Thanks to Ezra for reminding us that this health care reform debate, despite some recent progress, is still about preserving the employer-based health care system. And that system is terrible. That’s one reason that I’ve been focused more on process than policy. I can’t get excited about the reform itself, although it would accomplish many fine things. But figuring out how to pass a piece of legislation like this through our conservative Congress? That, I find interesting.
And how many Democrats would have to be in the Senate before it wasn’t conservative anymore? Would seventy do it? I think it probably would.
depends on what kind of democrats are elected.
another 10 mary landrieus or tom carpers wouldn’t make the senate any less conservative.
i can’t get too excited about this reform either.
I’m reconciled to the fact that genuine reform is going to take a generation, consisting of fits and starts of incremental changes.
This year, we hopefully succeed in getting people to accept the structure of a “public option,” and accustomed to the idea that it will not turn us into 1950s USSR.
Maybe next year, we can crack open the eligibility to the public option just a little more, and continue that process every several years.
Politically, incrementalism may be the way to go, even if the best policy would be a wholesale change.
All it would really take is for one state with a decent population base (enough people to make it feasible) to start the domino effect.
If there are any opt out states? I shudder at the thought of their conservative “answers” to the problems.
Meant to say:
All it would really take is for one state with a decent population base to start Single Payer (enough people to make it feasible) to start the domino effect.
That’s why I’ve been pleased with the opt-out idea, except I don’t know whether it would open the way for states to participate in any fed dollars but set up a better system. If so, it could end up being the most important part of the whole reform package. Probably too good to be true,
Yes, this is the correct perspective. Remember that Medicare was socialism when first proposed, and is now defended as an American right for all old people by the conservaturds. We go one step at a time. We get everyone registered, and then do the next step.
Which is what, again?
It depends on what kind of sausage finally emerges, but it seems like the most probable outcome will cut a pretty big chunk out of the employer-based system. Isn’t breaking the assumption that it is the “way things work” the biggest and hardest step toward serious discussion of getting rid of it altogether? Until now any such idea was summarily dismissed as too “fringe” to consider.
I was severely pissed when Obama and the Dems took single-payer off the table, but the struggle to get even this mild reform passed in a Dem regime makes it pretty clear that single-payer would have just been Hillarycare redux.
I don’t see how the “more Democrats” notion gets us where we need to be, no matter what the numbers are. The additional Dems will come from the same dreary pool as Bayh, Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman — more soulless opportunists hitching a ride with the winner of the moment. A decent system can only grow from a decent society, which I see as Obama’s incredibly ambitious vision. If he succeeds in really changing worldviews, I think he still stands a chance of being one of the most transformative figures we’ve experienced. Which lots of alleged lefties will fight against with all the ignorance they can muster.
“figuring out how to pass a piece of legislation like this through our conservative Congress? That, I find interesting.”
Very often, once one puts the effort into gaining a grasp of this bewildering and Byzantine legislative process, one finds the temptation to become a defender of it almost irresistible. That happens again and again to newly-elected members of Congress who arrive in Washington as staunch critics of the system and stay on to become as much a prisoner of it as the rest of their colleagues.
Given the time and effort required just to master the basic operating rules of the House or Senate legislative process tends to work upon those who take on that task—both as official members or staff of these congressional bodies or as an interested observer among the general public.
You’ve invested that time and effort and it seems that in gaining it you’ve become, predictably so, a person who demonstrates little patience for critics of the system who urge (now) and who want to see (one day) a very fundamental reform—even if that reform is difficult and cannot reasonably be expected to remain effective forever; they want to see the process begun and begun in earnest rather than indefinitely put off again and again.
Sure, 90% of the population will continue to be trapped in their employer-based plans, but that is what they insisted upon if this experiment was to get off the ground at all. Fine.
Let’s look at who will really benefit from this new system: Those people whose only reason to continue being tied to their shitty corporate or government full-time job all of these years was good health insurance. They couldn’t get it as a self-employed, underemployed (by choice) or early retiree. How many millions of people have wanted to tell their heartless corporate masters to stick it for decades but couldn’t because if they quit and started their own company, they couldn’t provide dependable, affordable insurance to their families and employees?
We could see a tidal wave of innovative, happy new small businesses come from this and big employers will have that much less leverage over our souls as a result. Only good can come of this.
That’s a good point, if a bit more hopeful than I can be. I think incremental change can work if enough people are motivated by a clear vision. You can argue that drug policy is entering a very interesting time because various incremental changes have been tied to a clear articulation of the costs and hypocrisy of the drug war. So if enough people have a clear idea of where the movement is going, and what they can do to get it there, then further movement is always possible.
Well, Obama called off enforcement of federal pot laws against state-legal medical growers/distributors — and all without much blowback that I’ve noticed. It’s always hard to think incremental about policies that are so totally insane and evil, but it’s what we’ve got.
Lieberman announced he would support a filibuster of Reid’s public option bill – the day after Reid’s announcement.
It isn’t plausible to me that Reid was blindsided by this.
I continue to speculate that this is all a betrayal plan on Reid’s part. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/lieberman-sure-id-filibuster-a-health-care-reform-bill.ph
p?ref=fpblg
“”I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined–i haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined–to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.””
That is the key part of the statement. Lieberman is saying that he will not (or probably not) filibuster the unanimous consent motion to start debate on the floor.
Ignore everything after that because the bill will be different by the time it comes to a vote.
Wonder what Lieberman wants as a price.
“Wonder what Lieberman wants…”
besides attention?
reid better make damn sure it gets real lonely for lieberman if he pulls this stunt. kick his I ass out of the caucus, strip him of his committee chairs, seniority and standing. l don’t even think the RATs will have him at this point.
A lot hangs on Reid’s reaction.
Exactly. He’s negociating.
.
Is no Snowe, what could he offer in return?
[see video of interview – Oui]
Top 20 contributors
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The question is what does Lieberman want. The answer is slots this Sunday on the talk shows highlighting how mavericky he is.
And then he votes for cloture on allowing the bill to the floor. That’s what he offers.
Anything else he says is just showboating until the bill gets to the floor.
His conditional “if” statement about his filibuster is big enough to get his ego through. The bill will change.
As far as contributors, there are a lot of Democrats who will be stiffing industry contributors, which is why those folks are beginning to shift money away from their favorite Democrats. Campaign finances are only good to sway voters; no amount of money will save a candidate who screws up on healthcare.
But what are the probable amendments? While a opt-out public option may only have 51 votes, it is the most popular, no? What could get 51 votes? Nothing Joe Lieberman supports gets 51. Triggers don’t. Do they? The only way triggers get in there is if it gets 51 votes, right? So the only leverage Joe has is to filibuster.
Or are you saying he’s not even being serious and any sort of minor change will give him cover and he will vote for substantially the same bill as now?
My guess is that after all of the yakking on Sunday talk shows, Lieberman is not being serious about filibustering, although he is likely to vote against the current bill.
It is instructive that he is lying about what is in the bill and what its implications are. I’m not sure that a minor change would give him cover, but I don’t think that having a public option is a dealbreaker. Especially after people start looking at his insurance company contributors.
You may be right that Lieberman won’t be forced to stick the knife in on the Senate floor.
But I think he was borne to play the role of Judas and he is willing to answer the call of history.
But the only way I see him dropping his filibuster threat is via a substantial “compromise”, say a Snowe trigger, or a Baucus coop [it’s ridiculous what the range of options are here]. I don’t think there are 51 votes for a Baucus or Snowe type compromise at this point so I don’t think these compromises come in until the reconciliation.
But Lieberman’s filibuster with the Republicans will be used as the excuse to water-down the bills to a compromise bill. Of course we should probably also include the handful of other Dems that would join Lieberman if Lieberman hadn’t so eagerly signed up to play the role of Judas. In reconciliation team Obama will argue that the Snowe trigger or Baucus plan is the only thing that will pass and therefore that should be the reconciled bill. They will make Booman’s argument that Reid screwed it up, they really wanted a robust public option, but you know . . .
Then they will dare the progressives to filibuster the shitty compromise bill.
So, either the Dems make a deal with Lieberman now and support a compromise and pass a trigger amendment with 51 or Lieberman waffles on his threat to filibuster or he goes through with his threat to filibuster.
I don’t think he waffles. He’s a despicable person. But I think this threat is real. I think he follows through . . . and probably with the tacit approval of the White House.
Exactly. They’re just trying to come up with a plausible cover story for the dirty deed. They realize they have to cover up the deal they made with the insurance industry–it is a huge gift to industry with not nearly the commensurate consideration to average Americans. They would have finalized this dirty deed long ago but they haven’t yet found the appropriate cover. The politicians realize what will happen when they mandate millions of Americans buy insurance they can’t afford while the predatory insurance industry is given government subsidies, millions of new customers without any significant regulation or any real cost controls. They realize average Americans will be screwed. But they don’t care.
Just like with the bankruptcy bill. They rammed it through quickly because they knew the American sucker, er middle class, would take another kick in the teeth. They care about their corporate interests–not the American sucker. Well, this time, I think they realize that this kick to the teeth of the American sucker will be severe. Like lots of missing and jagged teeth. So they are spending more time on a cover story. And hey, some people even think the Corporate Whore bill is really “reform”, so it’s not like they have to try too hard to come up with a cover story. These suckers will swallow almost anything.
And Joe will happily take his turn as the fall guy. Reid and Baucus had their turns. Snowe had hers. Everyone gets a turn except Obama.
But the Corporate Whore Bill has been the plan all along (certainly more evidence for this than the idea Obama is fighting for the public option behind the scenes or has a clever strategy to bring it about). Lieberman is doing Obama a favor by killing any robust public option. I’m sure Lieberman remembers Obama’s support for his candidacy against the Democrat in 2006. These guys are in on this together (but of course Obama will skate because his fan base will never allow this thought to enter their protected heads).
This elaborate game is intended to leave everyone confused . . . . and pointing fingers in various directions so that the blame doesn’t land on “You know Who-He who shall not Have his Name Spoken Lest He be Accused of Having Impure Motives-How-Dare-You-And-Leave Him Alone!” Give Obama credit for putting himself in a win-win situation with most of his most ardent fans. We’ll see if the left side of the party falls for the excuses.
But in all probability . . . nothing has changed for months in the health care debate . . . the middle class will probably be further crushed while health insurers will be further enriched (the victims will be mandated to go give their blood to the very leeches feeding off them–on pain of government collection of said blood debts).
And Joe Lieberman will be the excuse. Or maybe Harry Reid because he didn’t follow Obama’s super-clever plan. Or it’s just not possible in our modern Republic so stop bitching and start accepting these kicks to the teeth. Or pie in the sky hippy–Rome wasn’t built in a day this is incremental change that will lead somewhere down the road. We have the same goal is sigh but incrementalism is the fastest way to get there. The excuses are endless.
It’s all an elaborate dance to obfuscate the truth and provide cover for a looting. I wish I could say I’m surprised there are so many suckers that have bought this cover story hook line and sinker. But I’m not.
Sorry for the huge length of that comment. I’ve been on blog withdrawal and I guess I had too much on my mind.
Jeez, even when I try to keep it concise . . .
forget 60. politico reporting right now that lieberman will vot with the gop against cloture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hence the need for Snowe — but everyone kept telling me that was part of some secret sell-out-bipartisan-for-its-own sake plan on Obama’s and Emmanuel’s part…
Key words: “Politico reporting”
We should learn to stop sending them traffic.
Adding crap to bills as they go through can do so much damage as not to be worth it. Basically, it means voting isn’t even done on the purported legislation : it’s rather like gerrymandering electoral districts – electoral fraud. What has ended up happening is lobbyists and the bagman have so much more freedom to fine tune graft and corruption: ‘Bait and Switch’.
The whole circus was built on the premise of healthcare for people who don’t have secure water supply if utilities go broke.
Too little, too late. Unemployment stats just keep growing. Party’s over.
Meanwhile the bankrupt nation without taxes on the rich funds mercenaries destroying the national governments of countries where there are oil deposits…while every mouthpiece echoes the updated spiel of ‘White Man’s Burden”.
The Indian Wars redux.