Rockefeller: What Dean is saying "is nonsense... and he's wrong."

[Clio the Leo]

Jay Rockefeller is none too pleased with Howard Dean.

On Andrea's show today he said in regard to Dr. Dean's comments over the last 24 hours, "it's nonsense and it's irresponsible and coming from him as a physician it's stunning .... and he's wrong."

(video)
http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/1392368

Says there are things in this bill he's been waiting "years for."

Also seems to think all votes (read Lincoln) are accounted for except Nelson's.

y'all havin' fun yet? :popcorn:

[Mass]

1. Throw Rockefeller under the bus...

:popcorn:

(I understand why they are not happy, but this is not any more helpful than Dean is).

[jenmito]

2. K&R. I saw that. It's good to see an adult speak on the subject. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

3. Rockefeller is right ...

Dean isn't.

Dean, I think, was having a bit of an emotional reaction to what happened yesterday, not a logical one. Lot of that going around.

[Clio the Leo]

8. Well, he's still pretty emotional then...

.... 'cause he put on an actual oxford shirt and said the same thing again today.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Huh ...

Well, I can't pretend to know what he's thinking.

I have a lot of respect for him and think he's generally correct on a number of issues, but not this one.

[PassingFair]

10. He had a very measured reaction to what has become a terrible "plan".

Time to scrap it and start over.

[RoyGBiv]

22. Wrong

[PassingFair]

37. Right. LOL

[CTyankee]

43. No, I've heard Dean say for a long time that if there is no public option we shouldn't pass

the hcr bill. And he made the same argument then as he is making now and for the same reasons.

Throughout this whole debate I have trusted Howard Dean the most, along with Bernie Sanders, as knowing what he's talking about. There are few silver linings to this dark cloud and certainly, having Howard Dean to talk to us rationally and decently is one of those linings, IMO...

[RoyGBiv]

109. Perhaps I was wrong on the emotional part ...

And I don't think he's being irrational overall exactly.

The problem I have with what he's saying is the "kill the Senate bill" part, although on further reading I think there's more nuance to what he's said that some are wanting to interpret. On its face, though, the notion of killing it would be little different in result than what happened in the 70s and then in the 90s. The whole effort goes away legislatively, even if advocates continue to press, until some point in the future when the beginning bar is set even lower. The bill Nixon would have agreed to, for example, was far and away more liberal than anything either the House or Senate has ever considered in the 90s, which was in turn more advanced in the beginning that what we started with this time.

On a practical level, the Democrats will lose seats in 2010 in both houses baring some sort of miracle scenario. Up until that time we will have a Congress composed of exactly the same people it is now. Looking forward to 2012, if no reform at all goes through, Obama is most likely a one-term President, the make-up of Congress is uncertain but in the best-case scenario the same as it is today. Where is this opening to "start over" in the next roughly 8 years and get something different, in a good way, that what we're getting so far?

On the subject of nuance, though, here is the statement Dean made initially:

"This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."

He's either overlooking something, or he has ideas on what "reform" means that I did not believe he had and do not agree are sound. Yes, it would be a simpler bill and would remove a lot of the actual reforms, i.e. the things that don't directly affect the budget. And with that, it's highly doubtful it would have a "robust public option" anyway, so what you get in the end is an even more watered down bill.

And, no, I'm no fortune teller either, but that scenario is at least as possible as the one Dr. Dean envisions (and what, precisely does he envision?).

[CTyankee]

118. Good point. We don't know what he envisions in toto because he has not, to my

knowledge, outlined his whole plan idea. It may be that he has one. It may be that he generally was supportive of 1) a robust public option or 2) the Medicare buy in at a lower age, and nothing more specific.

How do we get a more watered down plan from going back to the House, in your estimation? I really can't remember all the contours of the House plan...what did it lack that the Senate bill currently has?

[RoyGBiv]

119. Well, there's the confusion ...

The *current* House bill is far and away better than anything the Senate has produced. I don't know anyone who actually supports reform who disagrees with that substantially. It has its nasty bits as well, but it's a better foundation on which to build.

But I keep reading and re-reading his statement, have read some parts of other statements he's made, but I can't decide exactly what he means by "reconciliation" in this instance, and all I can conclude is he's left out a part of the process. That's not a judgment statement. I just don't think he's fully outlined what he has in mind here and is leaving too much open to individual interpretation.

Ezra Klein summarizes the outline of the disaster scenario I envision: "<Reconciliation> would have required going back to the <Senate> committees to refashion a reconciliation bill, and going back to the House of Representatives so it could craft a reconciliation bill, and then going back through the votes. There wasn't time for that, and even if there was, throwing the process so far back onto itself would have been an enormous risk."

Basically, it's starting over with a general outline, removing anything that doesn't affect the federal budget. While this includes a lot of things I would like to see gone, it also includes things that are essential to control costs. And then all that has to go through the voting process, then conferencing about differences. This *could* result in a better bill, but it doesn't naturally do so, which makes me unclear on why so many are championing it as the only reasonable option. The conventional wisdom, though, is that the longer big bills like this drag out, the worse they get, and then they eventually die as proponents become increasingly unmotivated and, well, pissed.

That, imo, is precisely what Republicans are counting on happening. Opponents of health reform are loving what's happening right now, which I am not saying is a reason to support this bill, but it is something to consider when we consider our alternatives.

[PassingFair]

4. I'll drive.

He can still spin from under the wheels.

[Parker CA]

5. The GOP knows if they sit back and stall by demanding readings of amendments that we will

only continue to eat our own. They must be grinning ear to ear at our inability to form a message and get people on board.

FWIW, I agree that starting is better than turning our backs and walking away, even if our starting point is far from where we envisioned. I do think the WH could be more careful about bashing someone so popular with much of their base. Not good for group cohesion.

More butter please!!! ;-)

[Clio the Leo]

12. yup

And I bet they are thanking Howard for the anti-health care commerical snippits he handed them yesterday.

[still_one]

6. And what THEY have been telling us about HCR is nonsense

[BlueIdaho]

7. Said the stooge carrying water for for the White House. nt.

[azmouse]

9. This is giving me whiplash.

[KansasVoter]

11. I'll side with Dean on this one.

[jenmito]

16. So you, Dean, Boehner, Coburn, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and all the teabaggers want

to "start over" which means there will be NO HCR at all. At least you'll all be happy. :eyes:

[janx]

23. jenmito, that's not fair.

It's not an either/or situation. There are constructive parts of the bill that could be passed.

[jenmito]

25. It's VERY fair. And yes, there ARE constructive parts of the bill which is why

the bill should be passed and then built on. If it's killed like the RWers want, there will be NOTHING.

[PassingFair]

39. Mandates for this plan will be WORSE than nothing.

It will kill us.

Economically and politically.

Fines for not buying for profit insurance?

What happens if you don't pay them?

Jail?

[jenmito]

47. We don't know that the final bill WILL have mandates.

We have to wait and see.

[janx]

53. If there is no public option or anything resembling it,

the mandate sticks. People have to pay the insurance companies or get penalized. This is nothing like Obama's original plan; a handful of senators have completely screwed what he set out to do.

[jenmito]

60. If you can't afford to pay, you don't have to.

Gibbs just said that. You'll get subsidized.

[PassingFair]

64. Subsidized by whose tax dollars?

This bill needs to be KILLED.

Start from scratch, make it simple,
be transparent and have Obama himself
support it.

[JVS]

79. You are whistling past the graveyard on that. Mandates have been in for months now

[GOTV]

104. That's just what the cockroach thinks while the jewel wasp looks for a place ....

... to jam her stinger in.

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

[janx]

107. That is an excellent saying!

:rofl:

[janx]

40. So why can't the Senate enact the good parts and ditch

the disastrous ones?

[jenmito]

44. If the majority agrees that something in the bill is disastrous, they'd get rid of it.

:shrug:

[janx]

114. And yet disastrous for one might not be disastrous for another.

There are some senators who look at disaster only from their own perspectives.

[KansasVoter]

30. How dumb are you? I want a more liberal bill. Does the GOP???

[jenmito]

36. Hw dumb are YOU? A dead bill is a dead bill!!!

[Clio the Leo]

33. But at least now they can all get a free trip to Hooters.....

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/chamber_of_commerce_campaign_fight_health-care_ref.php?ref=fpb

[jenmito]

42. Wow...

THAT'S something! I think I heard a similar story on MSNBC a couple days ago.

[Clio the Leo]

81. it may explain a lot actually lol NT

[damonm]

29. fine.

You and Howard can kill 44,000 Americans (if not more) every year for lack of access to healthcare over the 50+ years it'll take to bring any serious effort at HCR back to the table.

2.2 million unnecessary dead (at least!) is not a cost I'm willing to pay for a perfect bill.

Of course, my objection goes away if you can find me ONE case in all History where a bill has made it this far, been pulled back by proponents, and lived as a stronger version of itself. Particularly with the same Congress.

[newspeak]

67. lack of access?

if there is no regulation on the health insurance industry, then those with pre-existing or those over fifty will be paying more than they can afford. And, if the penalty is lower than having a "screw you" health insurance policy, people are going to be paying the penalty (that they cannot afford) and cursing while they do it.

Some act as if we're all going to be signing up for that glorious for-profit insurance--that which we may be able to afford will probably be higher deductibles that we can't afford. We use to have decent jobs with health benefits, but not anymore. After seeking work for two year's my hubby finally has a job that pays half of what he was making. I doubt we are not the only ones in the same boat.

[GoCubsGo]

62. I would love to side with him on this one, but...

I fully agree that this bill sucks. I would love them start over again. However, does anyone really think that things will be different with a "do over" bill? The same people obstructing this bill will obstruct anything that comes their way. If they start over, the outcome will still be more or less the same.

[golddigger]

13. Where's Rockerfefeller's rage at Lieberman?

[Clio the Leo]

14. Lieberman is now helping him get a bill passed...

... that he "worked years for."

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[Parker CA]

18. It seems this is a perfect example of the sacred fraternity of the Senate. Even when getting

screwed by another Senator, ill words must not be spoken. Pretty pathetic to me.

[janx]

68. You can be sure it's there,

but you can also be sure he'll do his best not to show it publicly.

[Larkspur]

15. I thought Dean was "irrelevant". If he's irrelevant, why does Rockefeller care

what Dean said? Why does the White House care?

Could it be the plummeting poll numberss Ed Schultz is talking aboute?

[janx]

19. What Rockefeller is basically saying is that it's better than nothing.

I don't agree with him, because for someone in my situation--and millions more like me--it's definitely WORSE than nothing.

Rockefeller wasn't very convincing, either. I think he's disappointed.

[Armstead]

17. I really respect Rockefeller but the fact that he has to swallow this is disgusting

Up against the machine of ConServaDems and Corporate DLC people like Rockefeller are having to swallow crap they would not have stood still for a few months ago.

I still respect him, but I feel sorry for him and others for being put into this humiliating position.

[janx]

20. Yes.

He is clearly disappointed.

[Clio the Leo]

28. Swallow?

Did you not watch the video?

[Armstead]

48. Yes....and you do not seem to get the crux of what is so bad about all of this

The fact that people like Rockefeller and harkin and Brown have to work so hard to negate positions they took because they have been beaten down by Corporate ProInsurance Democrats is the underlying tragedy.

They are trying to adapt to defeat BY THEIR OWN PARTY by trying to focus on the good things, while ignoring the crap that is in there and the great stuff that was thrown out. They fought hard and lost. They are trying to make the best of defeat and what is ultimately a capitulation to the insurance lobby....and a defacto political gift to republicans.

believe me, after years of rooting for health care reform, I would much prefer to be able to celebrate this. But instead, it has so many gifts to insurers -- mandates, elimination of any attempt at a public health alternative, no drug importation -- that the bad crap outweighs the good stuff.

[Clio the Leo]

80. I trust the man's judgement....

.... on what's best for the legistlation HE is working on.

Forgive me.

[Armstead]

90. You still donlt get it -- I trust his judgement too

and his judgment is tghat he might as well make the best of shit after being beaten down by his own party.

I suspect of you got him in a private room somewhere he could speak freely, you'd be hearing s string of obscenities about what has happened.

[Clio the Leo]

92. Since he didn't say "this piece of shit"

you apparently dont trust his judgement on the fact that the "wonderful bill" contains things he's been working "years for."

And either you didn't watch the clip or you were listening with your ears plugged. :silly:

[Armstead]

95. Do you act likie a brick wall on purpose?

I'm willing to admit there are some good things in the bill.

But you seem determined to blindly endorse whatever they do, and bash anyone who dares to question it.

Rockefeller does not think this is a "wonderful" bill compared to what he wanted. He is being a good soldier by trying to support it -- but it is nowhere near what he thought it should be.

[janx]

102. I feel sorry for him. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

112. There you go! That's the answer I was looking for! NT

[Generator]

24. Howard Dean new number one enemy of the people

Once again he tells the truth. Bad man.

And throw Rockefeller under the bus? WHAT THE FUCK good is he? HE CAVED. HE capitulated. HE sold out lives. And ultimately just the like the rest of the "democrats" he achieved NOTHING.

[Zodiak]

87. Actually, rockefeller caves a lot

He is not a liberal or a progressive, and never was.

I take Dean's side on this, and to see the party go after Dean with "message discipline" means that, to me, they could have done this a long time ago to our benefit. they chose instead to look undisciplined on the issues, and now all of the sudden they are the same page picking on Dean?

they are corrupt...they suck, and they will lose the next election in great numbers because of it.

[OneGrassRoot]

26. Wow. Just wow. n/t

[Inuca]

27. I like Dean, but

I agree with Rockefeller, what Dean has been saying IS irresponsible. It is true that he is completely outside the system now, so in a sense he is free to say whatever he wants. But he WAS the DNC chairman until not too long ago. Whether ones agrees with what he says or not, it is unfortunately pretty obvious that his words can (and WILL) be used as weapons against the dems (yes, these reviled, good for nothing dems; I still prefer them to the only other viable alternative). Anybody remembers when Dean said during a summer townhall meeting that tort reform is not in the bill because the dems could not (were not willing to)take on the trial lawyer lobby right now? Anybody following a little bit the discussion on the Senate floor in these last couple of weeks must have heard that quoted and thrown back in the dem's faces over and over again by one R senator after another.

[Armstead]

34. Dean is basically a moderaste...and he has been a team player. What has hapopened....

says more about this travesty of a bill than it says about Dean.

He was supportive for as long as he could be supoportive, even as it was watered down and perverted.

He reached the limits of his ability to put up with bullshit.

[Inuca]

45. My point in t he post above was

to say that unfortunately Dean has NOT been very careful with what he is saying. The comment about tort reform I mentioned was made LONG before "he reached his limits". I am not questioning his good intentions and good will, I really am not, I like and respect him. But I think that he is NOT being helpful and I 100% agree with Rockefeller on this one. Did you watch the video clip fo his interview? "Am I angree that the PO was dropped out? Of course I am angry!... So what do I do? Do I take my football and run home and sulk and complain or hold out for a hundered million dollar for something in West Virginia? No. I look at the entire bill and look at what is in the interest of the people in my state and the people of America...". Thank you, Jay!

[Clio the Leo]

35. That's my problem as well.

I understand his passion .... but I question his judgement from a political standpoint.

[jsamuel]

31. Good men can disagree.

[ellie]

32. Really?

The man has a microphone, let's hear about all of these wonderful things!

Dumbass.

[tomm2thumbs]

38. this idiot gave Lieberman a pass on Face the Nation, but kicks his own to the curb

he is one guy I would never want watching my back - 'too afraid to shoot the gun' is not a way to go through life because when America gives you 60 seats, and majorities in both houses and a President, this is not how you do it.

More weak sauce.

[Inuca]

50. What astronomic IQ

and magnificent deeds gives you the moral right to call Jay Rockefeller and idiot, I wonder....

[tomm2thumbs]

66. Rockefeller is inartful in claiming Dean is wrong

if he wants to put that out there in the press, he gets to claim it. I call it idiocy when he tosses his own team to curb while stroking Republicans who have done nothing but throw obstacles in front of genuine HCR. If someone needs a large IQ to see that I would be surprised.

[TheKentuckian]

41. Dean's general reasoning is sound but I think it gets dicey

at the start over point. I'm not seeing what happens different from a reboot, I can't help but believe the same piece of craps OS will still load up.

Nothing will change except the passage of time and the closeness of elections. If you want to say fuck it then say it but the calls to start over are pretty much a call to test the definition of insanity. There are no reasons to expect a significantly different result. At least the people calling to just allow the system to run it's course and collapse under the weight of it's own greed are logically consistent, if less than broadly logical to me.

Dean makes a strong case why the bill sucks but the story on why starting over leads to a better place is weaker than water. I don't find the position of threading the needle between giving up and a path to comprehensive reform particularly credible.

The call I can make is "Is this plan better than the status quo and where it will lead?" and to answer that the devil is in the details but until some actual price controls are in place I'm inclined to believe it may well not be. At that point one is pretty much forced to waive the white flag on the issue for this Congress at least and probably until the whole thing blows up with a ton of regular people take the full on hit however many years down the road.

We'll see, but as right as Dean is I'm less sure his current prescription will cure what ails us.

[BeyondGeography]

46. Best thing he said is health care will be revisited every year from now on, not every 15 or 20

Let's get this done and use it as a platform to improve the system every year.

[Inuca]

52. That's an essential aspect

that so many fail to understand. Passing this is a basis to build upon. Not passing is setting the whole effort back for God knows how many years.

[BeyondGeography]

58. Pretty basic, isn't it?

[Clio the Leo]

77. How many of us gave up hope with New Hampshire?

Is my question.

Or perhaps a more accurate question .... how many were shocked that Bush didn't move out of the White House the day after Iowa?

[Blasphemer]

49. Sorry, Jay. Dr. Dean is 100% correct and you are complicit...

Enjoy becoming the minority party again.

[jenmito]

56. Dems. will only be the minority party again if no bill gets passed...

which is why the RWers are STILL trying to kill the bill. Don't you see that?

[Blasphemer]

59. Nope. nt

[jenmito]

63. If you can't see that, that's YOUR problem. I guess you will be celebrating right along

with the RWers that the bill was killed.

[Blasphemer]

74. No, I'd be celebrating with Dr. Dean because it would be the right thing

Which is why it won't happen and the Democrats will ensure themselves minority status, once again. Wanting a real health reform bill does not make one a right winger. Capitulating to insurance interests, on the other hand, does.

[Clio the Leo]

76. But moral stands....

.... dont insure 30 million people.

[Blasphemer]

78. Sure they do if those in power are interested in taking them

However, they are not. Moral stands gave us civil rights legislation. Health care is a right that should be treated in the same manner. It isn't because of monied interests. If they treated is it should be treated, should have been treated from the beginning, they would have had a good health reform package to pass. It's what the majority of the people wanted and won't get. That is both moral and political failure.

[Clio the Leo]

84. I taught history 101 students while I was in grad-school about the civil rights act of '64...

..... I worked in the manuscript repository where Al Gore Sr.'s papers are kept.

"Moral stands" make for great television.

You know how Senator Gore (and others) got the '64 bill passed? They compromised.

You know what else he compromised on? Medicare. (And that was AFTER he wrote the legislation.) It was his baby. You think he got all that he wanted? Of course not.

And did he screw the country over with his compromised medicare bill? Howard Dean doesn't seem to think so.

[Blasphemer]

98. I'm not against compromise. I am against compromises which undermine the purported purpose of the

bill. I have supported several compromises that have been negotiated and/or discussed during this process. I was totally in favor of dropping the weakened public option in favor of the 55+ Medicare buy-in. The most recent compromises eliminating the Medicare buy-in along with whispers of what else they will ultimately take out of the bill is what makes it unacceptable. Compromise needs to go both ways. It's only going one way in this health care negotiation.

[Milo_Bloom]

115. This bill insures strong republican pick ups.

The only fighting chance the dems have in 2010 is to make the election ABOUT health care reform.

If they pass this bill, it will just be a question of which sell outs you would rather have in office.

[Pirate Smile]

51. I agree. I'm stunned at Howard. It does seem shockingly irresponsible.

I want him to walk it back and try to help productively instead of throwing bombs.

[Inuca]

55. Worse than throwing bombs

Providing the Rs with bombs that they can throw back at us. :mad:

[Clio the Leo]

75. exactly NT

[andym]

54. Maybe the difference between Dean and Rockefeller is that Rocky is planning reconciliation

Rockefeller and colleagues may be planning to use reconciliation to get Medicare expansion or a public option after the bill passes.

But he needs the bill to get the subsidies and regulations, since reconciliation must be revenue neutral (and new taxes are probably a non-starter) The original strategy to use reconciliation was two parts: regulation in part 1, public option in part 2. But getting part I to pass requires that certain Senators play along (who might insist that there be no part 2).

Note: If he isn't thinking this, he should be.

[Clio the Leo]

73. Yep...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x61614

[burning rain]

57. I think Dean's let his anger get the better of him.

We should be plenty angry over how health reform is shaping up in the Senate. Senate Democrats should hang their heads in shame for putting together such a mediocre bill when they have 60 goddamn members in their caucus. But while it's a poor bill, unworthy of Dean's excellent leadership and the efforts of the grassroots, relative to what we should expect, it's still an improvement on the status quo and senators should vote Yes. That certainly doesn't mean we should give up fighting to improve the bill.

[BeyondGeography]

61. Which, as Rockefeller, states, we can do every year

The current baseline for health care is a total disaster. This sets the stage for progress. Killing it is a total disaster.

[burning rain]

72. I agree but I wonder whether you get the anger, the legitimate anger, that this is all 60 votes get.

While I consider the bill worth passing, and want to see it passed, I think Senate Democrats deserve a swift kick in the ass rather than congratulations when they pass it. What they are getting ready to do, when they go into their orgy of self-praise, is like a lazy, apathetic student patting himself on the back for getting a C+ on an exam instead of an F.

[BeyondGeography]

83. Oh, I certainly do, but my expectations were probably lower to begin with

We have the majority primarily because people were disgusted with Bush and the Republicans, not because they were in love with our ideas. In fact, we've never been very aggressive about selling our ideas, HCR being a prime example. We were content to obtain the majority by being not-Bush rather than confront head-on the underlying ideology. What's good about this bill is it would actually hold our government to a real standard. Can you make insurance co's spend 85% to 90% of their revenues on health care as the bill provides as opposed to 70-75% currently? Can you protect consumers and really lower costs now that you've mandated they buy insurance? If the answers are no, we deserve everything we get. If the answers are yes, people might actually start falling in love with our ideas.

If, on the other hand, this bill goes down, paralysis will result on HCR and, quite possibly, everything else we care about. How that advances good causes is a mystery to me.

[burning rain]

96. It's mighty hard to sell bold ideas.

Voters tend heavily toward apathy. One reason is that the Senate's 60-vote cloture rule makes that chamber a place from which bold legislation can not emerge. That Senate Democrats choose not to abrogate the rule of 60 in favor of simple majority, demonstrates that not even 51 of them really care to make bold reforms.

[BeyondGeography]

100. And progress takes forever

Look where Social Security started out, e.g. It was a very limited program, not the entitlement that we all take for granted today. Point is, you gotta start somewhere.

[burning rain]

106. I agree, but we also need structural change, so as to facilitate more profound legislative change.

Structural changes such as ending the Senate's 60 rule and implementing public financing of political campaigns. As it is, the deck's stacked against democracy and in favor of corporations, though of course, as you rightly allude, it's better to lay a modest foundation than none at all.

[BlueIdaho]

65. I think Dean cares about health care & Rockefeller cares about staying in office.

[Clio the Leo]

70. And the former head of the DNC should care about Dems staying in office. NT

[BlueIdaho]

82. Not if they vote like Republicans. nt.

[Clio the Leo]

88. So then why hand the GOP a victory? NT

[BlueIdaho]

97. They way to defeat republicans is to act like Democrats.

What the hell is the point of "out-republicaning" the republicans? Don't buy this nonsense that any bill is better than no bill - its not. America didn't vote for us so we could be the republican-lite party. The catch phrase was "Change You Can Believe In" - remember? Is this Change? Is this what America voted for? No - this is more of the same. More of the same fat-cat elected officials protecting the interests of corporate America.

[Clio the Leo]

110. I wasn't aware that the Republicans made a habit of insuring an additional...

... 30 million Americans with the plethora of health care bills they have offered.

[janx]

113. They'd have funded the insurance companies with taxpayer money

if they had thought of it. Without a doubt.

[BlueIdaho]

116. The bills before congress will not effectively achieve that either.

Democrats are currently working on legislation that will protect corporate profits first and foremost.

The poor will find the junk insurance offered them to be (a) out of economic reach even with subsidies and (b) pitifully weak. They will also face the specter of fines when they can't afford the junk insurance being forced on them.

Those with preexisting conditions will find their "guaranteed" policies astronomically expensive and woefully inadequate.

Those with great coverage will find it taxed or reduced to avoid taxation.

This is not progressive legislation - its not even populist legislation. Its corporatist legislation.

It may be "Change You Can Believe In" I'm sorry not me.

[Clio the Leo]

69. Yep. NT

[newspeak]

85. this is no damn football game

That's like the Pelosi interview-when the only thing she could talk about is getting majorities and getting Democrats in office. This bill, as it's looking now is a repuke bill. What it looks like is a major windfall to the health insurance industry at our expense. And mandating civilians to buy corporate for-profit insurance without an alternative is just plain obscene. I want to see the final bill, but the way it's going, this is nothing but a corporate windfall with captive consumers.

If they want to close the * donut hole, regulate on pre-existing conditions, then pass that. But don't force americans to buy , in most cases, an expensive (no cost controls), high deductible product that they already cannot afford.

[Clio the Leo]

89. It's not an either/or thing....

.... nor will the United States Congress close up shop once this bill is passed.

[Hieronymus]

71. I think Dean is right on.

[DCBob]

86. Gibbs: "I don't know what piece of legislation [Dean's] reading"

Gibbs strongly takes issue with Howard Dean's charge that the Senate health care bill is an insurance company giveaway. "If this is an insurance company's dream, I think the insurance companies have yet to get the memo," he says. "They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against this legislation ... If this is such a good deal for them, I’m not entirely sure why they're fighting." "I don't know what piece of legislation he's reading," Gibbs continues. "I think if you talk to members of the Senate, they'd represent a similar viewpoint in the political spectrum that Howard Dean does. They seem to disagree as much with Howard Dean as I think we would."

http://www.politico.com/politico44 /

[Clio the Leo]

91. sorry....

.... for copying you. I thought your post deserved to be an OP. ;)

[DCBob]

94. Feel free.. I dont have time to post an OP and respond to all the attacks..

Thanks!

[Clio the Leo]

111. lol, well, fortunately responding to "attacks" isn't a requirement....

... but at least they read what he said. ;)

[jsamuel]

103. ha!

They got something for spending all that money. They spent that money to kill the public option among other reforms, and they succeeded.

[David Zephyr]

93. Mr. Rockefeller, you've now lived up to your family's Ludlow reputation.

Jay Rockefeller can go to hell with his money and his pretense of caring about working people.

He's a Ludlow Rockefeller.

[polichick]

101. Really? I thought he worked hard on this. What's the story? nt

[janx]

105. He did work hard on it. He was one of the original proponents

of the public option. But a handful of senators beholden to insurance companies trashed the bill. He's trying to make the best of it, but he's obviously disappointed.

[polichick]

99. Well, he's out reading the party line. I don't blame Rockefeller - poor guy. nt

[Clio the Leo]

108. Article....

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/72547-rockefeller-slams-dean-nonsense-irresponsible

[freddie mertz]

117. I respectfully disagree with Sen. Rockefeller. I also understand where he is coming from.

He has tried to do the right thing, over and over, and must be very frustrated.

He's putting on a brave face, like Harkin and some of the other good guys.

[janx]

120. That's precisely what he's doing. n/t