I wish I could be convinced that they agree with him, but they probably don't. At least the Republicans have mostly been consistently obstructionist and haven't really dicked around the Dems by acting like they want to be involved and then saying "FUCK YOU."

They've been saying "FUCK YOU" the whole time, which is much more respectable than what Lieberman has been doing

12/14/2009 1:44:43 PM

Libermann is the man. he's like the added bonus that you don't plan on. love that guy now.

the other 59 fuckers in congress just want to stamp something with "obama/ 2009/ healthcare something bla bla / just say we did something " when in reality it's a royal fuckup of a bill to begin with. make something that more than 35% (gallop) of the nation approves and it might pass assholes.

12/14/2009 1:49:45 PM

Sen. Durbin says he's 'in the dark' on possible healthcare reform compromise
12/11/09

Quote :

"The 10 Democratic senators who crafted a healthcare compromise are keeping its details a secret, says Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday. Responding to a complaint by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that Republicans haven't been told what's in the new bill, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, responded that he's in the same position. 'I would say to the senator from Arizona that I'm in the dark almost as much as he is. And I'm in the leadership," Durbin said on the Senate floor."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71851-secret-compromise-durbin-says-hes-in-the-dark

So much for broadcasting this bullshit on C-SPAN. Sweet Jesus.

12/14/2009 1:51:07 PM

i have a new idea how this thing could pass.

let's literally ask the leadership in iran what THEY would want us to pass or not pass. then go by that logic.

oh wait. we already are.

12/14/2009 1:56:49 PM

Quote :

" make something that more than 35% (gallop) of the nation approves and it might pass assholes"

They did, it was called the Public Option and it still polls over 50%. It polls better than Congress does, it polls way better than anything else in the bill does, hell it polls better than the President does.

And the Dems sacrificed it on the alter of Joe Lieberman. I've never liked the guy, I almost wept back in 2000 when he was the VP candidate.

12/14/2009 2:32:10 PM

man, al gore picked that guy. ha

12/14/2009 2:34:25 PM

Another example of our nonpartisan president working hard on bipartisan bills. haha


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_white_house

12/14/2009 3:36:20 PM

The Republicans made it quite clear that they did not want to be involved with Health Care Reform. No reason to invite them.

What I don't get is this lie that there's 60 Democrats. There are 58 Democrats, a Socialist (a real one, if you want a comparison at some point), and a not-so-closet-Republican who ran as an Independent and called himself a Democrat for a decade.

12/14/2009 3:47:17 PM

Repubs have been involved, they have proposed their own bills and admendments. You can only do so much. But dont let the facts get in the way of the company line. hahah, they dont want any part of reform.... You really believe that too.

12/14/2009 3:59:27 PM

You'll pardon me for thinking that after controlling congress for 12 years the bill they put forward (Which was basically called inferior by the CBO) was a somewhat disingenuous attempt at claiming reform.

Particularly when the party line seems to have been Obstruct Obstruct Obstruct

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/gop-memo-blocking-dems-health-care-reform-proposal-is-good-politics/

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5962642.shtml

Hell, they're even making ADS bragging about wanting to do nothing but obstruct. Of course, the lies in the ad will be ignored (government takeover, claims it'll spend a trillion, claims that binge spending is the cause for our economic state and not the failed Republican economic policies).

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/steeles-new-radio-ad-youre-right-the-gop-is-trying-to-stonewall-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpb

12/14/2009 4:08:45 PM

there is a big difference from trying to stop the direction of THIS reform bill and not wanting anything to do with health care reform. Im sure you are smart enough to see the difference.

I do think those that think defeating health care reform as a huge blow and makes O vulnerable for reelection are wrong to do that. But that is more the problem with the 2 party (party first) system.

It will spent a trillion over a decade, how is that a lie?

Good article for ya.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2009 4:35:32 PM

Medicare Buy-In's out thanks to Joe Lieberman's antics.

The very same Medicare Buy-in that Lieberman himself was promoting just 3 months ago.

The Health Care bill in the Senate has been stripped of a public option, striped of the medicare buy-in, and will likely be stripped of the 90% rule and have Stupak language added by the end of the week.

All out of a desperate need to pander to 2 senators intent on representing the insurance industry instead of their constituency.

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : /]

12/14/2009 8:26:26 PM

Supporting a medicare buy in is like thinking hitting a couple more icebergs would have saved the Titanic.

12/15/2009 9:12:53 AM

Obama, change you can believe in!

12/15/2009 9:33:58 AM

Hopefully the entire thing gets scrapped and we can chalk it up to 6 months of government not screwing things up as much as it could have.

12/15/2009 9:35:36 AM

^ I think the current situation is worse than anything that is being proposed.

Quote :

"there is a big difference from trying to stop the direction of THIS reform bill and not wanting anything to do with health care reform."

I don't think the GOP does want to do anything. With the entire GOP braintrust all they've come up with is "competition across state lines, and tort reform". This, after 12 yrs in power.

I think GrumpyGOP summed up the strategy:

Quote :

"The effective short- to mid-range policy is to keep blocking Obama on everything and then blaming him for not getting anywhere, eroding the support of people who expect great things and got none. Then co-opt a lot of much of what the administration is saying, run on that, and use our normal powers of brutal republican efficiency to ram it through congress. Take credit and bask in the glow of popularity until you find some new way to fuck it up."

12/15/2009 10:07:45 AM

wait, don't democrats want to "increase competition?" If that is the case, then what do you have against allowing insurers to compete across state lines?

12/15/2009 6:52:30 PM

Quote :

"i have a new idea how this thing could pass. let's literally ask the leadership in iran what THEY would want us to pass or not pass. then go by that logic. oh wait. we already are."

This reads like a bot programmed to just put together sentences that you'd read in the comments to some YouTube video.

12/15/2009 6:56:25 PM

Quote :

"The individual mandate would extend the dominion of the federal government to virtually all manner of human conduct - including the non-conduct of not buying health insurance - by establishing a federal police power that is authorized nowhere in the Constitution. Democrats will have legislated a new quasi-crime, and perhaps the sole offense in our history that can be committed only by people of a certain income, since those below the poverty line would be exempt from the mandate. Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform. -from the Cato Institute"

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11042

12/15/2009 10:43:51 PM

Now that the public option is out, and the medicare for 55+ is out, I'm actually starting to hear politicians try to sell this bill on the merits of lots of elements rather than trying to find a catch phrase like public option that makes a sweeping sound bite.

I don't know how accurate it is, but I'm hearing that this bill, while not everything democrats want, will still have democratic support because it does things like extend the length of time you can stay on your parents insurance (I know I was insuranceless towards the end of undergrad, while searching for a job, and during the probationary period of my first full time job) which is nice that the bill is considering college age and young adults rather than just the elderly, it fights against pre-existing conditions, and it modernizes some elements of health care that definitely needs some reform on the administrative costs end. I'm also starting to hear the term "non-profit private option."

12/16/2009 9:34:26 AM

Quote :

"I'm also starting to hear the term "non-profit private option." "

Which are currently available

12/16/2009 9:55:38 AM

Quote :

"On cost controls I would recommend Gawande's article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande. The science of controlling costs is not well developed, but the Senate bill does a great deal to experiment and see what works. That is much, much better than doing nothing. Also, keep in mind that until we get nearly everyone in the system we certainly can't control costs. To use that old philosophy phrase, expanding coverage is necessary, but not sufficient, for controlling costs and building a more coordinated system. And for NC and other Southern states the Medicaid expansion alone is a huge step. Extending Medicaid to everyone below 133 percent of federal poverty level will immediately cover half of NC's uninsured. It will cover more than 60 percent of the uninsured in Mississippi. It will also end asset tests in Medicaid. That is a sea change. There will also be an immediate cash infusion into high risk pools, which will be expanded. Many people who can't get insurance right now will get coverage immediately. Also, the insurance industry reforms are critical. More importantly, I hope that everyone can see that this bill, with all of its flaws, is a big step. Right now, the Health Access Coalition gets contacted every week by people who can't find insurance. We have to tell many of these folks that there's nothing they can do. We live in a country where some people just don't get insurance. We can't do anything except help them find a free clinic. Right now, for example, if you don't have children and private coverage is too expensive you basically can't get insurance. You don't qualify for Medicaid. There's nothing you can do. If reform passes then almost all of the low-income people we work with will finally qualify for coverage. People who make a bit too much for Medicaid will get huge subsidies to purchase coverage. I can't tell you how excited I am by the prospect of telling people that they can get insurance. They have options. That's not everything I would want in a health care bill. It's not even close. But it's sure as hell a lot better than nothing. "

Over on Blue NC someone posted this. As with many progressive boards the discussion is now turning to should any bill with out either a public option or medicare for 55+ be killed. That post was an example of someone who wants to keep the bill. I don't know if it does this or not, but if it gets more of the kinds of relatively less well off people that tend to end up in emergency rooms, going to doctors with insurance where preventative medicine is practiced, maybe the bill isn't so bad.

12/16/2009 11:11:20 AM

Quote :

"We live in a country where some people just don't get insurance. We can't do anything except help them find a free clinic."

I understand the implied point here, but truthfully if a free clinic is available then what is the problem here? I've mentioned before my wife used to go to a free clinic provided by some volunteer doctors and a church for treatment of a chronic condition. Not only were they able to provide her with all the care she needed, but they were also able to provide her with medications at significantly discounted prices. No prior-authorizations needed, no claim forms, none of the bullshit that comes with dealing with insurance companies.

Now I fully realize that the current levels of free clinics can't possibly cover everyone. But it seems to me our money is better spent directly on the health care rather than paying the state to pay the insurance companies to pay the doctors. We should encourage doctors to volunteer their time and equipment rather than pay insurance companies to insure the uninsurable.

12/16/2009 1:24:21 PM

a full tax deduction for the level of service provided will see docs routinely volunteering and seeing patients at no cost. imo

12/16/2009 1:32:52 PM

Obama: U.S. 'will go bankrupt' without health care bill
Dec 16, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/yz6jtgp

Sweet Jesus--talk about scaremongering. I remember Bill Clinton saying the same bullshit in '93.

PS:

Bernie Sanders Pulls His Single-Payer Amendment
December 16, 2009

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/16/bernie-sanders-pulls-his-single-payer-amendment/

Good riddance.

12/16/2009 6:16:24 PM

Not going to bother mentioning that he pulled the amendment because Republicans were forcing a reading of the amendment.

Which would have pushed back the defense appropriations bill.

Which would have meant that our troops would have run out of funds this weekend.

Thereby showing that despite all the fanfare and promenading that Republicans have been doing for the last few years, in the end they don't give a shit about the troops as long as they get their way.

Instead, Sanders the Socialist has pulled his amendment so that they can get to the troops' funding.

Naw, I guess that's not really worth mentioning.

12/16/2009 6:23:19 PM

^ They would've gotten funding. And the tactic worked--but the amendment was stupid anyway.

12/16/2009 6:57:31 PM

^^ If the funding was such a top priority for the Democrats then why wasn't it put on the docket before the health care bill, hmmmmmmmmmmmm???????

12/16/2009 7:09:57 PM

Quote :

"Sweet Jesus--talk about scaremongering. I remember Bill Clinton saying the same bullshit in '93. "

And we are practically bankrupt.

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 9:24 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2009 9:24:27 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/why-health-care-will-pass-and.html

Quote :

"Why health care will pass (and what it means) For the last several weeks (months?), each time a major hurdle has arisen in the health care fight, the White House -- often in the former of chief of staff Rahm Emanuel -- has stepped in to placate the squeaky wheel(s) and keep some measure of momentum behind the legislation. That approach from the Obama Administration has led to deals with the likes of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) over abortion language in the bill and, more recently, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) over an attempted compromise on the so-called public option. The next deal expected to be cut is with Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) who has publicly struggled to reconcile his own opposition to abortion with a vote for final passage. While the deal-making has left many liberals cold about the final product, it has also virtually guaranteed that the President will be able to hold a Rose Garden signing ceremony sometime next year, declaring victory in the overhaul of one of the stickiest wickets of social policy in the country. The broad strategy adopted by the White House toward health care is based on a single fundamental belief: coming out of this extended fight with nothing to show for it amounts to a political disaster not just for the President but for congressional Democrats as well. "It's a huge problem if nothing gets passed," said one senior Democratic strategist. "Huge." The problem would be two-fold, according to the source. First, it would makes a pivot to a focus on jobs and the economy -- the two front-of-mind issues for most Americans -- virtually impossible for Obama as he would be faced with months of "what if" and "what now" questions about the future of his number one legislative priority. (Look back to the aftermath of former President Bill Clinton's failure to reform health care for evidence of how much damage the collapse of a major legislative initiative can have on a president's agenda going forward.) Second, the failure of a health care bill would substantially erode two basic pillars on which Obama was elected -- "competence" and "change", according to the source. Obama promised a new way of doing business in Washington, a promise based on a belief that his election could break the partisan gridlock that has gripped the nation's capitol for decades and make government work for the average American again. With the exception of three Republican Senators casting votes for his economic stimulus package earlier this year, Obama has struggled to make those promises a reality. Without a health care bill, the gap between Obama's statements about changing how Washington works on the campaign trail and what he has accomplished (or didn't accomplish) in office would be broadcast for all the country to see. Obama has made the case publicly and privately to Democratic Members of Congress that whether they like it or not, their fates are intimately intertwined with his. His successes are their successes and vice versa. He -- and his senior staff -- are certain to repeat that argument ad nauseam in the coming days to convince liberals in the Congress that any talk of killing the bill on principle amounts to political suicide. (Are you listening Governor Dean?) It's nearly certain that those Members will ultimately go along with Obama. The bigger question as it relates to the 2010 midterm elections is whether the compromises made by the Obama Administration to pass health care demoralize the Democratic base further -- keeping them at home in a year where Republican base voters are expected to turn out in droves."

Cillizza's post/email from today

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2009 9:26:53 PM

Quote :

"It's a huge problem if nothing gets passed," said one senior Democratic strategist. "Huge."

Wait, wasn't it Obama who talked negatively about "those who made a calculated decision to oppose" reform for the sake of politics? Isn't this, effectively, the same? Isn't it the same thing to decide that you have to vote for this bill for the sake of politics?

12/16/2009 9:37:12 PM

yes

12/16/2009 10:00:06 PM

In that out of context quote, I interpreted the huge problem to be that we won’t get much needed health reform, not that they don’t have blind cooperation on legislation among the democrats.

12/16/2009 10:05:52 PM

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2009 10:06:34 PM

I haven't been following all the minutiae of this plan, but isn't it supposed to go in effect in 2014? Why all the rush to get legislation passed so quickly?

Also, was this posted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html

Quote :

"By Howard Dean Thursday, December 17, 2009 If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill."

12/16/2009 10:09:06 PM

Quote :

"Why all the rush to get legislation passed so quickly?"

because democrats have majorities in the house and senate????

12/16/2009 10:13:10 PM

Quote :

"In that out of context quote, I interpreted the huge problem to be that we won’t get much needed health reform"

Not at all out of context. The surrounding context makes it clear that not passing a bill would be politically disastrous, especially with the parallels it draws to Clinton in '93.

12/16/2009 10:14:45 PM

Yeah, but they have them for over a year and Obama was wanting it done by August, now by Christmas. Is the fear that the more the bill is in the public discussion, the more the public will learn how bad it is for them?

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 10:17 PM. Reason : y]

12/16/2009 10:15:13 PM

I honestly think Obama wants to push it through because he wants the American people to believe that he really is able to bring about the change that they elected him on.

12/16/2009 10:17:21 PM

Despite the acknowledged fact that his contribution to the entire debate has been next to nothing.

12/16/2009 10:22:19 PM

well, yea

12/16/2009 10:23:28 PM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/president-obama-federal-government-will-go-bankrupt-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html

Quote :

"“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. “ The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”"

So, Obama says that the federal government will go bankrupt without the healthcare bill, now. I think that's going to happen with or without the bill. How exactly is the bill going to help us avoid having to default on debt that very obviously cannot be paid?

12/17/2009 9:57:04 AM

So how bout some legislation to reign in healthcare costs then? Instead of this worthless shit thats been going on in congress for the last 6 months

12/17/2009 10:11:30 AM

because we arent socialist.

you cant tell an entire industry what they can charge and what they cannot...especially one so diversified as healthcare. how do you think that would effect R & D?

12/17/2009 10:25:17 AM

How much medical R&D worldwide is funded by insurance companies in the US. What percentage of funding are we talking about, and what's the ratio of publicly found cures to privately found ones.

And I suppose we can't include ones simply produced by pharma companies independent of insurance companies, since pharma seems to be getting a better deal out of the current reform package.

12/17/2009 1:49:42 PM

There are a number of ways you can control costs without actually dictating prices with the force of law. One would be to plug up the BILLIONS of dollars in fraud and waste. Medicaid fraud is so mind numbingly simple I'm surprised that anyone bothers with illegal drug sales.

12/17/2009 1:52:44 PM

How would you "fix" medicare without impairing it's ability to function?

(serious question)

12/17/2009 2:06:28 PM

Quote :

"So how bout some legislation to reign in healthcare costs then?"

What exactly do you propose? The profit margin for health care companies hovers somewhere between 1 and 4% on average. This certainly isn't mind-blowing.

Does the federal government just dictate that something is supposed to cost less? I mean, I empathize with those struggling or inable to buy insurance, but you cannot simply just dictate that something will cost less and have it happen. The idea that universal coverage via a central payer system will be more efficient or save on costs is laughable and there would be nothing optional about a public option. It would never be permitted to die, no matter how inefficient it became, and would eventually be able to under-cut other health care programs simply because it has the legal ability to collect revenue under penalty of imprisonment.

So . . . HOW THE FUCK CAN A LEGISLATIVE BODY FULL OF LAWYERS SIMPLY MAKE GOODS AND SERVICES COST LESS WHEN NONE OF THEM, AND FEW AMERICAN VOTERS HAVE THE FOGGIEST FUCKING SENSE OF ECONOMICS?

12/17/2009 2:07:40 PM

Politics of HOPE over FEAR.

12/17/2009 2:10:28 PM

Quote :

"How would you "fix" medicare without impairing it's ability to function? "

Well to start we could bring medicare/caid into the modern age. Medicare is still billed on paper. Every other insurance company does electronic billing, in the mean time there are companies that will bill medicare on paper for you just so that you can submit claims with the same electronic systems you already use. Now to be fair, I think they're finally doing that for medicaid in the next year or so, but that's still an insane amount of time to modernize the system.

We could also stop doing stupid shit like this:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/6640137/

Quote :

"What exactly do you propose? The profit margin for health care companies hovers somewhere between 1 and 4% on average. This certainly isn't mind-blowing. Does the federal government just dictate that something is supposed to cost less?"

Christ, we've been over this at least half a dozen times in this thread. We could start with opening up competition across state lines. We could eliminate the tax break for employer provided health insurance, or conversely offer it to individuals and to companies who provide money ear marked for individual care purchases.

12/17/2009 10:07:05 PM