We dropped the Medicare Buy-In because we "only" had 59 votes w/o Liebermann...So WHY in hell are we

[Faryn Balyncd]

....even talking about ramming through a no-public-option MANDATE, which voters overwhelmingly oppose, with 50 votes?


If we are belatedly willing to use reconciliation, why in hell are we NOT going to use it to pass the real reform voters need and demand, rather than a lobbyist written, suicidal mandate?






:kick:




"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform...."

- Howard Dean

[Faryn Balyncd]

1. Interesting how quickly the knee-jerk, SILENT "Unrec Patrol" attacks.

\
:hi:



:kick:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

51. We all notice it.

[freddie mertz]

52. OOPS! Wrong place.

Moved below.

[ClassWarrior]

60. It's common knowledge these days that you should add 40 or 50 votes to any rec count...

...to compensate for all the unrecs from trolls. They're really just wasting their own time. Everyone mentally adjusts the number automatically now.

NGU.

[hughee99]

72. I have never unrec'd anything before today,

but after what I've seen today, I will unrec any thread i read on any subject in which the the first reply is the OP bitching about unrecs.

[freddie mertz]

78. That is just petulant.

[hughee99]

79. A bit.

Frankly, I'm sick of seeing someone create a thread and then sit there an wait for an unrec to bitch about it. If you've (and not specifically, you, but anyone in general) posted something of interest that people want to discuss, people will find it regardless of unrecs (it will get plenty of recs to cancel them out). What I HATE seeing is the thread for an otherwise worthwhile subject degrade into a whine-fest about unrecs... like this one.

Someone unrecs a thread, suck it up and move on. It's not productive or worth one's while to complain or speculate about the sort of person who would do it. I know from first hand experience, look at all the time I've wasted explaining something which add NO value to the discussion.

[librechik]

2. ta dah! Let's make this viral---

5

[bvar22]

4. Shhhhh.

You're not supposed to notice that.

You SHOULD be shocked & awed by the old Chicago Razzle Dazzle performance with the Republicans yesterday!

Boy!!! He sure showed THEM! <High Five + Victory lap>
.
.
It WAS a good performance, but that ALL it was...
Kabuki Theater for those who are easily distracted by beads & trinkets.
Absolutely NOTHING was gained in terms of POLICY, or gains for the American Working Class in terms of Health Care (or anything else).

Razzle Dazzle
From the soundtrack “Chicago” …LOL (How Appropriate!!)

“Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!


Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
Row after row will crow vociferous
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!


Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler
Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance


Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talent
Razzle Dazzle 'em
And they'll make you a star!"



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[amborin]

10. +1000 exactly! the "summit" was all kabuki theater, while Wall St coffers brim with

ever larger profits and bonuses, and banksters, et al. salivate, as experienced, unionized teachers are fired, constitutional freedoms are further diminished, and the privatization agenda hums along nicely

[defendandprotect]

57. And as long as Obama doesn't re-Regulate, we're being set up for more of the same -- !!!

Glass-Steagall -- !!!

[Festivito]

18. Yes, let us avert our eyes, and, .... LOOKY! A Circus! Wheeee!

This war on health care is over fifty years old, it won't change easily.

We have to fight. Fight. FIGHT. FIGHT. and FIGHT!

[557188]

20. YES! YES! YES!

Thank you.

[leveymg]

61. Lots of Razzle, not much Dazzle, really.

We're not impressed, and I doubt Obama's performance changes anything elsewhere in Merca. The corporate Dems may pass their Bill without PO, but will deny themselves the Majority in the process.

[havocmom]

5. Easy: Insurance companies LOVE the mandated purchase of insurance w/o competition of PO

Their employees in Congress will enact what the insurance companies want.

[Echo In Light]

7. Precisely

[maryf]

14. and the taxing of workers' bennies

is just another way they save money...or don't lose profits...

[slipslidingaway]

15. +++ n/t

[leftstreet]

26. +1

[tango-tee]

37. It's their wet dream come true, isn't it?

All of this disgusts me beyond belief.

[havocmom]

62. Wall Street's too. They get all that extra investment money Insurance Cos will have to invest

Major corporate welfare on the backs of working people who have lost real wages for decades now.

[tango-tee]

67. And this is the way it will continue

until there is nothing left to take - until the back of the working people is shattered.

Then what?

I'm not worried so much for myself. I'm old, one way or another I can make it. But I worry about the younger generation. I have a son, daughter-in-law and grandchild. A young family. It frightens me to think of what they will be facing.

[amborin]

6. real reform would hurt Wall Street profits; that's what this is all about

[havocmom]

17. Yep. Wall Street is the part of the equation most forget about

Insurance companies do not take your premium payments and put them in a coffee can. It all goes to the street.

America did not fall for the 'privatize Social Security' crap so Wall Street would get payroll deductions, so this mandate to purchase insurance is just an end run around our defense against forced investment in the ponzi scheme that is Wall Street now.

[amborin]

21. exactly!

the financialization of everything!

[havocmom]

22. The socialization of risk

while profit takers are getting fewer and more privatized.

[bvar22]

23. The Health Insurance Cartel....

..IS Wall Street's incestuous 1st Cousin anyway.
What's good for the Health Insurance Cartel IS good for Wall Street.

I wish MORE would open their eyes and SEE what this is all about.
It IS another massive transfer of Public Money to BIG Insurance/Banks.
They are merely throwing a few crumbs to distract the fools.
These "crumbs" MUST be immediately handed over to the For Profit Cartel, along with some of your own pocket money too.

In every other civilized country in The World, Health Care is a RIGHT.
Instead of a RIGHT to Health Care, Working Americans will have an OBLIGATION to pay PROFITS to the Health Insurance Industry.
THAT is Obama's "Uniquely American Solution".

Follow. The. MONEY. STUPID!


But, BOY, he really put the Smackdown on those Republicans!!!!!
YESIREEE! He really taught THEM a LESSON!!!!

.
.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Because reconciliation can only be used for a very limited number

of things. Under Senate rules, you can't go changing anything you want with that process.

Now, maybe Senate rules need to be changed, and maybe Jim Bunning's hold-up of unemployment benefit extensions will display that loud and clear, but we might really need those rules and traditions to hold in January.

[druidity33]

34. limited number of things

THAT AFFECT THE BUDGET.

I'd say Medicare-For-All would fit the description.


Besides,

they already passed a Health Care Bill in BOTH houses...

we just need to... wait for it...

reconcile the 2 bills.

:)

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Individualist]

9. It's typical DLC game playing

[Zenlitened]

11. Good question. - n/t

[TheKentuckian]

12. Because the buy in and the Public option were just carrots

to maintain support from the left to get through the process but they have no intention whatsoever of doing anything public at all and as soon as possible will look to roll Medicare and Medicaid into the exchanges.

[peace frog]

71. ...and the stick

is the black-and-blue beating we're gonna take when they move Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Education, etc, ad nauseum, from public holding to private ownership. Bend over, brace yourselves and prepare to take it.

[Marr]

13. Where's your loyalty?

:P

Yep. That's what I've been wondering ever since this these DLC stooges managed to paint themselves into a corner. They lose a Senate seat for playing footsy with the Insurance Industry, suddenly decide that reconciliation is the way to go, and don't think anyone will even notice the so-called "compromises" aren't strictly necessary anymore.

They think the general populace is dirt stupid. It's another way the DLC is similar to the Republicans.

[laughingliberal]

19. Unfortunately, a lot of the populace is dirt stupid

And many will still be screaming to pass the awful Senate bill without realizing a little effort would get us the bill we want. Or, at least, a hell of a lot better bill than we have right now.

[Marr]

28. Yep. This is about the only time that the House progressives can have

real influence on the White House, IMHO. Team Obama knows they need to pass *something* just to save their own asses politically. Now's the time to squeeze.

[defendandprotect]

58. So many are happy begging for bread crumbs and still ....

worshipping the bread crumb-givers -- !!

[lamp_shade]

16. They're baaaaaaaaaccccck. Good grief.

[tblue37]

24. Reconciliation (51 votes) can only be used on a bill that has *already*

been passed--the Senate bill that was passed only becasue they gave in to Liebrdweeb to get him to vote for cloture to break a filibuster. The are NOT talking about using reconciliation to "pass" a bill, but rather to FIX (beef up) a bill that they had to water down to get it past the Blue Dog jerks like Lieberdweeb.

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. So why not "fix it" by restoring the Medicare Buy In? (Or the Public Option?)

[tblue37]

29. They can't actually *change* the bill. The reconciliation process is a

budget process. As I understand it, they use it to tweak a bill by increasing or withholding funding for favored or disfavored parts of the bill that has already passed. If they introduce new amendments, then the bill has to go back to the Senate floor for a vote, at which point it is once again subject to filibuster, and they would then need a 60-vote majority to ensure that no filibuster could prevent cloture. That would then leave it vulnerable to the machinations of creeps like Lieberdweeb.

[druidity33]

35. that's one interpretation

of the reconciliation process. Many Knowledgeable people believe otherwise. There have been other bills reconciled by other Administrations that were just as big, if not bigger.

:shrug:

[thesquanderer]

47. My understanding is that they CAN do this, and MORE

re: "As I understand it, they use it to tweak a bill by increasing or withholding funding for favored or disfavored parts of the bill that has already passed."

I may be wrong, but my understanding is they can add anything to the bill that adjusts it financially.

So in this case, in theory, they would be able to say something like "Provision added to permit people under 65, but at least 55, to be eligible for Medicare, provided they pay a premium of $xxx." If they set that premium to, for example, 5% or 10% over what adding such a person would actually cost the system, they could promote it as a way to make the Medicare system more solvent, addressing two problems at once, and further addressing the true purpose of the reconciliation process, financial adjustments.

In fact, as Change Happens suggests (post 45 in this thread), this same process could be used to lower the age to anything at all. This could make Medicare available to people over 55, over 50, over 30, over 18, whatever.

I know I'd certainly rather join a known-good system with a 5% or 10% "profit" built in compared to a dysfunctional private system with an as-much-as-we-can-squeeze-out-of-it profit motive built in.

[Faryn Balyncd]

64. That sounds like ideal language for a budget neutralizing Medicare Buy In through reconciliation.

[jeff47]

74. Medicare buy-in would be a budget-related bill

Making it valid for reconciliation.

The only down side is it would have to have a 10-year sunset. But once the buy-in exists, making it permanent should be easier than other recent reconciliation bills (ex. Bush's tax cuts).

[Faryn Balyncd]

27. and just why does the official DLC line on exactly what reconciliation can apply to keep changing?

[PassingFair]

59. Not a real question, is it? My understanding about reconciliation...

is that the only REAL requirement is that the bill
must be "budget neutral" or cost SAVING....

But we have been fed a bunch of bullshit around
here by "democratic strategists" about when and why we
can or cannot use reconciliation.

And it pisses me off.

[autorank]

30. Harry Reid is a ringer. To him, losing is winning.

How much more proof do we need?

[TacticalPeek]

31. Btw - Fuck Lieberman!

Just sayin'.

[Demeter]

32. The Good Doctor, Making Sense Again

Why isn't this man president?

[Political Heretic]

33. How long is it going to take for you to GET that Senate Democrats DONT WORK FOR YOU

Or me, or working class families.

Everything that is happening makes more sense if you accept the premise that Democrats are looking for EXCUSES NOT TO PASS A PUBLIC PLAN.

Once you accept that premise, the entire last YEAR makes perfect sense.

[bread_and_roses]

45. exactly. and unfortunately

it doesn't look like Obama works for us either.

Oh, and an R to counter the auto unRs

[tango-tee]

36. Here's my rec to counteract an un-rec!

eom.

[DisgustedInMN]

39. Because Barack Obama and his Administration never...

.. really wanted actually reform that benefited We the People, for anything other than an issue to campaign on in vague enough terms to leave himself an out if it looked like something decent might actually get passed.

It's Kabuki Theater for the masses, to make sure the Have Mores get an even larger slice of the pie and then send bigger bribes... oops I mean "campaign contributions" to the "leaders."

Yes we can!

[Yurovsky]

42. He's stated in the past he's for single payer...

and now that he's in a position to deliver this to the American people, he's amazingly quiet on the subject.

I'm sure the insurance, Big Pharma, and physician lobbyists have had NOTHING to do with BHO's change of heart...:sarcasm:

[sendero]

40. Lieberman was an excuse..

.. like most of what they say about this process.

[Kermitt Gribble]

41. Exactly.

If they're going to go as far as using reconciliation, why not open up Medicare for everyone? Why, you ask?? Because the sole purpose of our govt is to maximize corporate profits. It's so obvious, it's not even worth arguing about anymore.

K&R

[Vinca]

43. The sorry fact is there is little difference in either party

when it comes to campaign donations. They don't want to cut off the flow of checks by giving the public what it wants.

[Change Happens]

44. You know we can do Medicare buy in for all of us right now with reconciliation...

[The Wizard]

46. About a year ago

Howard Dean proffered: "You're either with the insurance companies or you're with the American people."
The time has come for our legislators to put their cards on the table and show us how much the insurance lobby has funneled into their secret off shore accounts in tax havens like Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Liechtenstein.
Of course they won't, but make them talk about it. It's a conversation that needs contributors.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. Because the "Damn, we only came up one vote short!" was the real kabuki.

"We really wanted to give that option to you but that darn evil Lieberman..."

[flyarm]

54. Never forget Obama "chose" Lieberman as his freshman senator "MENTOR"

I am going with the belief that Lieberman and Obama have worked this between them as the cover Obama needs with the Insurance Boys ..that many just happen to be Headquartered in Liebermans state.

There are no accidents in politics.

[Jefferson23]

49. K&R

[midnight]

50. The cleaver art of switch and bait.....

[Jakes Progress]

53. One term and then all the adm leaders

off to fat cat CEO positions.

[peace frog]

73. ...or as obscenely highly paid lobbyists

Schmoozing the very same congress critters they worked alongside, just the day before they left office.
Just ask Billy Tauzin and his ilk, they can tell ya allllll about it. :evilfrown:

[Jakes Progress]

76. True. And Tauzin's old job is open. nt

[freddie mertz]

55. K & R. with reconciliation, we can kill the mandate, out in real PO, and expand Medicare.

I say we do it.

But as we now know, "we" does not necessarily include the Dem Congressional leadership OR the WH.

[jeff47]

75. Unfortunately, mandate is necessary

W/o a mandate, we'd all wait until we're actually sick to buy insurance. Since the bill also eliminates pre-existing conditions, there would be nothing preventing us from buying insurance in the Emergency room after a car accident or cancer diagnosis. That is unworkable as long as we use an 'insurance' framework for heath care.

In return for a mandate, we need either a public option or massive regulation to keep the insurance companies honest. PO would be the easiest, most efficient and least expensive method.

Single-payer would be far superior. The "mandate" is covered by having us all pay taxes in the place of buying insurance.

[freddie mertz]

77. I have a revulsion for the mandate.

I could PERHAPS accept it, but only if we have a really strong PO, plus Medicare age-reduction and regulation.

Otherwise it's just forced servitude.

[defendandprotect]

56. Lieberman is a gimmick -- all we need is 51 votes . . .make them filibuster ...

[branders seine]

63. it's a show.

and a scam.

No more than a few politicians in DC have the slightest interest in actually reforming health care, but the "two" parties are fighting over who gets the credit or the blame for pretending to do it.

It isn't real. It's the WWE.

[SandWalker1984]

65. MANDATES to buy corporate insurance w/o other options is NOT REAL REFORM!

If left up to the Republicans, we would be forced to buy
corporate medical insurance IF we can afford it or, as Grayson put it, die if we cannot.

The Democrats in Congress (and White House) serve the SAME health care corporations/campaign contributors as the Republicans.

However, there is a difference -- the Republicans would coerce us into buying corporate medical "care" by necessity, the Democrats
want to mandate we buy it by force of LAW with the threat of expensive FINES or imprisonment. They even plan to use the IRS to enforce the fines.

Democrats are pushing for a forcible mandate for everyone to buy insurance from an artificial, monopoly market place with no options OTHER than corporate insurance. Plus, when the system goes bust from the overhead, and can no longer provide coverage because of unconstrained corporate greed (think 38% increases in premiums) -- people will (a)go broke trying to pay for mandated insurance premiums, (b)get FINED or possibly go to jail for failure to pay fines or (c)DIE.

It is a cruel hoax and ultimately meaningless choice. It is like giving a condemned person a choice of the method of their execution.

One thing is certain. If the Democrats persist in this
it spells the END of the Democratic party (thank you, DLC). They will be wiped out in the next 2 elections and there will be nothing left of the Democrats. YOU must tell them that.

The only thing that can stop the corporate mandates is if THEY finally understand that they are no longer fooling YOU, the VOTERS.


These "chains" aren't what we can believe in, nor should we.

[SlingBlade]

66. Great Question Dude.

K & R
And included in my Obama's Health Reform Greatest Hits Thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7764365

[David Zephyr]

68. You already know the answer to the very good (and glaring) question as to why not.

They can do it. They won't do it.

Yes, they can. No, they won't.

[emilyg]

69. You got it.

[WillyT]

70. Agreed !!! - And Did You See This ???

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7804861

K & R !!!

:hi:

[agent46]

80. They're making it up

They're making it up as they go along. One excuse is as good as another. It really is all starting to to seem like some weird disjointed theater where nothing that's said makes any normal sense. They don't seem to realize the public is actually paying attention more now, recording, watching and improving their political memories every day.

[uponit7771]

81. We don't have the votes in the senate or the house