All Together Now: Shut Up You Lefties About The Senate Health Care Bill!

[Better Believe It]

All Together Now: Shut Up You Lefties!
by Kai Wright
January 4, 2010

It's bound to happen, any time progressives have the audacity to demand brave leadership from a Democratic Party that asks for our money, our votes and our volunteer labor. The cry goes up from the self-proclaimed level heads of corporate media: You impractical, self-defeating lefties! Stop whining and let the adults run things! And so, as the leadership debacle that was health reform reaches its climax, it's little surprise that those of us who won't stop fighting for true reform are once again told to shut up.

You see, lefties? You can't hold your leaders accountable, because it's the nameless, faceless "system" that's to blame. Which is pretty much the same street-corner logic that leads millions of people to opt out of democracy altogether. Either the presidency matters or it doesn't. Either our leaders are accountable for the policies they create or they are not. And if they are not, let's drop the conceit of democracy and take the reform debate from there.

What's interesting is that neither Klein (Joe Klein, Time magazine journalist) nor Hertzberg (Hendrik Hertzberg, writer for the New Yorker) nor most of those who shout down Obama's progressive critics refute the substance of the criticism. The argument, it seems, is merely that we can expect no better from our government. As Hertzberg writes,
"None of these people, from Obama on down the wonk scale, deceive themselves that the Senate bill, which now must be merged with its (marginally stronger) House equivalent, comes within hailing distance of perfection. All of them recognize that the final bill, in the now overwhelmingly likely event that it surmounts the remaining hurdles, will be flawed and messy. All of them also understand that, compared with the status quo--and the status quo, not perfection or anything like it, is the alternative--it will constitute a moral and material advance of historic proportions."

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. Corporate special interests and the Democratic politicos they underwrite would like us to accept this false choice between fake reform and the status quo. But there are many, many more choices -- including both the public option compromise Obama proposed and the Medicare-expansion compromise the Senate hammered out. Our leaders -- the same ones who will once again ask for our money, our votes and our volunteer labor next election cycle -- simply were not prepared to fight for those choices.

There have been many irrational, uncooperative participants in the health care debate: The industries that have profited immensely from the broken status quo, the just-say-no Republicans and the handful of conservative Democrats who have enlarged themselves by standing in the way of real reform, to name a few. The left, on the other hand, has embraced compromise after compromise -- and the result is we've all squandered a rare political opportunity to make sweeping changes rather than tinker at the margins. Forgive me if I can't fix my mouth to call that historic. But I'm just an idiotic left-wing blogger, so what do I know.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/511889/all_together_now_shut_up_you_lefties

[Skittles]

1. we get the same shit from lots of DUers

yes INDEED :mad:

[chimpymustgo]

2. Some of us refuse to bend over on this. FIGHT the BS POWER. We can WIN!

[Skittles]

3. DAMN STRAIGHT, CHIMPY

[thotzRthingz]

5. I too refuse to be silenced ... this ain't over yet:

30 December 2009
More Pressure From the Left on the Public Option

Earlier this week, it was Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) being targeted by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is hoping that some liberal lawmaker will stand up to insist that the public insurance option be included as part of the Democrats’ final health reform bill. Today, the group launched the next wave of its campaign, announcing plans to target Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with online ads and thousands of daily robocalls to Vermont voters.

“The congratulations that Democrats are giving themselves in Washington DC are not shared by voters across the country who overwhelmingly want a public option and oppose being required to buy insurance from companies that put profit ahead of people’s health,” said Adam Green, PCCC co-founder, in a written statement. “Bernie Sanders can be a hero at this historic moment by declaring that any final bill must have a public option to win his support.”

Both Sanders and Feingold are adamant supporters of the public option, though both also voted last week in favor of the Senate bill, which doesn’t include such a plan. (The House bill does.)

House and Senate leaders are hoping to merge the two bills and have the final product on the president’s desk sometime next month.

source: http://washingtonindependent.com/72550/more-pressure-from-the-left-on-the-public-option

[thotzRthingz]

8. We only needed ONE Senator or 1/2 Dozen House Members to KILL IT (w/o public option)...

We're now being told (propaganda donchanoe) that the public option is likely dead. If one Senator (LIE-be-man) could cause REID to FREEZE ... imagine what two Senators (Feingold & Sanders?) could do. Then, there's the HOUSE (which must pass any "final" bill, and there were 60 members over there who PLEDGED unwavering support for a public option (that's how h.r. 3962 narrowly got passed 220-to-215).

31 December 2009
Weiner to push for public option in health care bill

U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Forest Hills) last week criticize the Senate for passing a health care bill that does not include a public option and vowed to alter the legislation before it goes to the president’s desk for final approval.

“The Senate erred in not including the cost control that comes with the public option,” Weiner said after the Senate’s Dec. 24 vote. “ I’m going to work hard for a final bill that improves on what the Senate passed.”

Weiner and other Democrats, including President Barack Obama, had advocated for the public option, which would give individuals the opportunity to join a government-run insurance group. Such a program would drive down health care costs and force insurance companies to provide more competitive and affordable prices, according to Weiner.

The House bill, passed 220-215 last month, includes a public option. The Senate bill passed by a vote of 60-39, with no Republicans supporting the measure.

source: http://www.yournabe.com/articles/2009/12/31/queens/queensplkwztb12302009.txt

[SpartanDem]

12. It wouldn't do a damm thing

Lieberman, Nelson don't care if there is care bill, they would've rather not dealt with issues at all. What leverage do you have to make them change their vote? Nelson is a from very red state and has little incentive to stick his neck out for a more liberal bill. Lieberman has shown no fear bucking the wishes of his constituents and has shown he's out only to piss off liberals evidenced by reserving his stance the medicare buy-in, becuause liberal House members supported it.

[thotzRthingz]

13. I am no parliamentarian ... however it's my understanding that following

"reconciliation" ... Senate rules BAN "filibustering" the emerging (reconciled) bill. IOW: it only requires a simple MAJORITY vote. IOW: we don't need LIE-be-man (or Nelson, for that matter)... and I'm pretty sure there are 51 Senators who will vote "AYE" on a public option.

[SpartanDem]

16. They are major limits to what you can do

it's limited to items that directly effect the budget and a senator could object to nonbudget items, like the regulatory frameworks. Now passing the just public option later through reconciliation is a much doable process. So again you need Lieberman and Nelson votes at least for now. I would recommend that you or anyone for that matter read this about the reconciliation process.


http://www.congressmatters.com/story/2009/4/28/1190/93382

Are there any potential problems with this? You bet. For one thing, there's the Byrd Rule, the main purpose of which is to prevent Senators from cheating by using the protections of the reconciliation process to shoehorn in all sorts of policy changes that would otherwise be threatened by the filibuster, but which aren't sufficiently related to the budget. Remember, reconciliation is supposed to be a budgeting procedure, not a free pass for just anything you want to put in the bill. Republicans are already complaining that health care reforms shouldn't count as budgeting issues. But anybody with half a brain can see that major reforms would absolutely have a budgetary impact, and a considerable one at that. The trick will be relating the policy changes closely enough to budgetary changes to pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, whose job it will be to rule on the propriety of the language and whether it fits under the definition of what's proper for reconciliation

[salib]

39. I call Bullshit!

Every time I hear another apologist/triangulator/Mamsy-Pamsy "this is all we can do right now" posting here at DU, I am going to simply point to this OP.

B.S. OK?

[rhett o rick]

64. I think you're right. nt

[GOTV]

Lieberman shows no fear because he's faced no threat ...

... Obama and the Dem Senate leadership has shown Lieberman that the perks he enjoys are in no way subject to his performance.

[truedelphi]

94. Rep. Barbara Lee is making a bit of noise about the speeding up of the process

She is furious that they are trying to cut the corners. Since the House Bill is the bill with the Public Option, & since she and the rest of the Progressive Caucus are for that option, They are going to rally hard.

May their rally give We the People what we need.

The House Bill, not the Senate Bill.

[debbierlus]

108. I know. People don't even BEGIN to fight. As if voting is activism...

[donco6]

17. No kidding.

Ugh.

[Autonomy]

67. Yeah, and the healthcare bill proves that capitalism does not work!

Let's set fire to something! :sarcasm:

(If you don't think people on DU are pulling that kind of argument, read more often.)

[valerief]

69. Yep, from the faux-dems. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

4. K

&

R

[Gregorian]

6. Bypassing conference. If that doesn't say it all.

And I thought if I were patient I'd see where it was all going. Like it would come up like a bed of roses.

[begin_within]

7. If it weren't for lefties/liberals, well,

we'd still have legal slavery (now it's done with money instead of laws)

there would be no Social Security, and seniors would starve to death in parks

there would be no Medicare, and seniors would die from lack of treatment

there would be no Minimum Wage, and we'd all be working for 10 cents an hour, 70 hours a week.

anyone who is not a white male would not be able to vote

there would be no environmental laws and all surface water would be undrinkable

add your own...

[chimpymustgo]

20. No end to segregation, no end to child labor, no workplace regulations. Liberals save the world.

[Greyhound]

43. And we always have.

The history of humane progress has always been that of the "loony left" having to drag the corrupt and the stupid into the future, at which time they claim credit for the improvement.

Same as it ever was.

[chimpymustgo]

72. Count me a proud member of the "loony left".

[Luschnig]

65. If it weren't for lefties

Every instance that you mention was a product of compromise.  
Slavery did not really end until about fifty years ago,
according to Blackmon.  Social Security lacked medical care
and it was inadequately funded in order to protect the
inflated incomes of the rich.  Medicare was stripped of
dental, pharmaceutical and nursing home care in order to
please fiscal conservatives.  Minimum wage lags woefully
behind a living wage in order to assuage employers; ACORN is
suppressed, and water quality in America is atrocious.  Et
Cetera.  There haven't yet been any pure progressive victories
in America, it is all a matter of compromise with our evil
selves.  Of course, we should push from the left, but we
should not give up just because we can't get the whole prize,
because small victories are still victories.  

[varelse]

85. Legal slavery was abolished by a war

not all that incremental when you get right down to it.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr.Phool]

44. Bookmark this Hedges speech.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2009/12/18/chris_hedges

It's almost an hour long. KoKo posted it in Editorials earlier. It's well worth watching every minute.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

10. By all means fight for a better bill

but when it comes time to vote, the ideological crusades must end.

It's either this bill or nothing for 15 years. Don't assume that trite calls to "kill the bill" will magically result in the whole process starting over again with a nice new robust public option bill.

[thotzRthingz]

11. there is NO WAY that Obama and the Senate would allow this to fail... in the face of

A REAL THREAT TO KILL IT (w/o a public option, and other necessary measures, such as real "regulation" being imposed upon insurance companies, strong demands that we RE-IMPORT drugs and allow GENERICs as well)... the opposition will crumble, and this thing will get passed!

IOW: there will be no multi-year delay in revisiting it (should it die)... but there sure as hell will be an indefinite DELAY in re-visiting it... without a public option (hell, they've even refused to insert a TRIGGER).

We need to play hardball, and MEAN what we say... elsewise, let's all just assume the position (IYKWIM). I respectfully disagree with the notion that without it being passed now, it will be a decade or more before another attempt is made at "reform".

...just my 2cents

[grahamhgreen]

15. +1 - should the bill go back to the house with a PO, I dare the senators to kill it then.

[TicketyBoo]

23. I'm so sick of this line of reasoning…

of course it's not all I wanted, but it's as much as I expected. Hopefully, when the final thing passes it will be better than it is now. Until we see the final form, I see no reason to keep squealing about it.

For sure, whatever hits Obama's desk is going to get signed. If it doesn't pass sooner rather than later, expect huge Democratic losses in the fall and no hope for anything better (or maybe anything at all) any time soon.

There are wishes and then there is reality.

[DisgustedInMN]

25. Is it any wonder...

... with party members ready to cave in on EVERY important issue at the first sign of resistance, we get halfassed "reform" that is actually a HUGE corporate giveaway shoved down our throats? I pass on joining the "I'm content with crumbs" crowd, I have a spine, thank you very much. And if the Dems won't do the Will of the People, then they don't DESERVE to be in office.

[TicketyBoo]

27. And with THAT line of reasoning…

you're saying the Repubs DO deserve to be in office??

Ack.

[Better Believe It]

29. And with your line of reasoning are you saying that

any Democrat, no matter how conservative or right-wing they may be, deserves to be elected?

What happens in real life when tens of millions of people are not satisfied with a Republican or Democratic candidate for office?

They either don't vote or they vote for an independent or minor party candidate.

Already millions who voted Democratic in 2008 hoping for radical changes, are saying they will sit out the 2010 election.

[TicketyBoo]

96. I just know what happens in Nebraska.

We get a fairly conservative Democrat or a right-wing nutjob of a Republican.

I guess I should give up and just stay home, huh?

You do the best you can, and that's all you can do.

It's called pragmatism.

We can wish, but wishing doesn't make it so.

[The Hope Mobile]

34. Neither deserves it.

Green party time.

[TicketyBoo]

97. Not a viable option here.

I'd just as well stay home.

It seems to be what you all are recommending.

[natrat]

49. wow you are so wrong about waiting to speak up and he said nothing about republicans

[TicketyBoo]

98. Where I'm from

it's one or the other.

[fascisthunter]

77. And with Your line of reasoning… crappy legislation becomes a Self-fulfilling Prophecy

if you accept what you consider reality to be(corruption) then you will get more of it, not less.

[TicketyBoo]

100. I don't consider corruption

equal to reality.

But I know what is possible and I am forced to accept what is not.

Others want to yell and scream and rant and rave, but it is what it is.

[DisgustedInMN]

79. Did I say Republicans deserve to be in office?

What is it with people making things up about what someone else has stated and then expecting them to defend a bunch of BULL SHIT they never said? I don't do strawman, so save it for someone else.

You can apologize at any time.

Or not, means jacksquat to me.

[TicketyBoo]

101. No apology,

and since it doesn't matter to you, why would I apologize, even if I thought it was in order (which it isn't)?

As I've said, here where I live, you either get a fairly conservative Democrat or you get a rabid right-wing Republican. So, if you say my Dem (Nelson) doesn't deserve to be in office, you would prefer that I vote for someone even less desirable? (And, yes, it's VERY possible.)

It's a choice between the lesser of two evils. So you all are suggesting that I just stay home in protest because I don't get exactly what I want?

I came here for a little support, but there seems to be very little understanding for my situation here. If I want to be railed against, I can go to my local Applebee's where they play Fox News all day (and all evening) long and start an argument there.

I am finding little comfort here at DU because it would seem that you do NOT understand and will not TRY to understand the type of situation those who hold progressive views face in the reddest of red states. Here, we (and it is, I assure you, a very SMALL "we") have to be satisfied with very little. That's simply the way it is. Why these people who surround me, working class and (not wealthy) farmers, think that Republicanism is the way to go stymies me; I don't understand it at all. But there it is.

In my mind, you have to be really rich and greedy or really poor and stupid to be a Republican. Generous rich people (think the Kennedys and Warren Buffett and so forth) are Democrats. The poor and stupid surround me.

[DisgustedInMN]

104. I call...

... BULL SHIT. I know better that to accept your excuses. I was born one half mile from Husker Stadium. My Kids and Grandkids ALL live in Nebraska. Both of my brothers still live in Omaha. As a grade schooler, I lived across the street from the State Capital Building, where my mother worked on the 12th story. Gov Morrison's son once helped me get my kite out of a tree on the Governor's Mansion grounds. Tell me some more tales of woe about the "impossible odds" of voting for a decent candidate "where you live." Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy of defeat!

[TicketyBoo]

105. Okay.

Then you tell me HOW.

I live out-state. Third district.

Like a foreign country from Lincoln and Omaha.

You don't know ANYTHING about where I am in NEBRASKA.

Maybe you know there has been (not entirely facetious) talk of the western part of the state seceding and becoming a part of Wyoming. THAT'S how different it is out here from the eastern part of the state.

You may call "BULL SHIT," but here in western Nebraska we know BULLSHIT, and I'm not throwing it. (Walking in it, waist-deep, maybe, but not throwing it.)

Maybe, just MAYBE all your RELATIVES in OMAHA and LINCOLN can get us a damned decent Senator or two instead of Nelson who hails from McCOOK.

Here was the choice we had if you wanted to vote against Nelson in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Ricketts

Ricketts was running on a conservative platform, emphasizing fiscal responsibility, immigration reform, and agriculture, as well as championing a socially conservative platform opposing gay marriage and abortion. In all, he contributed $11,302,078 million of his own money to his campaign, triggering the Millionaire's Amendment which allows his opponent to raise larger amounts from each donor. He spent more money than any Senate candidate in Nebraska history.

Sweet, yes?

[DisgustedInMN]

107. STOP making false assumptions!

My son and his family live in Kearney. My daughter and family live in North Platte.

Tell me again about what I don't know.

:banghead:

[TicketyBoo]

109. Okay.

Then maybe you can tell me exactly HOW we can do better? Or maybe THEY have the secret?

Or maybe you just prefer to remain disgusted in Minnesota?

Every time you go out of the house, are you confronted with people who hate the President, who watch Fox News all evening? Because I am.

Do you have someone in your neighborhood who thought that hanging an effigy of a black man in chains from his tree was a fun thing to do for Halloween? Because I do.

Maybe I should just sign myself, "DisgustedInNE" and be done with it.

[FiveGoodMen]

80. Your approach will kill us

Read sig line for explanation.

[TicketyBoo]

103. My "approach"

is the only one that makes sense in my location.

Do you have another suggestion?

I have written my Senators (both of them, and Ben Nelson twice, in addition to calling his office multiple times). For the record, my Republican Senator is the only one who responded to my mail.

I e-mailed my Representative.

I have contacted other Senators who were reticent about health care reform (Baucus, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu).

Now, what more could I have possibly done?

I don't see what good voting for an even worse candidate will do just because I didn't get what I wanted.

People here telling me that my "approach" is wanting is exceedingly frustrating. One can only do what one can do, and I have done it.

Now I'm supposed to do what? I am pretty disgusted when it was a big enough fight just to get what is on the table right now, and I'm very hopeful that what gets to the President's desk will be better than some here seem to think. What is wrong with hoping that all I have done has not been in vain? And if it has been in vain, well, I tried. I tried by asking every single time for Medicare For All because, I reasoned, the bureaucracy is already in place and it would save on administrative costs. I pointed out that people will still buy Medicare supplemental policies from the private insurance companies. I tried, I really did. And I am hopeful.

So, I would rather that people not lecture me about how my "approach" is wanting.

[FiveGoodMen]

110. Well, I certainly wasn't criticizing your efforts to fix things.

By "approach" I meant the notion that we have to support bad people -- no matter what they do -- because the other side is always worse.

At some point we have to realize that our clear intention to support the home team under all circumstances is the exact reason that they've become such sell-out pieces of shit.

They know that nothing they do will ever lose them votes so they cater evermore to the right with each election. What Nader said about the parties having no differences sounded mighty over-the-top in 2000. Today it doesn't. Because they know they don't have to listen to us; we'll be there for them no matter what.

That's what has allowed the Dems to become virtual pukes.

If the party can't be scared into cleaning up its act, then the only slim hope remaining is that it dies, leaving room for a real progressive party to take its place.

Obviously, it would be immeasurably better to kill the puke party, but we have no control over that. (Or if we do, then let's get on it now)

[Better Believe It]

26. This bill was written for and by the private insurance industry & big Phrama.

Comparing it to social security is nonsense.

[TicketyBoo]

102. I didn't.

Maybe you meant to respond to someone else?

[The Hope Mobile]

33. SOOOOO right!!! Absolutely can't wait on this.

We will be screwed with this crap bill for many generations to come if we don't do something now!
Filibuster, reconcile with public option, real regulation, etc., then pass with our 51 votes!!! Anything less is total bullshit and Obama et al should be ashamed and voted out!

[TicketyBoo]

106. Really?

Anything less is total bullshit and Obama et al should be ashamed and voted out!

I suppose you enjoy the idea of hearing "Hail to the Chief" played for Sarah Palin?

Ri-i-ight.

[sendero]

21. Nothing..

... would be better than this bill, so I'll wait.

[pundaint]

40. Or we could fire the bought and paid for Congress and get a new one...

WE OWN THE SYSTEM damn it, let's start acting like it People!

[valerief]

71. THEY own the e-voting machines. And the whole damn political machine.

There's only one way...only one way...

[jgraz]

14. And here I thought we'd be greeted as liberators.

:shrug:

[KoKo]

47. OMG, jgraz.....That's a good one.....!

[valerief]

70. DUZY! nt

[Nikki Stone1]

18. Thank you for posting this.

THANK YOU.

[flyarm]

19. K&R ..and thanks for posting this!! It is the damn truth! Mad as hell and not taking it anymore!

I will not be silenced by either party!..Don't even try!!

[LWolf]

22. K & FUCKING R.

[depakid]

24. "not prepared to fight." LOL -the record's pretty clear that they had no intention of doing so

from the outset.

Let that be the lesson for 2010 and beyond.

[saracat]

28. Well done .Thank you

[cascadiance]

30. The "Health Care" bill, could be more aptly named the "Wealth Care" bill

which is just about what all bills of consequence can be called until we pass meaninful campaign finance reform...

[earth mom]

31. Let's face it-the left has been thrown under the bus and run over numerous times

and thrown in the trash. :grr:

[Kolesar]

48. Please iterate them...eom

[PVnRT]

50. Iterate them? OK

them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them them

You didn't tell me how many loops to use, so I just guessed.

[Kolesar]

53. brainiac, I see

[natrat]

52. decomposing now at the dump, the wonder of it is that there are still defenders

[earth mom]

95. Amazing isn't it? Anyone who can't see it is protecting the status quo for selfish purposes. nt

[closeupready]

32. MAJOR Kick and Rec.

BIG time.

[democrank]

35. Gargantuan K & R

Thank you, Kai Wright!

[amborin]

36. K$R

[Goldstein1984]

37. Thanks for posting. My email to Mark Begich today:

Dear Senator Begich,

I will spare you a long explanation, and just make a simple statement:

If a House/Senate version of the health care reform bill passes with a mandate for people to buy insurance from the insurance industry, I will withdraw all financial and campaign support for Democrats who vote for the bill.

If a House/Senate version of the health care reform bill passes without either a single-payer or public option, I will withdraw all financial and campaign support for Democrats who vote for the bill.

If I cannot rely on my elected officials, my money is better spent supporting NGOs that work aggressively to defend and promote my beliefs.

Thank you,

(Democratic voter registered as Non-Partisan)

[Vinca]

41. We should all be sending your letter.

[slipslidingaway]

38. knr nt

[defendandprotect]

42. And, wow . . . haven't we forgotten about health care with the Xmas bomber farce--!!!???

If not that, then the next offering is third White House Party crasher --

and then photos of Tiger Woods in Vanity Fair Mag!!

[winyanstaz]

45. Kill the bill...

[change_notfinetuning]

46. Message to Congress: We've upped our standards. Now, up yours! (thanks to

Pat Paulsen for that one.)

[G_j]

51. Either our leaders are accountable for the policies they create or they are not

+1000

[bkozumplik]

54. excellent diary Kai, well done!

You sum up well the false choices and lowest common denominator settlings.

We need to bring this bill down, and start over. This "we wont get a bill for another 15 years" strawman that people throw out is wrong.

[Kolesar]

55. If my employer dumps my health care plan, at least I can buy something

If I was out of work, it would be subsidized.
If I was working, it would cost half as much as a house payment/month.
I would have no fear of being denied coverage if I develop heart disease, etc.

It is incremental progress.

The biggest problem was that the legislators did not know what they were working on. They were quite naive to the complexities of health care issues. At least that's what Dr. Cosgrove at the Cleveland Clinic said.

[LooseWilly]

60. If you are out of work it will be partially subsidized.

You will still have to cough up a sizeable piece of change, from your unemployment benefits, each month, to pay for private health insurance. Same amount as you would have been paying out of pocket if your unemployment benefits were pay- assuming a job without health benefits on top of pay.

If you are not receiving unemployment, then you will be covered by medicaid. Same as you would be now.

If the bill were killed, you would not have any subsidy, but likewise you would have the option of gambling on not paying at all.

The question I have is- Do you suppose the "increased pool of (hostage) customers" will act to keep insurance costs lower? It may be economic theory, but according to economic theory, Enron wouldn't've committed massive fraud upon the public.

To call this bill progress is, in my opinion, like calling exporting jobs overseas progress for the economy (in so far as lower wage costs of workers overseas improves the profitability of the corporations that practice such exporting of jobs, which is then reflected in the stock prices for the corporations, which is then used as an indicator of the state of the economy).

Ironically, the subsidies are now apparently another griping point for those who buy FOX news style talking points... so this shitty bill will galvanize those who think that they're being taxed to cover healthcare for "others" (usually read "dirty immigrants" and "shiftless welfare queens"- rather than "minimum/low wage earners in most service industries")... while at the same time utterly demoralizing anyone who was hungry for any "real reforms".

Bravo... what a coup.

[Kolesar]

62. If health coverage was a public benefit, then everybody would have to pay into it

In the mode that "everybody" pays for National Health in Britain. So, mandatory premiums are the same thing.

This issue was wrought during the 2008 presidential primary. Senator Clinton advocated mandatory participation. I agreed with that position.

[BzaDem]

56. It's very telling how the "we should expect more from the system" folks don't actually explain what

their endgame is and how to get there. Sure, they wail about how Joe Lieberman/Ben Nelson shouldn't have control over the bill (a complaint both true and futile). But they don't actually explicitly say "Here is my bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate without them, and here are those 60 Senators." That's because there isn't a way.

They also don't say "Here is a reconciliation bill that creates a sustainable public option," because they all know that without community rating, any public option would have to either discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions or enter a premium death spiral from day 1.

Finally, they also don't say "Here is a list of 50 Senators that would be willing to invoke the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster." That's because there probably aren't more than about 20 who would even consider doing such a thing. It's quite easy to whine and complain and demagogue the filibuster (or pretend it actually doesn't exist or isn't a problem), but its a completely different thing to actually list 50 names of Senators who would vote for abolishing the filibuster.

I am all for taking the "we should expect more from the system" folks seriously, when and if they present

a) A better bill that can pass through one of the many routes of passage in the Senate, and
b) A list of Senators that would vote for such a bill that surpasses the number of votes required through the route of passage chosen.

Until that happens, those who want to kill the bill are the whiners, and those trying to get a bill passed are the adults.

[Kolesar]

57. But railing is so much fun

...and please don't refer to it as "whining".

[BzaDem]

58. That depends.

If people are criticizing the substance of the bill, and that we should change it later the second we have the votes to do so, that is good and true criticism. But if they then make the logical leap that this bill should be killed because we can pass a better one, that becomes whining. The idea that a better bill can pass any time within the next several election cycles is just a coping mechanism for those in denial about how our government works. The real choice is between the status quo and something close to this bill. It is not between the status quo and some better bill delivered by a unicorn.

[laughingliberal]

61. Could be cause we don't buy the bit of kabuki theatre that would have us believe it was

a couple of mean, old, bad Senators who did this all on their own. I believe we would have gotten the PO with opt out for the states, at least, if the White House had not intervened to kill off all hints of a public option. I've lived with Harry Reid as my senator long enough to know he did not put that in the blended bill without a good sense he had the votes for it. Any doubts I had about the White House being the force behind killing the PO were entirely dispelled when Rahm showed up on a Sunday night to tell Harry to make a deal with Lieberman. Lieberman is a scumbag but he did not support an early buy in to Medicare in September and turn against it just to be an ass. No one will ever convince me that having him do their dirty work on this was not the price they extracted from Lieberman for supporting him keeping his chairmanship after the general election.

[Better Believe It]

63. Hope this clears up Senate procedures up for you.

You wrote: Sure, they wail about how Joe Lieberman/Ben Nelson shouldn't have control over the bill (a complaint both true and futile). But they don't actually explicitly say "Here is my bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate without them, and here are those 60 Senators." That's because there isn't a way.

Response: Senator Reid can require Senators to filibuster on the floor of the Senate, the old fashion way, by using his powers as the Senate majority leader. Under current practice, a Senator merely has to advise Senator Reid that a filibuster is occuring without anyone actually filibustering! But again, Senator Reid can easily end that practice:

In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum. Today, they just advise the majority leader that the filibuster is on. The senators who filibuster get a free ride compared to the old days. Some modern Senate critics have called for a return to the old dramatic endurance contest but that would inconvenience all senators who would have to stay in session 24/7 until the filibuster is broken.

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

You wrote: Finally, they also don't say "Here is a list of 50 Senators that would be willing to invoke the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster." That's because there probably aren't more than about 20 who would even consider doing such a thing.

Why do you claim only 20 Democratic Senators would support the "nuclear option"? You seem to be suggesting that the 28 other Democratic Senators aren't worth a fuck. Is the political reality really that bad, far worse than I and the writer had thought? If that's true, you should be applauding the article, not attacking it!

You don't need 50 Senators to invoke the "constitutional option" which is frequently called the "nuclear option". You need a simple majority of Senators present to vote with Vice-President Biden's parliamentary ruling upholding a single Senator's point of order calling for an immediate vote on a particular bill:

The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Have you forgotten how so many Democratic Senators crumbled like a house of cards when Republicans threatened to use the constitutional option in 2005? One might think this option was only available to Republicans since Democrat Senate leaders fear even whispering the dreaded term "nuclear option".

[jeff47]

66. K, here ya go

Step 1, write an effective bill:
1. Everyone can buy into Medicare. At 65 your premium is $0. The premiums for everyone else is set such that it is self-funding.
2. Minor tweaks to the reimbursement rates for rural Doctors, a long-standing complaint.
3. Sliding scale of subsidies for people up to 400% poverty line.
4. Remove Medicaid - it's now redundant.

Step 2:
"Hi Joe. You sure do like having that chairmanship. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it. Oh, I'm not gonna take it away from you, but if you fillibuster this, the rest of the caucus is gonna demand your head. But I really want to help you out. So how 'bout we put a few hundred million into the Lieberman Center for Massive Ego Development and you don't fillibuster."

Repeat Step 2 for Nelson.

Problem solved.


The current, bad bill is the result of poor leadership. Senators like Lieberman and Nelson know there are no repercussions for their actions, so they do what they do to stroke their massive egos. Competent leadership would fix that, but competent leadership has been lacking in the Democratic party for about 30 years now.

[sabrina 1]

59. If only it was just 'lefties' who oppose this legislation.

Polls are showing that Dems are losing the support of Independents also, and there is no way that Moderate Republicans, the kind that crossed over last Fall disgusted with their own party, could bring themselves to support a bill that forces American Citizens to buy, what they are calling a 'commodity', from a private business. It's never happened before in this country. It will meet with many Constitutional challenges from the left and the right.

But most of all, the Bill discriminates against the elderly, and creates a 'marketplace' where people can 'go shopping' for their very lives. Discriminating against the working poor was never something I thought I'd see from the Democratic Party. And they cannot blame Republicans for this.

When the rich go shopping, they can afford to buy quality products, the poor not so much. But to put people's health care into a market place where what is affordable to the poor, will be less than adequate for their needs, leaving many with an extra bill they don't have now, to pay for a product they will not be able to use, because the co-pays will be way beyond what they can afford, is simply Machiavellian, imho.

Those in favor of the legislation, (or is it 'The Party') claim more people will be covered. And five years from now, Ins Corps won't be able to turn down people with 'pre-existing conditions'. Wow, we are so lucky in America. Our government throws us a bone and we are so grateful! Well, some of us anyhow. As if that ever should have been anything but a crime in the first place and the deaths that occurred because of that evil practice, prosecuted as crimes of gross negligence on the part of those entrusted with the safety of the American people..

True, there will be more coverage, and that will make the Private Ins. Ind. wealthier, it will save them, as bail-outs saved Wall St.

But coverage isn't health care. No matter how they try to spin it. And Health Care IS a RIGHT, no matter how the ghouls who profit from life and death try to argue otherwise. Not yet in this backward country, but it will be, when the American people finally see what their government thinks of them.

TERROR! The American people are in danger from foreign enemies!! Who do they think they are kidding! As if they care! This HC 'Reform' debacle ought to disabuse the American people of any notion that their government cares whether they live or die, unless there's some way to profit from it.

[treestar]

68. No one said shut up

But it doesn't mean anyone else has to listen to the same old refuted points eleventy more times.

[Better Believe It]

75. You already read the same political points "eleventy" times? !

Are you sure it wasn't tenty or twelvety times?

:)

[d_b]

81. pont

[TCJ70]

73. This line really sums it up well:

"The left, on the other hand, has embraced compromise after compromise -- and the result is we've all squandered a rare political opportunity to make sweeping changes rather than tinker at the margins."

I couldn't have said it better.

[Enthusiast]

74. The drop in President Obama's popularity

can largely be attributed to disappointment over how watered down the health care reform bill has become. You won't hear this on the M$M. The M$M only tells you people are against the HCR bill, they don't tell you why. Unless, that is, they interview tea-baggers while pretending their words constitute mainstream America.

Hey, we know it is obfuscation. We know it is a propaganda effort unprecedented in world history. And part of this smoke screen is to claim the dissatisfaction comes from whiny 'liberals'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[fascisthunter]

76. Kicked(nt)

[pleah]

82. K&R

[Generator]

83. Some are at the point so desperate to believe

that it's just easier to. Much easier. Maybe it is historic. Maybe they really will end pre-existing conditions AND you will still be able to afford the policy. Maybe some really really poor people will be better off. Maybe they can fix it later. Maybe the sun will come out tomorrow.

But taking the past 30 years as any indicator-all things do is get worse.

And the Democrats are slowly and surely becoming the Republicans of 30 years ago and the Republicans are some fascist moronic breed from a hellish future.

[jefferson_dem]

84. Always the victim.

Don't whine if people aren't buying the bullshit.

[varelse]

87. Oh really?

In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health dateline, June 30 2009

Most in U.S. want public health option: poll Poll conducted in November, 2009

VOTERS REVOLT AGAINST MANDATES WITHOUT PUBLIC OPTION poll results published December 18th, 2009

[midnight]

86. K&R

[Mark D.]

88. The (Very Effective) Title

Almost got me. It sure got my attention. What's amazing is DOZENS of other nations have something in the same ball park as the Single Payer plan that folks like Kucinich, Sanders, Nader and other (marginalized) sensible folks want. Those who seek that 'want too much' or are 'not compromising'. With who? A bunch of right wing, self-centered, corporate liberals. That includes Ron Paul, who's solution would to be eliminate the disparate, more expensive, swath of 'plans' we have now (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). As if the 'big brother' of a 'free market' they seek will step in and save everyone. I'm so effing sick of this! I'm as sick of some 'cowardly' or 'out there' connotation being attached to my liberalism. I just have to wonder if, while as stated above-history shows Liberals make the real progress, can we ever regain an upper hand.

We got the 'control of House and Senate and Whitehouse' as this prez himself once said years back when asked why we don't have single payer. We watched him campaign against a mandate, saying the goal was cost cutting and affordable options for uninsured, including a true 'Public Option'. We let go of that being a big step back from his pro-Single Payer view. We let it go when the PO turned into POop, and something that would have been more expensive than the insurers it was supposed to undercut to keep their prices in check. We saw that dropped and we heard the Whitehouse say the PO wasn't important. Great! Oh, and he totally flip/flopped on the mandate thing. The catalyst? Corporate control of government. I'm still amazed at those to the right who will fear 'more government' yet are fine with this corporatocracy.

[Ken Burch]

89. K&R

n/t.

[David Zephyr]

90. Kicking this up again. Hope more people read it.

Thanks for posting this, Better Believe It.

[AVID]

91. unrec x 472 (to make up for the sane DUers who have you on ignore)

[Better Believe It]

93. Since you don't have me on ignore does that make you insane?

:)

[spoony]

99. That was such a burn I can smell it through the monitor.

Dammmmmnnnn. :P

[scentopine]

92. Liberals are hated by both parties - as tea baggers gain

credibility, they will push us farther and farther right. We are all democrats in name only. All the basic neo-conservative policy without the drama.