Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 22, 2010
Health Waterloons
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:17 AM
A lot of folks are talking about this post by conservative columnist and yakker David Frum. Back in July of last year Republicans predicted that health care reform would be Obama's Waterloo. Health care reform winded up being Waterloo alright—just not Obama's. Frum:
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November—by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
Republicans refused to work with a Democratic president who was willing to bend over backwards to bring them on board and craft a bipartisan bill. So the bill that Democrats approved last night wasn't made more moderate thanks to Republican input because there wasn't any Republican input because Republicans opted for knee-jerk obstructionism and bet the farm on blocking the bill in the hopes that this crushing defeat would demoralize the Democratic base (labor was threatening to sit out the midterms if health care reform didn't pass) and destroy Obama's presidency. That didn't happen. (You would assume, based on the way Frum describes the bill, that it had been drafted by commenters at DailyKos and created a single-payer health-care system. It's a pretty moderate bill even without Republican support.)
Now even if the Rs manage to take back the House or Senate in November—or both—they won't be able to repeal health care reform. For starters, Obama is going to be president in 2010, 2011, and 2012, regardless of who controls Congress after the midterm elections. Unless the Rs manage to rack up veto-proof majorities in both houses—and that's not going to happen—Barack Obama will be sitting in the White House ready to veto any repeal of health care reform that lands on his desk. And if Republican primary voters are stupid enough to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012—and does anyone doubt that they're just that stupid?—Obama is going to be sitting in the Oval Office with a desk drawer full of veto pens until January of 2017.
So even if the Rs manage to take both houses... repealing health care reform looks unlikely. And who says that the Rs, back in control of Congress, would be able to pass legislation repealing health care reform? Back to Frum:
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there—would President Obama sign such a repeal?
I was saying just this to a friend this weekend. (It was one of those rare face-to-face, in-real-time, over-beers actual human conversations, which is why I said it to a person and not on Slog.) Before the bill passed the Rs were able to scream and yell about this big, vague, scary government plan to take over Medicare and kill your grandmother. They could lie with impunity (death panels!), stump against the bill in the abstract (socialism!), and rely on a castrated media that is incapable of calling a lie a lie and a liar a liar (liberal bias!). But now that the bill has passed the Republicans will have to deal in nitty-gritty specifics if it attempts to repeal it. In addition to stumping for reopening the donut hole and bringing back the "pre-existing condition" nightmare, they will have to stump for restoring the right of insurance companies to cancel your health insurance policy the very moment you get sick. They'll have to argue, essentially, in favor of shit like this.
That's not going to fly. Back to Frum:
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or—more exactly—with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters—but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say—but what is equally true—is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed—if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office—Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
Hee haw.
1
Well, Rob McKenna is trying to score votes by seeing if the state can sue over HCR. The only blue state to join in on this stupidity.
http://twitter.com/AGOWA/status/10745657…
http://twitter.com/AGOWA/status/10745657…
3
Nancy Pelosi made an important observation in her closing speech. Even though no Republican was supporting the bill, it actually included over 200 amendments from Republicans. The bill itself is bipartisan, it simply didn't have bipartisan support thanks to Republican grandstanding.
5
Oh, the Republicans are fucked on this one, alright. However, I'm much less confident that it will withstand a constitutionality challenge based on whether the government can require everyone to purchase insurance. And have no doubt that this will go before the Supremes (yes, Roberts, Scalia, and the rest of those nutters). I think I'll hold off on the celebrating, thanks.
6
Like I said yesterday, Suck It Republicans! The Democrats called your bluff.
When the world is still here after Obama signs the bill, when we're still speaking English and not Russian, the American people will clearly see the Republicans wet their panties over politics and not policy.
Remember when Newt Gingrich closed the government? Who won that battle, assholes?
When the world is still here after Obama signs the bill, when we're still speaking English and not Russian, the American people will clearly see the Republicans wet their panties over politics and not policy.
Remember when Newt Gingrich closed the government? Who won that battle, assholes?
7
My Ged, those two girls in ABBA still turn me on! I would be very GGG for them!
Wait, what were we talking about.....
Wait, what were we talking about.....
8
@4: Yeah, easily. I just don't know if he wants to butt heads with the previous Attorney General who just happens to be the State Executive.
12
@ 5, what about requirements that every driver purchase auto insurance? If that's constitutional, I fail to see how this wouldn't be.
14
@12 --
1. There is no federal requirement for drivers to buy liability insurance.
2. There is a huge difference between requiring drivers to buy liability insurance and requiring people who are alive to buy health insurance. The state does not force you to own a car and drive. The state does force you to stay alive.
However, the HCR bill may not require anyone to buy health insurance. It may simply tax people who don't buy health insurance.
1. There is no federal requirement for drivers to buy liability insurance.
2. There is a huge difference between requiring drivers to buy liability insurance and requiring people who are alive to buy health insurance. The state does not force you to own a car and drive. The state does force you to stay alive.
However, the HCR bill may not require anyone to buy health insurance. It may simply tax people who don't buy health insurance.
15
Frum's a lying sack of crap. He's distancing himself as fast as he possibly can from the vortex of hate and lies he helped to create because he's afraid he'll go down with it.
Piece of fucking garbage.
Piece of fucking garbage.
16
My prediction for the midterms: At the very most, 'pubs will succeed in throwing out the few Dems representing more conservative districts. That's not an insignificant number, but it's not sweeping to power a la 1994.
If they want to fight this tooth and nail, vow complete and total repeal - and absolutely no new reform package to take its place (which is what the hardcore commenters at redstate are calling for, and some elected 'pubs are already pledging) - they're only going to keep scaring away moderates and swing voters. That's what a scorched earth policy brings you, GOP.
If they want to fight this tooth and nail, vow complete and total repeal - and absolutely no new reform package to take its place (which is what the hardcore commenters at redstate are calling for, and some elected 'pubs are already pledging) - they're only going to keep scaring away moderates and swing voters. That's what a scorched earth policy brings you, GOP.
17
So does this mean we're going to get a little less whining from hardcore progressives about how Obama's "selling us out" and "can't get anything done for his own side, like Bush did"? Do you think we'd have any kind of comprehensive HCR by now if the Administration had insisted on single-payer or a public option and not made any compromises at all? In real life, big change actually takes time to achieve, you have to make compromises and concessions, not everyone gets everything they want all at once. If the Civil Rights Movement had had the same attitude as some modern liberals, they would have rejected desegregation of the army out-of-hand because Truman didn't simultaneously give them the right to vote and marry freely.
18
Fifty-Two-Eighty echoes my exact thoughts: The requirement that people buy health insurance seems...shifty. If it was just GIVEN to people, at least some basic coverage, it would probably be less offensive than requiring people who couldn't afford to shell out for health care in the first place to buy something they still can't afford.
19
Obama Care will drive insurance rates up even faster than they have been climbing.
That will be apparent by November.
stay tuned....
That will be apparent by November.
stay tuned....
20
Republicans always put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people. That's why they are always such huge failures. And they will fail to to repeal any of these laws because the American people will see through them. But Big insurance, because of the recent Supreme Court ruling, will be able to continue to buy ads savaging this president and Democrats.
21
@ everybody, this WSJ article is required reading:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…
One pertinent quote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…
One pertinent quote:
If you are uninsured, know that starting in 2014, you will likely be required to have insurance or pay a penalty—and you should start planning now for the cost, though many details aren't yet clear. Medicaid will expand to include more of those with the lowest incomes. For those who make less than around $43,000, or about $88,000 for a family of four, there will be government help to buy a plan. [My emphasis - Matt.] The kff.org site has a calculator that estimates what you might pay. The bill summary on the same site spells out penalties under the sidecar package, which start out at $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater.
22
I remember reading or hearing something about how the insurance companies can't exceed a certain percentage in overhead costs without having to give rebates to premium payers. If that is true, it would seem to be a pretty good curb on skyrocketing rates.
24
Re: the Individual Mandate
That one scares me too. It doesn't seem to pass the stink test for Constitutionality, but then again, most of us don't know squat about how Constitutional law is decided.
I'd much rather pay an extra 1%-2% on my federal income tax and get full coverage on a single payer plan. The Individual Mandate just feels like a huge gift to the insurance industry, and I have little faith that all the loopholes for claim denial have been closed.
Still, this bill had to be passed so that infamous 1/6 of the economy can start planning their near-term future. A lot of business has been on hold, waiting for this bullshit to get settled.
That one scares me too. It doesn't seem to pass the stink test for Constitutionality, but then again, most of us don't know squat about how Constitutional law is decided.
I'd much rather pay an extra 1%-2% on my federal income tax and get full coverage on a single payer plan. The Individual Mandate just feels like a huge gift to the insurance industry, and I have little faith that all the loopholes for claim denial have been closed.
Still, this bill had to be passed so that infamous 1/6 of the economy can start planning their near-term future. A lot of business has been on hold, waiting for this bullshit to get settled.
25
Oops, here is what I was talking about in #22. From the Huffington Post....
"Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs."
"Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs."
26
Obama did not meet with any Republicans to discuss health care from March 2009 until the Blair House summit in February 2010. Hardly "bending over backwards to bring them onboard."
28
@14, I know it's still state level, but what about Massachusetts? Has their health insurance mandate been litigated?
29
To all those folks who are concerned about the individual mandate, you can't have any real health reform without it. You can't stop insurers from dropping people for preexisting conditions. You can't have a public option. You can't chip away at the enormous unfair advantage that big business has over small business in the health insurance market. You can't begin to loosen the destructive coupling between employment and health insurance. You can't do anything real without an individual mandate, and if you don't realize that, you're still holding out for a free lunch.
I agree with Six Shooter @14 that the individual mandate is different from mandatory car insurance. The real comparison is with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Every one of us has an individual mandate to pay into the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid systems. We can't opt out. But we also have it taken out of our taxes, so that we're not forced to pay $ we don't have. The individual mandate is an imperfect approximation of these systems, but it's the closest we can get at this time without tossing over the whole apple cart.
I agree with Six Shooter @14 that the individual mandate is different from mandatory car insurance. The real comparison is with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Every one of us has an individual mandate to pay into the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid systems. We can't opt out. But we also have it taken out of our taxes, so that we're not forced to pay $ we don't have. The individual mandate is an imperfect approximation of these systems, but it's the closest we can get at this time without tossing over the whole apple cart.
30
Actually, I think this is going to be a complete disaster. But that's ok. I'm elated that it passed. It's one step further on the road to what makes real sense - nationalized health care. European countries that have it are doing just fine - all my friends who have lived in Europe love the health care systems. We are one of the very few fully industrialized nations that do not have it, and I believe that it's holding our economy back. Here's why:
The U.S. has pretty much peaked economically speaking - we are no longer a country that manufactures goods, and that's what drives real growth. We're seeing it in emerging markets now. Manufacturing jobs are not coming back to this country - at least not as we know it. With a nationalized health care system we would be enabling individuals to innovate, to invent, to start businesses, etc. I worked with a lot of brilliant people at a well-known financial services company that was going bust - we all knew somethign was terribly wrong at the time, but I was the only one to quit and look for greener pastures. I was single, younger, didn't own a home and had no kids. I found a job with a startup company that could not guarantee my insurance, but I paid my COBRA and took a chance. As a result, I'm with a thriving young company, and many of my former co-workers are scrambling. They were highly motivated not to leave their company because of fears about the safety and wellbeing of their children and loved ones, because of fears about bankruptcy and losing their houses - which were all things that were threatened with the prospect of not having health insurance.
Our standard of living is different than it used to be, and so are our values. It's not acceptable to put one's family's health at risk by depriving them of health insurance, and it's not very appetizing to be faced with the idea of declaring bankruptcy over exorbitant medical bills. This means people are not as bold - we have lost much of the entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking that drove this country's spectacular economic development. In order to re-awaken that, we need to give people a safety net that allows them to, somewhat paradoxically, take some risks.
I have some other thoughts that back up this thesis, but I have to get back to my startup job;)
More...
The U.S. has pretty much peaked economically speaking - we are no longer a country that manufactures goods, and that's what drives real growth. We're seeing it in emerging markets now. Manufacturing jobs are not coming back to this country - at least not as we know it. With a nationalized health care system we would be enabling individuals to innovate, to invent, to start businesses, etc. I worked with a lot of brilliant people at a well-known financial services company that was going bust - we all knew somethign was terribly wrong at the time, but I was the only one to quit and look for greener pastures. I was single, younger, didn't own a home and had no kids. I found a job with a startup company that could not guarantee my insurance, but I paid my COBRA and took a chance. As a result, I'm with a thriving young company, and many of my former co-workers are scrambling. They were highly motivated not to leave their company because of fears about the safety and wellbeing of their children and loved ones, because of fears about bankruptcy and losing their houses - which were all things that were threatened with the prospect of not having health insurance.
Our standard of living is different than it used to be, and so are our values. It's not acceptable to put one's family's health at risk by depriving them of health insurance, and it's not very appetizing to be faced with the idea of declaring bankruptcy over exorbitant medical bills. This means people are not as bold - we have lost much of the entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking that drove this country's spectacular economic development. In order to re-awaken that, we need to give people a safety net that allows them to, somewhat paradoxically, take some risks.
I have some other thoughts that back up this thesis, but I have to get back to my startup job;)
31
@26 - What are you smoking? Except for the August meetings with the Gang of Six (3 Republicans, 3 Democrats) in the White House, the Congress address last September... but yeah, keep re-writing history if that makes you feel better.
32
Matt, sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I'm at Queen Soopers. There's no requirement that everybody have auto insurance, only drivers. Nobody's forcing you to drive. Big difference.
33
@29 yes the griping about the individual mandate is mostly about those convinced they are entitled to a free lunch. A fair number of those who elect to not have coverage are healthy people who figure they can take their chances. Thing is what happens if they have a medical emergency? I don't think too many of them are dragged out into the wilderness and left there. No instead they are cared for at public hospitals and end up with stacks of bills they can never pay. In other words someone else is going to get stuck with the bill for their free lunch.
No idea how the constitutionality of the mandate will play out but as someone else pointed out requiring a penalty be paid by those who do not get coverage is not exactly forcing people to get coverage. That said, with the current balance of cave people to normal people on the Supreme Court all bets are off.
No idea how the constitutionality of the mandate will play out but as someone else pointed out requiring a penalty be paid by those who do not get coverage is not exactly forcing people to get coverage. That said, with the current balance of cave people to normal people on the Supreme Court all bets are off.
34
@18:
Yeah, that would be why the bill also includes subsidies for low-income families - one of the "three legs of the stool", along with the individual mandate and banning insurance companies from turning away those with pre-existing conditions. Even I know that and I'm not even American. Try doing some research the next time something strikes you as "shifty".
Yeah, that would be why the bill also includes subsidies for low-income families - one of the "three legs of the stool", along with the individual mandate and banning insurance companies from turning away those with pre-existing conditions. Even I know that and I'm not even American. Try doing some research the next time something strikes you as "shifty".
35
Actually, I think this is going to be a complete disaster. But that's ok. I'm elated that it passed. It's one step further on the road to what makes real sense - nationalized health care. European countries that have it are doing just fine - all my friends who have lived in Europe love the health care systems. We are one of the very few fully industrialized nations that do not have it, and I believe that it's holding our economy back. Here's why:
The U.S. has pretty much peaked economically speaking - we are no longer a country that manufactures goods, and that's what drives real growth. We're seeing it in emerging markets now. Manufacturing jobs are not coming back to this country - at least not as we know it. With a nationalized health care system we would be enabling individuals to innovate, to invent, to start businesses, etc. I worked with a lot of brilliant people at a well-known financial services company that was going bust - we all knew somethign was terribly wrong at the time, but I was the only one to quit and look for greener pastures. I was single, younger, didn't own a home and had no kids. I found a job with a startup company that could not guarantee my insurance, but I paid my COBRA and took a chance. As a result, I'm with a thriving young company, and many of my former co-workers are scrambling. They were highly motivated not to leave their company because of fears about the safety and wellbeing of their children and loved ones, because of fears about bankruptcy and losing their houses - which were all things that were threatened with the prospect of not having health insurance.
Our standard of living is different than it used to be, and so are our values. It's not acceptable to put one's family's health at risk by depriving them of health insurance, and it's not very appetizing to be faced with the idea of declaring bankruptcy over exorbitant medical bills. This means people are not as bold - we have lost much of the entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking that drove this country's spectacular economic development. In order to re-awaken that, we need to give people a safety net that allows them to, somewhat paradoxically, take some risks.
I have some other thoughts that back up this thesis, but I have to get back to my startup job;)
More...
The U.S. has pretty much peaked economically speaking - we are no longer a country that manufactures goods, and that's what drives real growth. We're seeing it in emerging markets now. Manufacturing jobs are not coming back to this country - at least not as we know it. With a nationalized health care system we would be enabling individuals to innovate, to invent, to start businesses, etc. I worked with a lot of brilliant people at a well-known financial services company that was going bust - we all knew somethign was terribly wrong at the time, but I was the only one to quit and look for greener pastures. I was single, younger, didn't own a home and had no kids. I found a job with a startup company that could not guarantee my insurance, but I paid my COBRA and took a chance. As a result, I'm with a thriving young company, and many of my former co-workers are scrambling. They were highly motivated not to leave their company because of fears about the safety and wellbeing of their children and loved ones, because of fears about bankruptcy and losing their houses - which were all things that were threatened with the prospect of not having health insurance.
Our standard of living is different than it used to be, and so are our values. It's not acceptable to put one's family's health at risk by depriving them of health insurance, and it's not very appetizing to be faced with the idea of declaring bankruptcy over exorbitant medical bills. This means people are not as bold - we have lost much of the entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking that drove this country's spectacular economic development. In order to re-awaken that, we need to give people a safety net that allows them to, somewhat paradoxically, take some risks.
I have some other thoughts that back up this thesis, but I have to get back to my startup job;)
37
Rhizome @33: That said, with the current balance of cave people to normal people on the Supreme Court all bets are off.
Rhizome, you took the words out of my mouth. The one thing that really worries me is the fact that the Supreme Court has four justices for whom the first question on any case is not "What does the Constitution say?", it's "How does this advance a conservative political agenda?" The whole constitutionality thing is just a rationalization after the fact.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would relish the opportunity to dismantle health reform at the earliest opportunity.
Rhizome, you took the words out of my mouth. The one thing that really worries me is the fact that the Supreme Court has four justices for whom the first question on any case is not "What does the Constitution say?", it's "How does this advance a conservative political agenda?" The whole constitutionality thing is just a rationalization after the fact.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would relish the opportunity to dismantle health reform at the earliest opportunity.
38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U4kDzwZA…
my favorite version of Waterloo. and Dan, i sent you an email!
my favorite version of Waterloo. and Dan, i sent you an email!
39
@29 Says what I said in my last post much more eloquently, so go read that instead/as well :P
@26 Not only were the Republicans repeatedly consulted (oh, sure, you could probably make some Clintonian reading and say that only the meetings where Obama negotiated directly with the GOP count, but let's assume, like sensible people, that bipartisanship means "involving both parties"), but the final bill contains numerous Republican ideas and is essentially identical to their 1993 plan. Frum has it right on the nose - if they'd wanted it, the GOP could have dragged this thing way to the right, but instead they gambled it all on this scorched-earth strategy. Clever.
@26 Not only were the Republicans repeatedly consulted (oh, sure, you could probably make some Clintonian reading and say that only the meetings where Obama negotiated directly with the GOP count, but let's assume, like sensible people, that bipartisanship means "involving both parties"), but the final bill contains numerous Republican ideas and is essentially identical to their 1993 plan. Frum has it right on the nose - if they'd wanted it, the GOP could have dragged this thing way to the right, but instead they gambled it all on this scorched-earth strategy. Clever.
41
@29-"To all those folks who are concerned about the individual mandate, you can't have any real health reform without it. "
Not at all true. You can't have reform of the private system without it. I want a Public Healthcare system paid for by taxes, not me being forced to pay some private company.
Not at all true. You can't have reform of the private system without it. I want a Public Healthcare system paid for by taxes, not me being forced to pay some private company.
42
Looks like we've taken a few baby steps away from this observation:
"Swedes have free education, health care, and so on, but they also practice free love, get drunk, and commit suicide, because they lack the excitement of living in a society where the untrained have the freedom to starve." - Gore Vidal
"Swedes have free education, health care, and so on, but they also practice free love, get drunk, and commit suicide, because they lack the excitement of living in a society where the untrained have the freedom to starve." - Gore Vidal
44
@41 so the taxes you would be required to pay for the public health care system would not consitute an individual mandate? Agreed more money going to the bloodsuckers is somewhat less than ideal but as has been repeated ad nauseum around here single-payer is not possible in this right-wing land, period. And covering lots more people and reigning in some of the more odious practices of the insurance industry is well worthwhile, whether it ends up costing more or not.
45
a better online article that is required reading is the Washington Post's What This Bill Means For You - three questions and it tells you what it will cost YOU (ignoring all the gobbledygook):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/spe… - enjoy!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/spe… - enjoy!
46
@44: Anything with this many loopholes can hardly be called a "mandate". It's more a "strong suggestion" than anything.
47
I think Frum recognized that the plan really was a moderate one and not an uber-liberal one. I mean, he did say this in the article:
His pointed seemed to have been: we really weren't that far apart, so we could have negotiated and got some things that we wanted.
But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
His pointed seemed to have been: we really weren't that far apart, so we could have negotiated and got some things that we wanted.
48
@44- "so the taxes you would be required to pay for the public health care system would not consitute an individual mandate?"
Yes, that is what those words mean.
If we start our negotiations (Like the Democrats did) by assuming we couldn't get a good system, then it is completely unsurprising that so very little has been accomplished. I'm glad they passed something, but given the margin involved, it's quite obvious they should have told the GOP to suck it from the get-go and worked out a more progressive bill among themselves. "Bi-partisanship" got us nothing.
Yes, that is what those words mean.
If we start our negotiations (Like the Democrats did) by assuming we couldn't get a good system, then it is completely unsurprising that so very little has been accomplished. I'm glad they passed something, but given the margin involved, it's quite obvious they should have told the GOP to suck it from the get-go and worked out a more progressive bill among themselves. "Bi-partisanship" got us nothing.
49
@ 42 - I've know a lot of drunk Americans that have killed themselves too. Vidal's quote means nothing.
50
dwight moody @41 responding to my statement that the individual mandate is essential:
Yeah, and I want to date Jessica Biel.
Most left-wing ideologues cling (love the word "cling") to their own menu of free lunches no less delusional than those of the right-wing tea partiers. But the thing these left-wing folks just don't have the imagination to grasp is that, if you want single-payer or even just a public option, the bill we're getting creates a climate for those programs that simply did not exist before. It's a bit like inheriting 100 acres of incredibly fertile land in the San Joaquin Valley and then complaining that you don't have any vegetables.
Not at all true. You can't have reform of the private system without it. I want a Public Healthcare system paid for by taxes, not me being forced to pay some private company.
Yeah, and I want to date Jessica Biel.
Most left-wing ideologues cling (love the word "cling") to their own menu of free lunches no less delusional than those of the right-wing tea partiers. But the thing these left-wing folks just don't have the imagination to grasp is that, if you want single-payer or even just a public option, the bill we're getting creates a climate for those programs that simply did not exist before. It's a bit like inheriting 100 acres of incredibly fertile land in the San Joaquin Valley and then complaining that you don't have any vegetables.
51
@32 Nonsense analogy.
Yes, people have free will not to drive. Therefore they don't need auto insurance. To have free will you have to be living. If you are living, you need health care. You can't opt out of living, save for suicide.
Yes, people have free will not to drive. Therefore they don't need auto insurance. To have free will you have to be living. If you are living, you need health care. You can't opt out of living, save for suicide.
52
And of course if you are living it is not that unlikely you will get sick now and again and it is not all that unlikely if you don't have health insurance that someone else will wind up paying for your care as you will not be able to pay the bill. So lets see, if we can agree that everyone who gets sick who does not have health insurance will get dragged out into the woods and left there to die from exposure then I guess we can agree that the individual mandate is an outrageous violation of our freedom to have our free lunch and eat it too.
53
@52: Yeah, I'm with you. But if it actually does get litigated, it won't happen for a while. The individual mandate - one of the more "painful-but-necessary" parts of the bill - also doesn't go into effect for a while. In the meantime, a larger and more inspired Democratic majority will be able to create a public option, which will make it totally doable.
What does go into effect right away is pretty obviously positive, and Frum is smart to acknowledge the role it'll play among key voting blocs in a November that may yet prove disastrous for Republicans.
Frum is discounts, in my view, is the degree to which the rhetoric used to try to defeat reform almost exactly resembles the rhetoric used to get us into the war in Iraq. If you didn't like Bush, you're not going to like teabagger government either, as they operate in the exact same fashion.
A pack of poorly-informed lies, reinforced by accusations about patriotism, and surrounded by an atmosphere of fear actually isn't actually a winning ticket for Republicans. Just like their political fates around the war, this too has now ended in disaster.
You think they would have learned that last time around. Oh well, they're going to re-learn it this November. 2010 is a Blue year.
What does go into effect right away is pretty obviously positive, and Frum is smart to acknowledge the role it'll play among key voting blocs in a November that may yet prove disastrous for Republicans.
Frum is discounts, in my view, is the degree to which the rhetoric used to try to defeat reform almost exactly resembles the rhetoric used to get us into the war in Iraq. If you didn't like Bush, you're not going to like teabagger government either, as they operate in the exact same fashion.
A pack of poorly-informed lies, reinforced by accusations about patriotism, and surrounded by an atmosphere of fear actually isn't actually a winning ticket for Republicans. Just like their political fates around the war, this too has now ended in disaster.
You think they would have learned that last time around. Oh well, they're going to re-learn it this November. 2010 is a Blue year.
55
Dan, you had me until...
And if Republican primary voters are stupid enough to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012—and does anyone doubt that they're just that stupid?
The Republican primary voters won't be given the choice because the Republican primaries don't run on the same rules as Democratic ones. The Republican party decides who it wants and then makes sure that any candidates opposing them are forced out of the running despite what the voters want. That's how the party functions.
And if Republican primary voters are stupid enough to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012—and does anyone doubt that they're just that stupid?
The Republican primary voters won't be given the choice because the Republican primaries don't run on the same rules as Democratic ones. The Republican party decides who it wants and then makes sure that any candidates opposing them are forced out of the running despite what the voters want. That's how the party functions.
56
I had to watch this video several times to fully appreciate the costumes. I was more than half way through my first viewing before I realized that one of the guys was wearing a cape. Fantastic!
58
Yeah, this David Frum piece is the best thing I have read in a looooong time. Totally makes sense, is sensible, eye-opening.
Weeks ago it did seem like the dems would fail. But what might have helped them pass this is months and months of progressives and others, saying over and over, the dems need to grow a spine, they need to go for reconciliation, they need to remember you don't need 60+ senate 'yes' votes.
If progressives hadn't been voicing disappointment with democratic party all this time this may not have passed at all and it would have been played up as a huge victory for republicans, militia-sympathizing teabaggers etc. NOT that this bill is that progressive, it is a huge giveaway to insurance companies as we all know. The dems could have passed this with a public option instead, without the bs excuse that they first needed 60 guaranteed senate votes
The dems could learn something from this. If republicans continue to expect democrats will bend over for them and sellout or retreat from their principles easily, this expectation of theirs can be used back against them. fuckers
Weeks ago it did seem like the dems would fail. But what might have helped them pass this is months and months of progressives and others, saying over and over, the dems need to grow a spine, they need to go for reconciliation, they need to remember you don't need 60+ senate 'yes' votes.
If progressives hadn't been voicing disappointment with democratic party all this time this may not have passed at all and it would have been played up as a huge victory for republicans, militia-sympathizing teabaggers etc. NOT that this bill is that progressive, it is a huge giveaway to insurance companies as we all know. The dems could have passed this with a public option instead, without the bs excuse that they first needed 60 guaranteed senate votes
The dems could learn something from this. If republicans continue to expect democrats will bend over for them and sellout or retreat from their principles easily, this expectation of theirs can be used back against them. fuckers
59
@52- This bill creates the conditions for the Democrats to claim victory because they managed to advance a couple hundred yards.
I don't want a free lunch. I want a cheaper lunch and I know how everyone in America can have a wholesome, satisfying meal for less then they pay now. And if you want something fancy you can feel free to spend more, but you'll probably still have your costs reduced.
I don't want to be required to go to a restaurant and pay whatever they want to charge.
I don't want a free lunch. I want a cheaper lunch and I know how everyone in America can have a wholesome, satisfying meal for less then they pay now. And if you want something fancy you can feel free to spend more, but you'll probably still have your costs reduced.
I don't want to be required to go to a restaurant and pay whatever they want to charge.
60
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
61
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
62
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
63
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
64
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
65
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
66
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
67
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
68
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
69
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
70
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
71
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
72
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
73
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
74
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
75
Just another example of partisan politics at work. The health plan got watered down to the pathetic core that exists today. The "on-paper" savings estimates are hogwash and only the tru competition of a real national health plan can curb costs. So while the government is busy bailing out the fat cat refinance mortgage banks, a good portion of middle america will go without proper health coverage.
78
I am happy to find this post very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in you post. Thanks for sharing. breast lift miami
breast augmentation miami
breast augmentation miami
80
This is a good post. This post give truly quality information. I’m definitely going to look into it. Really very useful tips are provided here. thank you so much. Keep up the good works. http://drjsalomon.com/breast_augmentatio…
http://www.drjsalomon.com/breast-augment…
http://www.drjsalomon.com/breast-augment…
81
This is a good post. This post give truly quality information. I’m definitely going to look into it. Really very useful tips are provided here. thank you so much. Keep up the good works. http://drjsalomon.com/breast_augmentatio…
http://www.drjsalomon.com/breast-augment…
http://www.drjsalomon.com/breast-augment…
85
Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do some research about this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such great information being shared freely out there.
87
omg! I was looking for this article/post. My school teacher gave us an assignment on this subject and it was really hard to find. Refinance Mortgage
88
This partisans`s perfect example. Our health plan was thrown in the garbage and the government was trying to save and bail out the richest refinance mortgage banks so that more and more people will stay without health plan.
89
I was saying just this to a friend this weekend. It was one of those rare face to face in real time over beers actual human conversations, whic is why I said it to a person and not on slog. They'll have to argue, essentially, in favor of something like this.
http://marketbold.com/KeywordSniperPro&#…;">Keyword Search
http://marketbold.com/KeywordSniperPro&#…;">Keyword Search
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (90) RSS