such oligopolies regularly overwhelm the government and become the government."

Joe, I hate to ruin your evening, but Der Spiegel has an article - Kapitulation vor dem Monopoly-Monster - Capitulation before the Monopoly Monster - that deals with the global financial oligarchy that brought about the current global crisis and stands to continue more of the same. English translation not yet available on the Der Spiegel web site but it may be posted soon.

It's kind of backwards, Bill. Those examples were pioneered here; there wasn't somewhere to go where that was sorted. In today's case, most everyone has what we want, and our system is blatantly refusing to give it to us.

JJ also brings up an interesting angle. Many emigrees to the US were Protestants that had become accustomed to a certain level of freedom, and were not prepared to live without it again (even though it was largely freedom to be bigoted, narrow and rude). Same all the way up to today's new arrivals, minus teh parenthetical bit. As JJ points out, there will likely be those that lose their freedoms, freedoms that other countries enjoy. It's only rational to think about gettin' out of Dodge.

On principle I have to agree though. "White flight" is why our cities are in the shape they are. People need to stay and fix their neighborhoods. That's theory though, and the Senate seems ready to send in the bulldozers without discussion. It's easy to feel the flight defense kick in.

Hey, let's all go to Iraq, tell them to send the military home, and work with the locals to get things running again. I could kill for some good lavash and falafel. Now that makes a point!!! I'll wager we could get Iraq into better shape in 10 years than the US will be then. Totally discredited, the revolution would then sweep the US. How's that for a plan?

EDF, disagreeing on the policy is fine. But let's try and avoid attacking people's character. Especially from behind a cowardly pseudonym.

Kari, this is solely about values, which are what determine character. Character is the issue. You are not credible if you are trying to criticize those who are calling out those who are defending indefensible values and deflect the shaming they deserve. jaybeat, Jeff, Charlie and those promote this moral outrage by trying to bully people into believing it's this bill or no bill, essentially implying in one way or another that those of us who oppose this measure don't care about the uninsured. In the "fact-based", "real world" they are actually vociferously arguing in support of trading away the lives and health of many more to put extra billions into the pockets of the industry out of a cynical calculation of political advantage.

Today we saw these shameless reach new depths. Obama pretty much throw away what little was left of his credibility by shamelessly stating: "We don't feel that the core elements to help the American people have been compromised in any significant way." It's a little hard to see how selling out to the industry is in line with his campaign promise of "Hope" and putting people ahead of the corrupting influences of powerful interests in this country.

We also saw these shameless water-carriers for the industry turn the volume up to 11 on a recently re-worked propaganda theme. Numerous Senators and supporters, obviously reeling from the well-justified outrage they are getting from the true "high-information" wing of the base have tried to compare this radical swing to enrich the private insurance companies at the cost of everyone's health to the creation of public programs like Social Security and Medicare which were a first step on a principled path away from that ugly, corrupt, selfish, destructive model.

So Kari, until those deceitfully propagandizing for this bill and admit it is just plain morally offensive, and that it is Democrats who are solely to blame for this shameful situation, their character is THE issue. In the meantime, I'm support the people who day-in-and-day-out do the vast bulk of the real and honest hard work of health care against the sold-out Democratic politicians who have eaten the entire heart and soul out of the Democratic Party: Nation’s Largest RN Organization Says Healthcare Bill Cedes Too Much to Insurance Industry.

In terms of before care there is nothing really that you have to do, besides take care of your teeth as you would do normally. The after care is what is important. I had 3 of my wisdom teeth pulled last year, by my father whom is a dentist. Even though I was heavily medicated and it did not hurt very much while they were getting pulled, the recovery is a little more painful... http://ezinearticles.com/?Bowtrol-Colon-Cleanse-Review---Does-Bowtrol-Cleanse-Work?&id=2926555

"Tom, If the ability to sell insurance policies across state lines (regulated by....?) was such a great idea, why didn't it pass when it was voted on back in the days when Republicans controlled everything?

Maybe even some Republicans know something about that?"

This statement assumes the Republicans are not bought and paid for by the same people the Dems are. It is very naive to think these parties represent the people at all. There are individuals in both parties that do, but for the most part they are bought and paid for. To think they are not, is clearly not looking at reality.

Back to Jeff's Wonk Room article: Reasons Not To Kill The Senate Bill

Wonk Room: "Fixing something that’s broken is better than not having anything to fix. Buying a fixer-up home is more appealing than remaining homeless for the next 10 to 20 years."

True, but if you switch analogies and use a car instead, if you buy a lemon you are more likely to spend more fixing it up and keeping it running than if you had bought a well-built car in the first place. Not to mention the aggravation a lemon would give.

Wonk Room: Without reform 54 million uninsured; with reform 23 million uninsured.

Western European Nations: Everyone insured with greater coverage. With 23 million left uninsured, that means the glass is empty for 23 million people.

Wonk Room: Without reform there is denial of insurance because of pre-existing conditions; with reform no denials.

Western European Nations: Everyone insured with greater coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions or not. And no limits on catastrophic coverage.

Wonk Room on deficits: Without reform deficit continues to rise; with reform deficit is reduced.

Western European Nations: I follow daily newspapers from Western Europe. The Brits are concerned about costs of their national health service but are not making much of an issue about the NHS being a cause of a national deficit. I haven't seen this topic raised in any of the lead articles of French, German and Spanish newspapers for a long time. In the event I missed similar articles, I suspect they are in no worse shape than the Brits.

Wonk Room on Medicare Trust: Without reform to go bankrupt by 2017; with reform extended to 2026.

Western European Nations: "Medicare" exists for all citizens and there is no talk to impending bankruptcy.

Wonk Room on medical bankruptcies: No projection at all. It would be judicious to presume that threat remains.

Western European Nations: Not a factor at all.

How are Western Europeans able to provide much more extensive care for less money than the United States? Could it be that their governments are not owned as much by corporate entities that are sucking the system for all they can?

Kevin, is that "mating dance" or "ragged onanism"?

Bill Bodden presents excellent arguments that collectively demonstrate how those arguing for support of the Senate bill by distracting people from how the supposed "positives" are really corrupt failures to do the right thing. Bill has skillfully illustrated just how propaganda works. Only "low information" progressives could possibly believe this isy not a planned strategy by the Democratic Senators and the industry for whom they are handmaidens.

The question is, are people like jaybeat, Jeff Allworth, Charlie Burr "low information" partisans, or are they well aware of their deceitful arguments? To what I think would be Kari's unease, I at least give them enough credit for their intelligence that I don't believe they are "low information" partisans. But that's up to them if that's how they would defend their indefensible support of this bill.

It's time for the grassroots to speak out that we are well aware of how we are being played to those 58 Democrats and 2 Independents who have proven it is well within their power to do whatever they want.

Very nicely done Bill.

Kari, thank you for the informational post. It really helps put me solidly in the camp of "fix the bill". Not kill it. At least not yet. I am interested in what the Conference committee may do.

As it stands it looks like the insurance companies made out like bandits and all we got was the bill. Pharma also is a guaranteed winner. I have the same feeling I had when they passed the bank bail out bill. Not quite sure whether I was had.

I am disappointed in the Democrats. I understand that there has to be compromise but why do we do all of the compromising? And why didn't we start from a better position for compromise like beginning with the Single Payer System?

And can someone please explain to me about the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster? Since the 60 vote rule is not in the Constitution and it is a "rule", why doesn't Congress vote to change the rule which as I understand it only takes 50% plus 1. Does someone know more about this?

The question is, are people like jaybeat, Jeff Allworth, Charlie Burr "low information" partisans, or are they well aware of their deceitful arguments?

Well, considering that you have link spammers on current topics, Carla and Karlockk outing people that dare call BS on them and Carla conspicuously leaving the "full disclosure" off her farmer's ID, I think it's worse than that. Look around. Lots of ad. revenue. It sure ain't going to management, and having my own blog I know it's not to keep the lights on. No, it is paid Party disinformation, and you are paying for it every time you click. Personally, I can't rationalize it anymore. You can read another 20 posts on M67 and all the 12 year old triumphalism everytime the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot if you want. "Exposing", you're also funding.

Posted by: Mari Anne | Dec 22, 2009 11:01:25 PM

Kari, thank you for the informational post. It really helps put me solidly in the camp of "fix the bill". Not kill it. At least not yet. I am interested in what the Conference committee may do.

Actually, Kari said not to expect major change, and made a good argument for why it won't happen.

. Not quite sure whether I was had.

Let's follow the money. Banking bail-out. Afghan build-up. Transfer of billions of tax dollars to insurance and pharma. Mirrors the campaign financing rank order. But maybe their motivation was helping you.

I understand that there has to be compromise but why do we do all of the compromising? And why didn't we start from a better position for compromise like beginning with the Single Payer System?

There's one, conservative position in this country. Some lie about the facts, but are honest about their position. Others lie about their position but are honest about the facts. The first are Republicans, the second Democrats. All are conservative. Dems use "compromise" to do what they all wanted anyway. There used to be a difference in personal net worth between parties in Congress. Not since 1980. It's a one party, two faced system. rw nailed it with "Janus Party".

We don't have single payer, because, immediately after the election, immediately after promising that "everything was on the table", Obama announced, for nothing in return, before the first move, that "single payer is off the table".

And can someone please explain to me about the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster? Since the 60 vote rule is not in the Constitution and it is a "rule", why doesn't Congress vote to change the rule which as I understand it only takes 50% plus 1. Does someone know more about this?

Shhhh. That was a Dem talking point when they were in the minority. Now Reps are in the minority and it's their talking point. For Rushies only. Only stupid progressives that don't understand realpolitik discuss issues on their merit!

Anyone that ever said a cat can't change its spots never met a Dem!

Hasta la vista, babes. I'm not going to contribute to funding my own butt reaming and snarky interns. You're a part of the problem, not the solution. Congrats on pulling it off, though. Having people come for info. to the ones doing the con is the holy grail among hacks, is it not?

It sounds like that between the lines there is a major debate here on how society changes. Does incrementalism ever get you anywhere? (Yes, I know neologisms are sign of schizophrenia). Does bad ever turn into good by simple, slow evolution?

I had an interesting conversation a few minutes ago with a colleague in the UK. It would say that this nasty spectacle we call the health care reform debate is indeed how society changes.

She was concerned that up to 1,000,000 songbirds are being killed for food, each year, in Cyprus. Wildlife organizers had begun an awareness campaign, using the Brit's "Christmas Robin" as the poster child. I responded that I found that a bit odd, as the Christmas robin tradition has it's origins in the fact that UK robins will often kill wrens about Christmas time. She couldn't believe she had never heard that. Fortunately my source was BBC radio 4.

But the phenomenon is truly instructive. Celts believed that wrens were lucky and to kill one was very bad luck. They noticed robins killing them at Christmastide, and thought it significant that it was the shortest day of the year. Combined with the solstice celebrations, a tradition arose that it was cool to kill a wren at Christmas, as the usual life forces weren't in play. You can google oodles and oodles of xmas carols and rhymes that talk about the various aspects of the phenomenon.

Over the years, the Celtic tradition morphed into one of giving the wrens as gifts. When the Normans and Angles and Saxons replaced the Celts, the tradition of giving a gift of food, the day after Christmas, eventually arose. It is still practiced by Brits as "Boxing Day", named for the practice of putting leftover Christmas dinner in a box and giving it to the poor, the next day. Their partner in crime has become the symbol of the spirit of giving.

This bill is about at the stage where they start giving the wrens as gifts. As one poster pointed out, in reverse, 75% aren't ready to skip to the Boxing Day bit yet.

Never mind, I found Jim Just. There is a Jim Just who "raises sheep, timber and wine grapes just outside of Lebanon." He also appears to be the Executive Director of the Goal One Coalition.

EDF: and that it is Democrats who are solely to blame for this shameful situation Thus EDF hacks it's own nose (to spite it's face of course), slips and takes off three of four limbs too... which is beginning to sound like the plot of a Monty Python's Flying Circus skit. And frankly, EDF's assertion is about equally grounded in reality. Forget the GOPers. Forget the Tea-Baggers and their highly visible concerted astro-turf campaign, aided and abetted by the media. Forget the polls over the last year. It's all solely the fault of Democrats.

Kevin: The Democrats proved they have the 60 votes (58 D's and 2 I's who caucus with them) to do whatever those 60 want to do. What those 60 together decided they want to do is put billions into the pockets of the private health insurance industry that could have instead bought more health care for more people, cheaper if we had a national health insurance plan that had lower overheads and massive market buying power. Or at least a robust publicly-owned option that we the American people would have the opportunity to "vote with our dollars" to actually put us on a path to that if that is what we want.

What really happened here is the Democrats wanted some Republicans to join them in selling out to the industry that helps them hold their cushy jobs all along so the Democrats wouldn't be exposed as the hypocrites they are who are solely to blame. In other words, so they could make the excuse "all the kids were doing it" when they got caught. They are in charge, they (and you) are like little children, when you whine it's the "other (bad) kids made me do it". Some of us were taught (in the real world as so many of the excuse makers seem to feel a need to claim they operate) that making up things like "what all the kids were doing" and "the other kids made me do it" are not valid excuses for not taking full responsibility for own actions to do what is fully in our own control. Like writing a bill whose most significant "reform" is mandated corporate welfare for the private health insurance industry, each of the 60 individually casting their vote for that bill, and then going out there with shameless propaganda trying to deceive people that this bill is something that it isn't (as Bill Bodden so ably demonstrated.)

You diminish your credibility Kevin, and demonstrate exactly the crisis of character that is the real issue here, when you join them in that childish behavior of excuse-making. Remember, those 60, and the man at the other end of PA Ave., held themselves out as leaders as the very premise in running for office. They are the ones who held themselves out not as followers and blame-shifters, but the kind of people who but who take responsibility to do the right thing.

So the real question is whether those 61 are now saying what they are doing is what they really intended to do all along, contrary to campaign promises and all of the high-minded talk since then, making them just typical lying politicians? Or are they just trying to blame the 40 other kids who don't have actually have the power to do anything, as those 60 showed this past weekend? Either way they, and you Kevin, are really morally bankrupt for trying to defend in any way what has happened.

No. The real conflict and giveaway occurs out at the farthest Right Wing of the Dem Party in the Senate when 60 votes are required for a bathroom break.

Pat, I have no idea if you're an Oregon Democrat or not, but you comment in exactly that cowardly, blame-shifting way, just like Kevin. Fine examples of the bankruptcy of character that is exactly the issue. In this case, you simultaneously admit that it is still the Democrats who are to blame, and then try to say it's those "other" Democrats, now trying to excuse the majority for failure to exhibit the leadership they claim to have. Beside the have the prerogatives of the majority in the majority to discipline those "other" Democrats you blame like a whiny child, in this case, as you yourself note, every single one of those 60 Democrats have the ability to block this Republican dream give-away of the entire country and our health to the private insurance industry.

Basically what you and Kevin represent is the pathetic values that everybody else should just make it easy for you, and the politicians you support, to do what you want. That is nothing more than a childish sense of entitlement, and that is what excusing making is about.

And Dean is hardly "back in the fold". First, last night he was much more equivocal then you say, because he actually cited whether the conference produced something closer to the House bill as being what is determinative of whether he actually supports the bill. On top of that, he refused to answer a direct question on Olberman whether he actually would support the compromise if it looked like the Senate bill with regard to all the issues that he said mattered. Howard Dean is still a politician who knows how to play the game.

Exchanges weren't Wyden's idea either, they descend from the FEHBP managed competition model. Wyden jumped on the bandwagon of letting states go their own way, and that what Dean said --- in one of those political tactics of stroking the back of idiots like Wyden and you Pat but given false credit where it isn't really due --- that he supported on Olberman because VT already has state single-payer like system he doesn't want the Senate reform to kill as it would.

US Senate Composition, D-R-I 107th 50-50-0 (1/3/01-6/6/01), 50-49-1 (6/7/01-2/12/01), 48-50-2 (2/12/01-3/03) 108th 48-51-1 109th 44-55-1 110th 49-49-2 111th 58-40-2

So somehow the Democrats were never below 44 votes but couldn't stop all of the horrendous things the Senate has done in the last decade. And yet now 40 + a couple D's and I's are now in completely responsible for what is now happening with this supposed reform? Even though each of the 50+ Pat and Kevin try to shift the blame from have the power by the single vote to stand up and stop it. I repeat because Pat and Kevin provide such disgusting examples of the moral failings of the ignorant, whiny, blame-shifters:

So the real question is whether those 61 are now saying what they are doing is what they really intended to do all along, contrary to campaign promises and all of the high-minded talk since then, making them just typical lying politicians? Or are they just trying to blame the 40 other kids who don't have actually have the power to do anything, as those 60 showed this past weekend? Either way they, and you Kevin (and Pat), are really morally bankrupt for trying to defend in any way what has happened.

And Ryan, rubbing your face in your misrepresentation, just one year ago Wyden was actually cavorting with Republicans to push his "reform" which embodied this sellout to the industry: A purely private health insurance system, a mandate to that we all have to buy from that industry, abolishing even some Federal public plans like Medicaid and SCHIP, no Federal public option, and the possibility of some kind of state public option ONLY IF the private health insurance industry failed to do certain minimal things they would have to try very hard not to do.

He then gave lip service to "a public option" as a tactic for pushing is back-door attempt to still get his Republican plan worked into the Senate bill, since he never lifted a finger to actually fight against the basic concept of a system based on the private health insurance industry and the mandate.

As noted, he didn't invent the Exchange, it's what he already was participating in as the FEHBP, he just repeated it. Wyden IS the epitome of the double-dealing Democrat who is fully responsible for what has happened, and who is finger-pointing every which way to avoid his responsibility as a morally-failed leader.

Compromise is the starting point for the Democratic Party and its enablers.

Robert Scheer at Truthdig has an interesting article on Howard Dean and the senate plan - Demonizing Dean Won’t Absolve This Health Care Sham

Scheer appears, however, to have one point wrong in his article: "The likelihood that even the anemic public option will not appear in the final bill was made clear Tuesday when President Barack Obama dismissed the option provision, which the House bill still includes, as nothing more than “a source of ideological contention between the left and right,” adding in an interview with The Washington Post, “I didn’t campaign on the public option.” True, but he did campaign against Hillary Clinton’s plan to mandate insurance coverage as the Senate bill does. As Obama put it in Wisconsin in February 2008: “I believe the reason people don’t have health care isn’t because no one’s forced them to buy it. It’s because no one’s made it affordable.”"

This is from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (boldprogressives.org): "Yesterday, President Obama claimed, "I didn't campaign on the public option." Seriously? Reporters quickly proved otherwise." Watch the video here

Dan's link above didn't work so I went to Firedog Lake's home page and recommend you do the same: http://firedoglake.com/. Lots of good stuff there.

Thanks Pat!

My sentiments exactly!

"What I won't do is get entirely confused regarding the identity of my allies and the dysfunction of the process in the US Senate. "

"What I won't do is get entirely confused regarding the identity of my allies and the dysfunction of the process in the US Senate. "

Stick with the herd no matter what they do. How noble.

Progressive populist David Sirota (one of the best journalists in the country) has a short piece in opposition to this bill. He used to work work for Bernie Sanders. He also happens to have an excellent radio show which he podcasts.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/12/opposing-view-go-back-to-drawing-board.html

This bill is undoubtedly better than the status quo but it's also a horrible horrible bill. An important criticism being made is that the Senate bill as is will cement the same greed-based private insurance oligopoly into place and make them stronger, which will fend off any real reform for maybe a generation.

Lets not forget the massive fines and jail time for the uninsured. Unbelievable that anyone would put that in a bill for any reason. It's indefensible, absolutely.

How out of touch with reality do you have to be to have ass-u-me-d that Senators Ben Nelson and Sheldon Whitehouse or Congress Critters Jim Marshall and Linda Sanchez were ever gonna march lockstep because of their "D" suffix? Or that any Dem leadership would ever be capable of forcing them to march lockstep?

Whereas, you never see posters here doing that with the "R" suffix! They're both symbols and I leave symbols to the symbol minded (credit to the late, great Carlin).

From the nation's largest RN Organization

“Sadly, we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true healthcare reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the chokehold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations,”

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/december/nation-s-largest-rn-organization-says-healthcare-bill-cedes-too-much-to-insurance-industry.html

From Rep. Louise Slaughter, NY

"It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.'

the entire editorial: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/slaughter.oppose.senate.bill/

Joshua: Thank you for the link to David Sirota's blog.

"How many decades ago did Will Rogers make this famous quip:"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat"?"

Kevin: I suspect that will Rogers meant "democrat" with the small "d". Big difference.

How did the UK get ahead of us on basic representation in government? Will we ever see an inquiry like this, into Iraq ?

So, with these new, moderate standards for judging health care reform, are we going to see a reassessment of the success of EU systems?

I would be interested in a piece that compares the way the EU systems were ridiculed with what we're getting here.

If health care reform is passed in Congress to take care of a majority of the people but leaves 20-odd million out of the program and uninsured and the majority of people go along with that it will say a lot about the character of the American people - and, folks, it ain't good.

The glass is not half-full or half-empty. The glasses of: health reform, war-escalation, bank regulations and global warming have all shattered into thousands of pieces and the water has drained into the gutter. Anyone finally fed up contributing to this evil system can check out: www.progparty.org.

And can someone please explain to me about the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster? Since the 60 vote rule is not in the Constitution and it is a "rule", why doesn't Congress vote to change the rule which as I understand it only takes 50% plus 1. Does someone know more about this?

Shhhh. That was a Dem talking point when they were in the minority. Now Reps are in the minority and it's their talking point. For Rushies only. Only stupid progressives that don't understand realpolitik discuss issues on their merit!

Actually, there's no rational pattern, they change whichever way the winds blow. Meanwhile responsible Dems can't get an up and down vote on Afghan escalation . Run that by the recent rationalizations.

"Actually, there's no rational pattern, they change whichever way the winds blow. Meanwhile responsible Dems can't get an up and down vote on Afghan escalation . Run that by the recent rationalizations. "

The baton was passed from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and the March of Folly continues in multi-tasking mode.

The baton was passed from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and the March of Folly continues in multi-tasking mode.

Let's not fail to account for the role played by our own self interests in participating in the delusion. I liked the BBC comedy take on the war and pols, when "Old Harry's Game" had Satan explaining the truth to the Queen .

"Yeah, love, I'm sorry they all fibbed to you, but could we concentrate on the task at hand"? Indeed.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

http://grantfoundation.net

"The baton was passed from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and the March of Folly continues in multi-tasking mode.

Let's not fail to account for the role played by our own self interests in participating in the delusion."

As always there are too many people following their leader du jour saying, "Ours is not to reason way, ours is but to do or die - and to kill, maim and destroy."

Obama was disingenuous indeed this morning. I know from inside the tattered shirt cuffs of the insurance industry that they are quietly awaiting this new opportunity. Of course they lobbied: BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE THEY SAW BEING BUILT.

And now they are being rather quiet about things, no huge public statements, and awaiting the market opportunity this new bill has delivered them. Either way? They were gonna win.

Very sad.

One thing to note just how stupid Pat Ryan is:

Bill Bodden presents excellent arguments that collectively demonstrate how those arguing for support of the Senate bill by distracting people from how the supposed "positives" are really corrupt failures to do the right thing. There ain't enough tinfoil on the planet to protect the fragile brain that would classify Bill Bodden as a sellout to....corporations, the Dem Party, or whatever.

Ryan, you moron, I was complementing him on doing a superb job of refuting people trying to sell the "positives" of the Senate bill by amazingly effectively showing how they were in fact negatives. You really are the president of the clueless idiot fringe of the Oregon (not-really) progressive after-school club.

Now, the point I was going to make after reading all of the comments, is that it's sad the President has reduced himself to making intellectually dishonest, transparently propgandistic statements like this:

“I think, right now, that the Senate and the House bills – if you look at their overlap, the 95 percent that they agree on – if that bill was presented to me ... I would sign it.”

To measure the difference between a bill that radically increases the power of the private health insurance industry by offering us no alternative, and one that actually does create an public alternative that is the embodiment of a very different social contract as less than "5%" (there are other differences between the bills), with the unmistakable intent of minimizing the difference between the radically different values represented by those two alternatives, is just astounding.

It's become painfully embarrassing to watch him publicly humiliate himself in this way. Or to hear or watch any of our 58 Democratic Senators, each of whom individually has the power to stop this increasingly tragic, self-destruction of our party, desperately try to justify what they are doing with spin and what are, at this point, utterly refuted arguments

It's certainly not a huge giveaway to insurance companies. And the fact that insurance company stocks took off recently is in no way indicative of that.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Health care lobbyists have donated millions of dollars to get a bill passed which favors them and screws everyone else.

The tax on "Cadillac health care plans" (you know... the kind that a lot of unionized workers have) is inexcusable.

Access to decent health care is a basic human right. This isn't political grandstanding or a purity test. This is people's lives that we're talking about here. For anyone still trusting the word of Senate Democrats on what a "good bill" this is, I'd ask... what have they done for you lately?

Hmm, please tell me how the state is going to force people onto the federal supported health insurance syatem when they won't even purchase auto insurance?

Good question Kurt. Now you don't strike me as a Rush dittohead. I know I'm not. Just how pitiable is the Dem performance that we sound like that, discussing the penalties?

You know, as a start, that it will be required for employment, that you show your ID card to your new employer. No regs on when that happens, yet, so, why not make it a condition of even completing the application? A whole new world of discrimination open to employers.

This is well crafted lege! I'm beginning to empathize with what Hunter Thompson said he felt the morning he heard that Nixon had pardoned Ford. There's the problem. Not one positive thing has happened in gov since then. 35 years of waste. Should have stormed federal buildings and overthrown the lot, back then.

The toilet is half-full, but DP shit smells less than RP shit, and it's less evil, too.

Fully identifying with leftist teabagger, I have to admit that if you take Kari's question at literal face value, and ask it, that one must consider this a keeper.

Where I think most part company is when he flatly asserts not to compare it to what could have been. Fine. We're not the stupid idealists that we're too often made out as. But we need a "why". Why were things like single payer taken off the table from the start and why were the big compromises within the Party? I think if we could satisfy ourselves on that point, then we could consider the merits of the bill, over nothing. But when we're left to fill in the blank, it just isn't going to be pretty, and the bill gets the reverse halo effect.

Hope everybody that was reading about FDR's first 90 days last year at this time enjoyed the history lesson, because this approach is about as anti-FDR as you can get. He would probably have projectile vomited at the thought of incrementalism.

Tonight at Kurt Schrader's town hall meeting in Salem, there was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Actually, the Macbeth quote is very appropriate to this story

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/macbeth.5.5.html

"it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing".

Somehow, the people who showed up to shout down Kurt Schrader tonite obviously didn't learn the lesson of the Nadershouters in 2000. For months afterwards, people who had been to the Tipper Gore speech that the LET RALPH DEBATE crowd tried to drown out shocked some of their friends by saying "you have such good manners, I am surprised you support Nader". Not the reaction they expected.

These people loudly tried to shout down the Congressman when he tried to answer any question, interrupted in mid- sentence, yelled that he was lying, waved around copies of the Constitution.

When I spoke to one of those people afterwards and asked "was he violating Article I of the Constitution?" they said "The whole thing!". So I asked exactly how he was violating Article III, about judicial powers, and got a blank look.

Those of you who were angry at Kurt because he didn't declare his vote on the time table of bloggers, he said he was undecided until the last day. But that wasn't good enough for the rude shouters--he should have voted no.

Not only that, to show his committment to bipartisanship, he should be the lone no vote if there is a partyline vote in Congress. As if any Republican did that when they were in majority.

Not to mention the "how can higher taxes get rid of the debt that will be passed on to my children?" yelled comment as if the Bush policies didn't cause most of that debt.

There was one big guy in a NOBAMA shirt, and lots of people who obviously viewed the bullying as sport. They wanted immigration reform to get rid of all illegals so that there would be jobs for Americans. Having worked in retail and fast food and child care, I wonder how many of those folks shouting tonight would be willing to work those jobs--often hard physical work, and requiring good manners besides!

I think they were just plain angry that Democrats won the 2008 elections. But how many of them will go out and campaign---a lot harder work than showing up at a town hall meeting and trying to shout down the speaker?

The man I sat next to applauded some of the things the loud people said. So I asked how many of those folks who were shouting and standing up waving whatever in their hands would actually do the door to door work for the opponent to Schrader. I asked if he knew the name Scott Bruun and he didn't. I said he was the likely challenger and he asked "is he a Democrat or a Republican?".

I can remember Democrats being that angry in a primary back in the days before vote by mail. Some showed up to disrupt a rally the day before the election and were startled at how many people moved to stop them from doing so. And then they wondered why the people who supported the candidate whose rally they were trying to disrupt wouldn't help their nominee in the fall?

One can never know the unintended consequences of such events. Even Newt Gingrich has said anger might win a few elections but it takes a positive agenda to win majority which is why he pushed the Contract With America.

I talked to one older person who was ashamed for Salem that such rude people would turn out---and impressed at how well Schrader handled the hecklers.

Word of mouth can spread stories of such rude hecklers faster than any other form of communication--and from one person to another is a trusted form of communication--one knows the source, and trust in a friend's story is more powerful than anything bought by a campaign.