If they knew all along they were going to bend over for the likes of Lieberman and Nelson et al, they should have set expectations accordingly and not over-promised

So Sanders is saying that the Ds should have started out with a “compromise” that would have brought in Lieberman to begin with? I’m unfamiliar with that kind of bargaining.

In the likely event that this ends badly,
Rahm already has his designated fall-guys: Max Baucus and Harry Reid.
As well as the left-of-the-left. Who, as Chris Matthews says, aren’t even real Democrats.

Grass-roots groups are balking

grass roots groups balked over a year ago. it’s party activists who are balking now too. and i sure don’t blame them.

thanks bt, agree or disagree, i always like to hear from sanders.

ORahma is doing a better job at breaking up the Democratic Party than the Teabaggers are doing with the GOP.

I don’t get the ‘well played, Rahm’ bit…?

Krugman. Your mileage may vary.

Again, history suggests the answer. Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.
…

But that’s for later. Right now, let’s pass the bill that’s on the table

This season of West Wing has really turned foul with yet another smart
deal set up by the real Josh Lyman. Unfortunately, this real reality
episode precludes a quick rewrite. The bill should have been pulled at
the joint session speech when our positives were up and theirs down. The
backroom deal prevailed, Obama gave one of his “dream” speeches, and we
all get to take the green weenie. Reality TV politics is hell.

i think sanders meant promise less, but promise what could be accomplished with 51 votes and so not need lieberman et al.

personally, i’m not so sure about that because the kinds of things sanders is talking about (regulations on insurance companies for example) would have meant the D party taking on the industry and beyond the fact it’s hard to imagine the Ds doing that, the only way i can see it succeeding is if the american people are strongly and actively behind them. and how is that going to happen unless ordinary people see a proposal which would bring virtually immediate and very big benefits to them?

which brings me back to where i start…. the insurance companies (and others, but the insurance companies are the biggie $ wise) have to be taken on directly and if we’re going to have that fight we 1) might as well have it for something big and 2) it’s got to be something that so important that the vast majority of americans see something in it for them. like first dollar coverage of all medically necessary healthcare (including dental, mental and long term care). and the only way i know to make that work is some kind of single payer.

….

anyway, the Ds seem to have painted themselves into a corner now… and i don’t see how to get out of it without blowing up their industry deals or pissing off (and worse, hurting) the voting public. i guess they thought (or maybe still think) that all those industry dollars will be enough to overcome voter disenchantment?

So looks like this is BATNA, best alternative to a negotiated agreement, for liberals. We’ve reached the point where no deal is better than a deal. This “starter home” business or the “ground work” for later change is just nonsense. With huge majorities in House and Senate if not now then when? And if they didn’t try in good faith to begin with, who’s to say that in a later attempt there would be actual leadership and a real attempt at reform?

berny is making it clear he’s voting for the bill or cloture, big disapointment to be sure

I sure hope he can pressure out the mandate

what bill? no one even knows the current state of the senate bill negotiations because they are all being held behind closed doors.

i think krugman’s heart is in the right place, but imo he needs to have a good talking to by marcia angell.

so yeah, my mileage does vary.

give the industry what they want now and then come back later for the people?i don’t buy it either.

Mornin’, BT, pups

I see Krugman is drinking more and more of the Kool-Aid.

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

Lot of things he neglected to point out, eg, individual mandates.

krugman is under the impression a good bill won’t pass and that’s just not true

this bill is NOT the only bill that would have passed and all that would have been needed is obama campaighning for a real bill, instead he’s campaigning for a corporate gift

The Insurance companies WIN! surprised?
a million dollars a day – I’m sure it’s chump change to the industry. come to think of it, it’s our money being used against us. Wait, this sounds sooo familiar, oh yeah, – the Banks.

Single payer – No, Public Option – No, Wait for Trigger – No!

FORCE Struggling American Citizens to hand money over to PRIVATE INSURANCE ? – YESSSS !

I made this 4 months ago feel free to pass this on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y08uJ42X48

Mandates are the deal breaker… making health coverage like auto liability coverage and using the IRS as the enforcer is open fascist
economics. The Harvard neoliberals have a plan for us that makes the
nomenclature a cruelty joke. Kill the bill.

The White House likes to talk a good game about how the President likes to get people in a room, listen to the interests and mete out some kind of plan. Two problems here 1) the sides have totally different interests that are diametrically opposed and 2) the White House seems to only listen to special interests and only leans on liberals.

So either the White House pulls its head out of its ass and dances with the one that brought ‘em or it gets used to the idea that they will have one very crappy term in office. They seem to be thinking that we’ve only waited for 8 years for reform efforts, but really the war on the middle class was started almost 30 years ago. I want to pull my hair out when i see someone say that we should just wave a magic wand and make things better. No one expects things to get better overnight, what we expect is demonstrable progress and being comfortable that our elected officials did everything they could to get the best deal possible. Allowing Max Baucus and industry insiders to write the Finance Com. bill, which is the bill the White House wants, is not fighting the good fight.

There hasn’t been any bargaining. That’s Sanders’ point.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

He also neglects to point out that having an insurance policy is not the same as actually getting care, but even that assumes that one can afford the policy to begin with. 300% higher than the average rate for age and 50% more for pre-existing conditions, that just to get into the game. Not to mention the $4,000 deductibles on these junk plans and the addition of cost ceilings (thank harry reid) mean that what you have is a very expensive piece of paper.

Oh yeah.

Ralph Nader spent an hour with Rob Lorei of WMNF Tampa yesterday. Great interview. Click on the little calendar then click on 17.

also this:

The interstate compact provisions in both H.R. 3962 and the Senate proposal, as currently written, will lead to a race to the bottom in insurance regulation and severely threaten the important and often lifesaving protections the residents of our states enjoy. In the Senate bill, insurers are permitted to sell policies in our states while only being subject to the regulations of the state in which the policy is written or issued. H.R. 3962 permits states to decide among themselves which regulations will govern, which could make the regulations in the consumer- friendly state irrelevant. Practically speaking, insurers will domicile their plans in states with less stringent regulations and market to the population in more protective states like ours, just like nationally chartered banks have done.

I seem to recall Reginald Denny getting his head smashed in South Central being televised.

“The only reason he probably did not die that day was because four South Central residents, Bobby Green, Lei Yuille, Titus Murphy and Terri Barnett, who saw the entire incident on television, raced to the scene. Despite the risk to their own lives, they grabbed Denny, put him back into his cab and drove him to a nearby hospital where doctors were able to save his life.

Denny had to undergo years of rehabilitative therapy, but his speech and ability to walk were permanently damaged. After the trial of his assailants, he approached their families in a gesture of forgiveness. He later appeared on the Phil Donahue show to shake hands with one of them, Henry Keith Watson, and finally make peace.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1614117_1614084_1614511,00.html#ixzz0a30rf4R4
“

thanks for the heads up!

(also forgot to thank you about a couple other recs you made, one with trudy lieberman and one on LBOs etc on fresh air – i listened to them both and thought they were excellent – thank you!).

Yeap its why all the credit card people are in south dakota, or how Delaware gets to write business laws. What a raw deal for those states that actually give a shit about its citizens.

Certainly was.

As of 2007, he works independently as a boat motor mechanic in Lake Havasu, Arizona, where he moved after an unsuccessful lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles

From Wiki

Tom Coburn just said on C-Span that when the Senate bill passes next week it will go straight to the House for an up and down vote. No conference committee, no fix up. The Senate bill is the final bill that goes to Obama.

So much for the “landmark” House bill that gets thrown in the garbage.

He also said mandates were unconstitutional and could not be enforced and that it would fall down in court.

Now I’m not sure if he can be trusted, but just sayin’.

Not being a big Nader fan I didn’t know what to expect from Ralph. Turned out to be a great interview.

You’re welcome. Speaking of hits, do you still have the 2 Wright sermons? *g*

That was revulsion not revolution.

having an insurance policy is not the same as actually getting care

Truer words have never been spoken.

Trying to figure out the connection between your comment and this thread. Not that there has to be one. Just wondering if I missed something.

France i believe has the best health care, we rank somewhere around 37 th
we pay 2 times what they pay WTF
their kids go to collage come out with no debt WTF
their old are taken care of WTF
they don’t spend TRILLIONS on war for corporations WTF

Hope Coburn is right (what a rarity!), but auto insurance mandates are
legal and might be cited for precedent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOJBiklP1Q

Obama v clinton on the individual mandate

It’s connected to my posting Gil Scott-Heron’s piece.

Ithink it is that way with auto insurance because it involves other people than yourself. If you run over someone, who’s gonna pay?

Mandates will be a nightmare to enforce because there are many exceptions.

OT – Tornado warning for Naples, Florida. Take cover!

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Irak: 4,371

US KIA Afghanistan: 935

US MBS 2009: 43,524

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

That’s south of me, but thanks. Supposed to be nasty on the Gulf Coast all day.

Oh, okay. Thanks. Got me thinking about that riot we had. Beverly Hills was the wrong place to be that day.

cool vid.

10 years after seattle wto police riots, indymedia is still going strong and reporting from copenhagen on climate issues. major props to them and to democracy now! for coverage of cop15 and the people’s alternative meetings.

Didn’t Obama speak against this during the campaign? I vaguely recall in one of his debates against McCain Obama highlighting exactly this issue and how the insurance companies would take advantage of interstate compacts. Something like “it would create a new Delaware for insurance companies”?

Look at how Sanders brings out the weasel words when asked about his vote one day after offering the vauge “I won’t vote for it”

I wrote an article the other day calling Sanders a coward…..

And he is a damn coward.

At first it was “I won’t vote for it” but with no indication if he meant Cloture or the final vote. Voting for cloture then against the bill is meaningless and an act of cowardice.

Now he’s not even sure if he’ll vote no.

Bernie Sanders..prepared to stand up and do the right thing….when it’s convienient.

Yeah sure he can sit there and talk a great game. but who cares if he backs off when it comes time to vote.

I hope this community stops the Hero Worship. Dean, Sanders, …there are no heros in politics.

we pay 2 times what France pay for healthcare. WTF

TF is their doctors make half what ours do, for one thing.

their kids go to collage come out with no debt WTF

TF is US higher education is as out of control as healthcare.

do you still have the 2 Wright sermons?

you bet i do!

i have them on my desk top, but sadly can’t share them easily right now because my website is temporarily down (major weird server crash and no tech help from host) and i just haven’t had the time/energy to rebuild the wordpress db from backups (i also made major mods to the template and the thought of updating them for the latest version of wordpress gives me a headache). will have to get my lazy ass in gear soon.

Personally I think this might be an issue of first impression for the Supreme Court. Beware though, people will say that it’s wrong because it’s an argument made by the federalist society and other right-wing legal thing tanks. Which might be about the most asinine thing I’ve read in awhile. Attacking the veracity of an argument because of who makes it, not because of the actual substance of the argument, is of course illogical. It does not mean that one cannot take it with a grain of salt though.

The thing is 1) car insurance is done by states, which have considerably more police powers than the federal government, 2) having a car is optional, having a body is not, 3) while federal income taxes are legal, (16th amendment) does a mandate count as a tax? or is it forcing someone into a contract? Additionally, there is a reason why there is a 16th amendment, because the federal income tax was held to be unconstitutional, so there is a line of cases with regards to that being a “taking.” 4) This is very much like the issue in Kelo, where the state took private — real property from a citizen and gave it to a private entity for business development. SO private property to private entity, that was found to be constitutional, but was 5-4 and the makeup of the court has changed with three new justices.

My gut is that it’s constitutional, but I also think that it is by no means a slam dunk.

New post up top…

But just saying there’s no discrimination against pre-existing conditions doesn’t make it real. The bill allows insurance companies to charge 300% more for a policy. So someone gets a policy for $500/month but if they have high blood pressure they can be charged $1500/month. That’s not reform? That’s highway robbery. And ‘SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

‘(a) Prohibiting Discriminatory Premium Rates-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- With respect to the premium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small group market–
‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved only by–
‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;
‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);
‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved by any other factor not described in subparagraph (A).

So age is now a pre-existing condition – and you get the privilege of paying 300% more for a policy than someone younger. Tell me again that this bill does away with pre-existing conditions?

I remember their first website, getting bounced between hosters. Sure am glad they’ve thrived.

i don’t remember. and while i tried to avoid most of the campaigning (thoughts of the primary wars still give me hives), i did listen to most (or all?) of the debates.

if you recall the details, please let me know. that would make a great youtube.

and a bunch of anarchists to boot!

I wondered what was going on with your site. Used my bookmark and no joy. I’ve got the links to the sermons if anybody wants them. They’re on his Wiki page in the External Links under Sermons.

Remember upperdown vote? the nuclear option? I’m also puzzled why ‘compromise’ in Washington always means the left capitulating to the right. What exactly is the right compromising? The argument should be to bring the health care bill up to a vote and then pass your amendment — like progressives are always told when threatening to filibuster the right. The thumb is always on the scale.

heh, that’s what first attracted me to them. *g*

Krugman has been wrong about stuff before like when he thought the Bush economy was just hunky dory. He seems to be a little bipolar on healthcare, he has published earlier on why we should have single payer universal health care because it is the least costly of health plans in western societies.

Our employers don’t choose our car insurance — policy holders can choose from any number of options out there. The cost of car insurance is based on the type of car you drive — something the consumer has complete control over. We don’t get to choose whether our bodies are built to last or are more likely to break down. If our bodies are ‘totaled’ we don’t get new ones!

I’m beginning to think of Krugman as a bamboo economist. Bends with the wind, never breaks one way or the other.

The White House likes to talk a good game about how the President likes to get people in a room, listen to the interests and mete out some kind of plan

Does not end well when the people they “don’t like” are locked out of the room from the beginning.

Right arm.

yeah, it’s still there… just no content. new and better server was put online immediately, but the weirdness of the server crash supposedly destroyed hard drives (that was what the story anyway). i do have backups though, but am no expert on this stuff and will have to figure out the mysql db stuff all over again (and new versions all around too). i think it will take at least a few days of dedicated continuous work, and i just haven’t had that kind of time yet.

LOL. thought you would like that about them.

gotta go… later friends…. peace to all.

Tell me about new versions. Gotta rewrite some of my VBA code for Excel 2007. Some of the code from 2000 just isn’t good enough anymore.

I think the court would find it constitutional as well. The insurance
companys will use take the income into the derived instruments market
and leverage this depletion allowance style tax into tons of funny
money, just the game of Obama’s Harvard pals… he is the best investment
they have made in recent years.

Well I think it all depends on how you count to 5, where do you get the 5 votes on the Court? Now in the original Kelo opinion it was the liberals, with Kennedy that decided that it WAS constitutional. Here I think that the Conservative bloc had it 100% right, but who knows at this point? First, I think Roberts is a corporate dude way more than Oconnor or Reinquist, and I don’t think Sotomayor will go against the president that nominated her on their first big policy initiative.

Game this out further though. Say it is unconstitutional, say that ANY mandate is unconstitutional, that means the only way to actually get universal coverage is a single payer system or a very aggressive public option, essentially it forces the issue more, and means that future reforms will have to be much more liberal to work. I’m not sure the Court wants that at all.

Thats what I mean. The court is political and even the weak liberals
would hesitate before making single payer the only way out, Roberts
would whip hard on that one.

Essentially this bill is the second TARP bill masked as health care
reform. Just imagine the deals already cut in anticipation of the new
revenue stream and you can see the business logic the court would respond
to.

The French also have universal child care. The French also have family leave for the birth of a child or the caring of an ill relative, with full pay. The French have achieved the maturity of being a “we” society. The U.S. being in a state of infantilism is nothing more than a “me” society.

when i do it, sure. but i don’t know if it will be much help to you. i’m definitely a novice/hobbiest, and just try to figure out enough to do what i want to get done.

Having spent time in France I can say you are correct about it being a “we society”. My observation has been that the French are not this way because of some hippie style benevolence (unlike me, an aging hippie and unflagging advocate of kindness and benevolence), but instead see an advanced social safety net as the grown-up thing to do and SIMPLY GOOD MANNERS.

Like others here, I’m fed up with the politicians and media who are characterizing progressive opposition to the neutered Senate bill as “naive”, sour grapes about reneged campaign promises, or whatever the liberal stereotype du jour is. There are very practical reasons to oppose this bill, to whit:

While I agree that the neutered Senate bill contains some modest gains that could help people, it also contains an individual mandate that is not only a massive give-away to big insurance (which is bad enough), but worse, will saddle middle-class families with insurance premiums that they can’t afford to pay – during an economic depression, no less.

If the bill included meaningful cost containment and anti-trust provisions – even a loss ratio provision, dare we hope – then the individual mandate might be tolerable (and yes, I understand the reason for the individual mandate), even without a public option. But the fact that the current bill contains no serious cost containment measures means that the individual mandate will maximize both pain for families who can’t afford it and profits for companies that are already obscenely profitable.

Ladling more debt on American families will only lead to more bankruptcies, medical emergencies, and deaths, while abetting the very scoundrels who are causing the problem.

Right now, our only hope is to pressure Congress to fix the cost containment issue in committee. If they don’t, then my calculation (which might be wrong) is that we’re more likely to get what we want by shaming the industry goons and their minions who gutted the original bill, and trying again, then we are by passing the bill and hoping that Congress will get around to fixing it later.

Reconciliation is the only answer at this point. Do what it right, not what it politically correct. But I don’t believe anyone has the sack for that.

Mostly I’m interested in this debate because HCR is something I’m very passionate about.

But a little part of me has to wonder, is 2009 the year when “kick the hippy” stops being fun for the Democratic party?

If so, that would be the best Christmas gift ever.

They overreached. They should have just passed the basic protections, preexisting conditions, and so on. Then passed medicare extension as a separate bill, then passed whatever else.

Mandate as a taking, that would be hilarious. No one has a right to get reimbursed for the valid taxes they are obligated to pay, however the 5th Amendment “Takings Clause” requires any government agency (local, state or federal) that take private property for a public purposes must pay the owner “just value” for the property taken. If a court ever held that the individual mandate to pay premiums is a Taking, that’d mean the government would be required to reimburse citizens the cost of the mandated premiums.

Of course they don’t want to call it a tax (which avoids the takings issue) because the only form of constitutional direct taxation– that is, one directed at a person and not an event or transaction– is the income tax (and that’s only because of the 16th Amendment). Mandating everyone buy insurance and setting the amount owed by family size, age, tobacco use and not by, oh I don’t know, INCOME is going to look sketchy to the courts.

“Good Manners” in France.

The Dutch tradition would say, “It’s what decent people would do.” Or so I’ve been told.

We don’t seem to have ths in the US anymore, but I have memories of a time perhaps half a century ago…