If Obama Was a Liberal We’d Have a Better Bill
21 December 2009 4:12 pm by Taylor Marsh
cross-posted at Huffington Post
… We’re not changing our health-care system very much at all, in fact. Nothing happens in 2010. Or in 2011. Or in 2012. In 2014, when the bill really begins, the insurance situations of 18 million people change. A full 16 million of those people are uninsured. Aside from the small sliver of people who will pay a surtax on the final few dollars of uncommonly expensive insurance plans, the country simply will not notice this legislation. [...] – Ezra Klein, The amazing disappearing bill
If Harry Reid was a liberal we’d have a better bill.
If Speaker Pelosi was a liberal she wouldn’t have invited religious leaders into the room to craft a compromise that sold women out.
If Democrats today were like liberals of the 1960s, some Christmas gift deadline would matter less than getting legislation that offered choice to people, didn’t hold them hostage to an insurance monopoly, protected women’s rights that have already been enshrined in law, didn’t tax the middle class, or penalize people and enforce by fiat mandatory rules to buy insurance inside a fixed market, wouldn’t strap elderly and sick in a rigged system, all on the altar of getting it done before church bells ring on Christmas Eve.
If the Democratic majority was liberal, all of the above would be unnecessary, because the conference committee would be real instead of some (likely) arbitrary Senate rubber stamp.
If Russ Feingold was a liberal he wouldn’t have waited until now to blame Obama for not backing the public option; but he’d also not have voted against women’s preventative health measures.
If Barbara Boxer was a liberal she would have said no to compromises that offer less to women than are already in the law.
If Tom Harkin was a liberal he wouldn’t be trying to sell the Senate legislation that forces people into health care insurance that doesn’t guarantee quality health care.
If Democrats in Congress were liberals, we’d at least have a front loaded bill that gave people goodies so they’d bond to the legislation.
If the progressive caucus, wherever they are hiding their spines, were liberals instead, maybe they would have drawn a line in the sand on principle instead of praying to the Let’s Go Incremental gods while accepting “progress” in the name of capitulation.
If we had more liberals in Congress, instead of blathering about perfection being the enemy of the good, we’d have heard a rallying cry that mediocre is the enemy of effective. The death knell of solutions at a time when action is required to save this country and its middle class from economic catastrophe at the hands of people who support a corpocracy over our democratic republic.
If we had liberals in the Congress, we wouldn’t be levying a middle class tax for health care most families can’t afford.
…and on that note, liberals wouldn’t lie outright and say we were going to insure another 30 million people, when many of these people will likely have to pay the IRS penalty instead of buying the insurance, because the reason they don’t have insurance in the first place is because THEY CAN’T AFFORD IT.
If we had a liberal in the White House who understood the middle class at all, maybe we wouldn’t be giving the insurance companies a guaranteed new group of customers without any choice at all.
If we had a liberal Congress, they would surely know that once the insurance monopolies have their new Fish Meet Barrel customers there really is no incentive for them to do anything for them.
Honestly, if we had this bunch of legislators in the Senate during the 1960s, I seriously doubt the Voting Rights Act would have passed. They wouldn’t have had the strength to stand up for it.
You can’t shoot for greatness if you won’t use your powers.
You can’t be a senator or representative and do your job for people in the Legislative Branch if you’re more interested in saving the person in the Executive Branch, putting political party over what’s right for We the People.
But if you’re going to insist on a selling out to corporate interests and the insurance monopoly, like what Pres. Obama and the Democrats are doing on health care (just like what happened with big banks), the least you could do is give up the goodies to the people from the get go.
It’s always better to give someone a kiss first.
Dumb and Dumber had nothing on this bunch.
This is precisely the thing I’ve been thinking about — clearly we do not have anything like a “liberal” President or Congress. Dropping the use of “liberal” and replacing it with “progressive” has resulted in more than a semantical change.
Dumb and Dumber had nothing on this bunch because this bunch are the Dumbest of all.
And if these so-called “liberals” were working for the people instead of their corporate masters we’d have a bill that was representative of what the people wanted.
There is no such thing as “We the People” to this bunch. I think a little house cleaning is in order and that’s what scares me. Let’s see, can you say Republican control of Congress in 2010 and then maybe President Sarah Palin in 2012? God, that’s what really scares me!
Truly astounding. Change you can believe in. I guess he meant the change between his campaign promises and his actions. Absolutely astounded at the breadth of what to me is plain treachery.
The point you make Taylor about the fact that people will be paying the IRS penalty because they cannot afford health care in the first place seems totally disregarded by The Democrats. They cannot be so stupid as to not realize that…or can they?
Great post, Taylor. Kind of depressing, isn’t it? What could have been – well that takes courage and risking one’s own self interest for the greater good. Everyone is soooo comfortable on the gravy train. I wonder what the repercussions of this are going to be in a few years.
Hey Clementine, thanks lynnette. Well, the only solace I take is that the Republicans would have been worse. Yep, that’s where we are at this point.
Republicans worse? Yes
But that distinction becomes more narrow every day.
I haven’t read it all – obviously – but I think that we don’t know enough to make some of the negative claims being made. Now let’s work for insurance form – beginning with the antitrust exemption.
The Senate health care bill may not be the most dishonest piece of legislation that has ever been passed (on Christmas Eve no less) but it will rank in the top two. The biggest winner in this depraved game of “lets make a deal” will be the insurance companies. This colossus of a monopoly, the health insurance industry, had another record day on Wall Street. Aetna’s stock rose $1.53 per share or 5%, Humana $1.51 or 5%, Medco Health Solutions $1.07 or 2%, Unitedhealth Group $.63 or 2%, and Wellpoint, Inc $1.70 or 4%. For any stock to increase between 2% and 5% in a single day is considered a rarity on Wall Street. Yet the stock of almost every major company in the health insurance industry did just that today. Why? Because Obama and the Democrats will have given the the health insurance companies billions in new (taxpayer funded) profits while failing to protect “we the people” when the Senate health care bill is passed. Peace
Maybe these links will help you djjl:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/top-10-reasons-to-kill-th_b_399245.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-senate-health-care-bi_b_400006.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecile-richards/women-on-the-verge_b_399895.html
djjl, the antitrust language was stripped out of both the House and Senate bills. When do you suppose they’ll work on that, the 12th of never? Kill the Bill. And any Bill who supports it. (Just kidding Mr. Clinton.) Peace
…and if we lived in an alternate universe where the left actually attempted to organize together instead of bitching and moaning about the vocalness of the Teabaggers at town-halls or actual Teabagger numbers at the 9/12 rally, maybe we’d have a leg to stand on. An example might be: Over at the DailyKos there are a couple (at least) HCR diarists who are employed by FDL to post there…WTF? Why isn’t every lefty Netroots blog worth it’s salt unified behind ONE MESSAGE whether it be UHC or super-robust public option or whatever? Where the hell were our rallies? Where the hell were the Activists with ads blazing across the screens? Where was our Grassroots message?
Blaming the WH exclusively (like Feingold) is a cop-out. Enough of the halo polishing already, enough of the pity-party woe-is-me teeth gnashing. Either get out and organize to create the change you want or sit back and watch the GOP show you how it’s done. It sure is amazingly effective, no?
~I apologize for being rude, but when I am starting to hear Progressives say that maybe there is more in common with the teabaggers than we thought and then begin to hint at a possible ‘temporary alliance’–sigh. Anyways, maybe we could all use a nice Christmas break, It’s been one hell of a year.
Merry Christmas to all
P.S. – Some ’strong’ Christmas drink recipes might be in order
Just curious – do we know what has happened to the health insurance company stock in the last months – were they rising or were they declining. How does what they were previously doing in the market comport to their stock market increases of today?
I’m for single payer, but as long as we’re fighting in this system, I intend to fight with honest information. So, I’ve got company and don’t have a lot of time – but my initial perusal indicated a drop in insurance stocks for some bit of time. As I said, I truly don’t know the answer to my question, – my guess is they sort of tanked a bit before gaining.
I absolutely HATE the insurance companies which I see no better than LV Gamblers. I just want to argue on the accurate elements. I don’t want to look a fool like Palin, etc – althoug they apparently don’t care.
Imhotep
As you clearly should know – I don’t like how this has been run. My understanding is there is time to go and a LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE by people like us – who don’t have the power and control. But we can keep shin kick’in when appropriate.
I think Obama mentioned us during his campaign – oh well, that was then and this is now.
Sandman… I share some of your frustration. I think Maddow and Olberman have wasted valuable air time talking trash to their demographic about teabaggers etc. Olberman did some good work organizing the health fairs but he spent just as much time acting foolish.
I think your average run of the mill activist has been going through a procees of doing what they always do and contacting their Reps and writing letters and talking,talking policy. At the same time they have been going through a process of disbelief at the chicanery of the White House.Speaking for myself I sort wound down not knowing what I was fighting for anymore.I became cynical about the effectiveness of anything I did. The fix appeared to be in and all the forces out there seemed to be in control.
We will all recoup and get back at it but it is hard right now to see a direction.Obama’s brand of bait and switch has done alot of damage to the base hard to know how that will turn out.
It seems that when talk of removing the antimonopoly protection from Insurance Cos and as each thing that would actually been helpful was stripped from the bill Insurance stocks went up.
Who’s a thunk it.
Really, anyone who is surprised at THIS point in the preformance of President Obama is off in lala land. He was portrayed quite accurately in the Primary but he played the game better and won. Now we must live with the consiquences.
CONGRESS earns my total disrespect.
I think Barney Frank said this…”It is getting to be that the only good thing you can say about our party is that it sucks less than the other party.”
djjl says:
21 December 2009 at 8:07 pm
Regarding the rise in insurance company stock prices – one explanation for their rise in price is that this legislation creates much less uncertainty for them, which is very important for investors.
AliceP
I am not in disagreement in general. I just want to fight that I fight with the accurate information. Not misleading, not lying, accurate and truthful. Not like a Republican generally.
My point Alice P was that there was a lag
Wow, this is brilliant.
The failure to pass a more liberal bills is DIRECTLY caused by the fact that there aren’t more liberals in Congress!!!!!! It might actually be linked to the fact that the President isn’t much of a liberal!!!! I can’t see why you haven’t hit the big time, like Cokie Roberts!
The Voting Rights Act was passed as a bi-partisan effort, btw, with the Republicans voting for it in greater numbers than the Democrats. The comparison is ludicrous.
Sandmann says:
21 December 2009 at 7:58 pm
You make some good points. I don’t know, Dems have never been able to unite and organize and stay on message quite like the Repubs. On the other hand, is it not asking so much for the Congress and President to do what the public wants and voted for last Fall? I guess I know the answer to that – the corporate interests (money) speak louder. So how is this democracy exactly?
P.S. Know any good strong drink recipes?
Lake Lady says:
21 December 2009 at 8:20 pm
After the final bill pans out one way or the other, we will have a very good idea of what we should be focused on…hopefully our slog through the school of hard-knocks will pay dividends.
Regardless, I cannot back killing the bill. No way.
secularhumanizinevoluter says:
21 December 2009 at 8:21 pm
Yeah, after years of rubber-stamping everything for ‘The Decider’, Congress has gotten lazy and forgotten how to do their jobs. Maybe this Healthcare bill was just what was needed to remind them (silver lining and all).
lynnette says:
21 December 2009 at 9:29 pm
OT: Here’s one of my personal favs, It’s a classic:
http://tinyurl.com/yk89o93
Tom & Jerry
Things You’ll Need:
* Punchbowl
* Mugs, 6 ounce
* 6 lbs. sugar (modern recipes call for 1 to 2 pounds)
* 12 eggs
* 2 ounces of Jamaican rum (Dark)
* 1 1/2 teaspoon of ground cinnamon
* 1/2 teaspoon of cloves
* 1/2 teaspoon of allspice
* 1 tbsp. brandy
* Boiling water or hot milk
* Grated nutmeg
#1
Beat the egg whites until they are stiff.
#2
Beat the egg yolks until they are thin and watery and pour them into the punchbowl.
#3
Add the egg whites to the yolks in the punchbowl and mix them together.
#4
Mix in the rum, cinnamon, cloves and allspice.
#5
Add the sugar until the mixture is thick and has the consistency of a thin batter.
#6
Serve by warming a 6 ounce mug, adding one tablespoon of the batter, one tablespoon of brandy and filling the rest of the mug with either boiling water or hot milk. Add grated nutmeg to the top. (I suggest milk).
You can google ‘Tom & Jerry Christmas drink’ for variations and portions, but this drink is all about Christmas…delicious.
Let’s form a Liberal party.
http://www.democratz.org
http://bit.ly/public_option
I say pass it quick. You may be right that this president and this congress couldn’t have passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but I can’t think of a more progressive bill signed into law since then.
If your memory reaches back that far, then you know you that the 60s civil rights laws only protected women half-assed and gays not at all.
The Health Care is the first loud restatement of FDR’s assertion that civil rights are also economic rights, and I find it hard to believe that you’d be so loud in your disapproval if you had either diabetes or a $30,000-a-year job.
Have you ever been sick without insurance at all? And no way to get it?
As Sandman says, it’s very tempting to stay on the web virtually full-time. It’s wet and cold out there where the unregistered voters are.
The congress members like campaign contributions but they like votes more, and they are just about as liberal as their constituents.
Taylor, you’ve got a great blog and I’m with you more than 90% of the time. But I think you need to take a deep breath and a step back. This bill, granted, is a slap in the face to women, labor, and some of the hardest working people in the grass roots.
But it’s not a knife in the back or a kick in the nads, which is what I’ve grown used to since I cast my first vote in 1968.
I know you don’t like the bill for all the reasons you’ve stated. But the GOP likes it even less. They got crushed here, and that’s the way it should be.
I say pass the bill too. I share most of Taylor’s concern with the current draft and much of her anger over the process. I also understand why Dean is using that line of attack, he is effectively putting pressure on Reid and the WH and actually getting some improvements to the bill, but just like Bill Clinton I think it will be a terrible blunder to kill the bill. The following articles from the “pass the bill” camp bring some perspective to the debate.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-reform-means-families-reponse-firedoglake-others
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1db42944-ed8e-11de-ba12-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
Quote from Clive Crook at the FT
“Be that as it may, the healthcare bill in its current form is a mess – and an unpopular mess to boot. Popular fears that the bill will drive up insurance premiums and add to public borrowing are probably justified. The measure is timid about changing incentives to promote efficiency: it proposes lots of experiments, but little compulsion.
Adverse selection is likely to be a bigger problem than the reformers say: new rules would stop insurance companies denying coverage to the sick, and the quid pro quo of mandatory insurance may be insufficient to offset this. If the insurers’ risk pools deteriorate, premiums will rise. Deep cuts in Medicare, the public insurance programme for the elderly, are needed to balance the books, but are unlikely to materialise in full. Higher taxes as well as higher premiums are the likely result of this reform.
Would it therefore be better to abandon the effort altogether and start again? One can think of simpler, better blueprints, but the politics that led the country here would still be the same – and so would the economic constraints. It is delusional to suppose that you can significantly widen access to healthcare at no net public cost. You cannot both transform a system and leave its basic structure unaltered. Trying to squirm around these unavoidable realities has brought the effort to its current pass. Why expect things to be different next time?
In the end, I think, everything depends on the weight one attaches to achieving security of coverage as quickly as possible. In my view, this is the overriding consideration. Abandoning the effort now might postpone that goal for another decade or more. The country should regard this as unacceptable. Once the reform is law, though, the real work begins. Getting a grip on costs will be even more urgent than it is already – especially when you recall the broader fiscal calamity that awaits the country during the next decade.
The honest case for reform along the lines of the Senate bill is not that it fixes US healthcare; still less that, as the White House blithely maintains, it alleviates the country’s fiscal distress. The truth is, it will create more problems than it solves. But the one big thing it gets right – the assurance of affordable health insurance for all Americans – is of surpassing importance.
Enacting this reform is not the end of the healthcare argument, but the beginning. If it does pass, it may well be looked back on as a mistake once its financial implications sink in. Yet the principle of universal coverage will have been accepted, and with luck there will be no going back. The price will be high, but is worth it.”
And a comment to the FT article that I found quite helpful
Quote
“Partisans are mixing their messages and that is to be expected. It would be nice if analysis focused on the whether the biggest costs in healthcare are moving toward being fixed or at least less broken.
Cost 1: People who are uninsured using the ER.
Cost 2: Insurance companies using premium dollars for things no related to paying healthcare claims.
While fraud and litigation are also costs, the two issues above account for about half of healthcare costs in the U.S. It appears to me, with a cursory reading of what is so far available that the focus of the plan does in fact reduce ER usage and limit insurance companies using premium dollars for things (advertising and excess compensation) other that paying for care. That should in and of itself lower healthcare spending in America.
Also not all dems in congress fit into the “dumb and dumber”, and for many of the progressive reps, their more or less reluctant support for the current draft is a careful balance that brought them to the conclusion that the bill is worth passing. I think that they are also freaked out by the realization that if democrats don’t get their messaging together pretty soon, GOP can use the current bill to make a killing in 2010.
So my hope is that final version gets rid of the most ridiculous aspects of the senate bill for example reinstating the anti-trust provisions to start with. Also I am really appalled by the Republican party’s cynicism. They stood for nothing in the debate on health care except for obstruction and did not propose anything. If they considered that the bill is bad (and it is not great) what was their alternative, the status quo? I think that should be a counter-attack for dems – where were you and what did you bring to the debate?
In all this mess though, Obama is the big loser. I agree with those who consider that the senate bill is actually the one he wanted all along. I can’t remember when Taylor but you had a post on his approach to “health insurance” reform and incrementalism as his favored approach. With hindsight I think that it was spot on. It looks like he looked at the mess that is health care and decided that the best way was a step by step approach, starting with health insurance.
He was not going to push for the public option, probably because of the cost. He may well have been right about the process and even more right about the huge cost of the public option, especially at a time of ballooning public deficit (an aspect often overlooked by progressives). If that was the case he should have come out at the beginning of the process and said so unambiguously “I am not going to fight for a public option at this stage”, and defended his position. It would have pissed off a lot of people, but it would have been a clear and courageous stand, allowing him to focus his energy on actually reforming the way the health industry functions which would have been a significant gain by itself.
Instead he allowed the process to fall into chaos, misleading progressives on his intentions, putting himself in a position where he is defending one thing in his speeches and pushing for another in private meetings and needlessly creating a PR mess for himself. He really has to stop trying to have it both ways, and seeking a mythical compromised middle ground on all possible issues. I am nowhere near the disillusion and anger towards him that many of you feel, mostly because I think that his intention is not to screw us, but there are many ways in which we could end up screwed, and lack of leadership in these difficult times is clearly one of them. I hope he will change the way he approaches difficult issues because looking like an ineffectual leader to his supporters cannot be a good thing for him heading to 2012.
Sandmann says:
21 December 2009 at 7:58 pm
Movement progressives helped put Obama and the Democratic majority in power, Sandman. If you’re talking about organizing, I think you’re being willfully blind not to acknowledge what they did and continue to do.
No one is blaming just Feingold either. It’s the entire Democratic majority.
When we elect people who say they’ll not only support but work for a public option we expect them to do just that. If they don’t, people like me, write what they’re not doing.
It’s Obama & the Democratic majority who have decided they need 60 votes, not us. Organizing includes writing and pressuring them, which most people around here are doing, if my emails are to be believed (they are).
So, I don’t know what you’re bellyaching about.
Also, I never said “kill the bill” in this post, because I’ve always thought Congress would pass a bill.
Kanzeon says:
21 December 2009 at 9:06 pm
I know all about the Voting Rights Act and how it was passed. Sen. Robert Byrd talked for over 14 hours against the bill. Did anyone in the Senate majority stand that long for the public option, or Medicare buy-in, or any number of other alternatives, including a trigger, which I hate but is a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got now? It wouldn’t have passed without Johnson railing for it. I honestly didn’t think I’d have to actually post this, but…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.
The Voting Rights Act is one line amidst a litany. It’s about the tenacity to do what’s needed, go all the way to do what’s right, which neither Obama nor the Democratic majority have done. Obama’s leadership has been appallingly absent.
This bill, granted, is a slap in the face to women, labor, and some of the hardest working people in the grass roots.
This statement is just stunning. Oh, but give up the fight! Don’t worry about trying to push Democrats to do something better in conference! Give in! (Please note: Even though the whole negotiation was absurd to do in the first place, I came out in support of what Boxer did with the Senate bill on abortion. That’s not my main complaint with the Senate bill, which is better than the House at least, though we’ll see if this was just smoke & mirrors in conference.)
Folks, passing the Senate bill, even with many believing this is the end of the discussion because they’re going to ram it through Congress, isn’t the end yet. Some of you seem to want to just give in and let Dems off the hook now. Shame on you. You either don’t get it and are confused that we still have to fight and put pressure on Dems to do something in conference, though again, it may be a foregone conclusion that Pelosi is going to rubber stamp the Senate bill, but as a political analyst, I’m telling you that people who care about making this better, if only in increments, should keep putting pressure on Dems. If Dean hadn’t stood up we wouldn’t have gotten the yearly caps removed. If the pressure hadn’t been horrific, we wouldn’t have the White House saying they’re going to try to do something about drug importation (we’ll see if that’s just another promise).
Steve High says:
22 December 2009 at 12:20 am
Oh, puh-leaze. The Republicans like it less, so don’t keep pushing to make it better? What rubbish. As I’ve already said, the only thing good about this bill is that at least Dems aren’t acting like Republicans. That doesn’t excuse them from not using their power to get a really good bill that won’t come back to bite us.
I never doubted that the Senate would pass this bill. But pressure should continue so conference isn’t just kabuki.
Finally, I have no intention of writing in support of legislation that forces the middle class into a situation where they have no choices, get a tax hike, plus no benefits for years, while handing people over to a monopoly system that gives them insurance but still is short on health *care*. That many people won’t be able to afford what’s being forced on them is stunning, even as I am fully aware that a Dem failure to pass healthcare would be humiliating, which is why we’re getting this disaster in the end. Coupled with the fact that Obama and the Dem majority don’t have the spine of Republicans, who would pass the *exact* bill they wanted using Reconciliation if they had to. As Harkin said on Ed’s show recently, they have over 51 voted for the public option. However, Obama & Dems don’t have the spine for that action. That says it all.
UPDATED: Oh, and by the way, NONE of this and none of you can defend the sheer idiocy of not front loading the goodies from the get go, instead of waiting years out. Do we not need some serious help for 2010 or not? Not to do so may be the worst part of this “leadership” fiasco.
This post has been updated.
Postscript to the above post.
I haven’t posted on Hamsher’s “kill the bill” 10, because I’m not saying “kill the bill.” I’m just saying the current bill SUCKS. Period.
Ezra Klein has responded:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_kil.html
So has Jonathan Kohn:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-reform-means-families-reponse-firedoglake-others
The rest is up to you to decide.
There will be no conference. The House will pass the Senate bill because that is the only sure way to get it passed before the State of the Union.
The purpose of this bill is clear. It will completely blow up and sweep away the current system of private insurance within 3 years. Premium increases will be so massive, so many employers will drop coverage, and the mandates so unpopular, that the Demoncrats will be able to run in 2012 on a platform of “completing the job of health reform”. They will propose an outright conversion to either a Canadian or a British style socialized system. And they could very well be successful on this in 2012 even if they get hammered in the 2010 midterms.
And Obama never was a “liberal”. He is and always was a RADICAL. Saul Alinsky’s book is not rules for liberals. It is titled “Rules For Radicals”. There is a difference.
I’m with Taylor on this. This bill is without a doubt the worst piece of legislation written. If you want to throw good money after bad, then accept it. As for me it’s a piece of garbage and just hands the insurance companies more power than you can imagine. Try to change it once it’s past, even incrementally. It will be near impossible because the insurance companies will be donating to all the politicians “war chests.” Sorry folks, this is not what I expected from the Congress and as far as Obama is concerned, there is more disappointment than I know what to do with. He’s so far removed from what the Democratic Party has represented in years past that I am beginning to doubt he’s a Democrat. I was around when they passed Medicare and I worked for its passage. I was a young whipper snapper at the time but they came up with a good strong bill that has proven its worth over time. As a senior citizen I see its passage as not only beneficial to me but to the rest of the country because it has helped many people who could not have afforded decent or even any medical coverage in their senior years. Unfortunately, with the health care reform, I don’t see the same type of future.
andrewp111 says:
22 December 2009 at 9:10 am
I have to disagree with you on your statement. At this point in time I don’t know what Obama is or stands for. Please tell me one thing that he has done in the past that is radical except give pretty speeches. Give me one example where he has bucked the status quo and fought for what he believes in. I’m a radical and I’ve fought as a radical.
Hi Taylor –
Congrats – You made best of the blogs again on Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=noad
Taylor touched on an aspect of this lousy piece of legislation, that we should explore in a bit more depth. The CBO claims (and the Democrats cheered) that if this bill is passed it would reduce the debt by $132 billion over the next 10 yaers. True enough. But…..but, we will all begin to pay for the benifits that this bill provides an January 1, 2010 and not receive any of those benifits until January 1, 2014. Now, I don’t know about any of you, but if I’m going to begin paying for a car that I can’t drive for another 4 years I’m not going to be a happy camper. In addition isn’t it quite easy to erase an existing debt with money that is being collected (2010 through 2013) and not spent on anything except that debt? This entire health care bill is a Ponzi Scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud. Kill the Bill. Peace
The House bill is bad, the Senate bill is horrendous, and because “60 votes” has become a favorite “why we can’t do more” excuse, the Senate bill will prevail.
I’d say “kill the bill as it currently exists,” keep working to push the non-liberal-but-sometimes-sort-of-progressives to do better. That would definitely mean removing the very hard and yet another slap in the face to women, and given the blatant and unapologetic sell-out this is, I’d say is quite as bad as a kick in the nads.
What can we do but keep pushing now, and continue after it’s passed? That can and probably must be done from both within and without the Democratic Party. But there is no doubt, in 2010 and 2012, Obama and Dem majority own this fiasco. If they can spin that to “now trust us to finish the job,” then maybe I’ll give up political activism after all these years.
Jane, your comments regarding Medicare fit my experience, and I think it very likely that you are correct in saying you “don’t see the same type of future” with this “health care reform.”
If Obama was as liberal as the mainstream press made him out to be…If Obama could lead as much as he could inspire…The kicker is, he just doesn’t seem to care. If he’s not running a town hall meeting, or out shaking hands and charming plant workers, he seems bored. There is never and has never been any follow-up from this man. When he said he helped workers who lost their job on the southside of Chicago when steel plants closed down — there was never one worker who stepped forward to tell the story of how Obama helped him. He lives his life in some egomaniacal narrative. From all the golf to the magazine covers, the Conservatives I work for see him as a man who loves himself and his image more than the people. I tend to agree. I’m just fed up with the him, Pelosi, Axelrod, Reid, Emanuel and the like. I’m done.
Hell, if Obama was a real Democrat…………………
BC30 says:
22 December 2009 at 10:43 am
This is what I’m hearing from just about everyone. Thanks for chiming in.
Thanks to all the emails, too. But also consider de-lurking to post comments.
BC30
I agree.
Take a peak at this animated cartoon of Tom Coburn’s “prayer.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/anntelnaes/?hpid=opinionsbox1
Ann Telnaes ROCKS.
Taylor Marsh says:
22 December 2009 at 8:27 am
——————–
Yeah, I know what the Progressive movement did to help elect Obama and others, it was phenomenal and pretty damn inspiring (I’m here aren’t I?)
— I’m talking about once the elected were in position and the Healthcare debate was revving up, well what happened then? I may not live and breathe politics like some, but it was ridiculously obvious there was no serious grassroots organization or cohesion (maybe that’s the S.O.P. for the Democratic Party) you tell me.
What I’m hoping to see is less ‘if only XYZ woulda-coulda-shoulda’ attitudes, and more ‘What should we make Obama do’. I’m bellyaching because I’m listening to wingnut talk radio, and I’m hearing grand plans from organizing activists across the state, to countrywide rallies, and even deadly serious calls to abolish the government…and while they’re working furiously to halt the left by hook or crook, we’re sitting about like a gang of Eeyore’s tut-tutting over who was the first to realize Obama was never a Progressive…really?
Bottom line as I see it, if the left doesn’t get it’s act together pronto, organize, and then fight like hell…well, I’m sure you’re way more savvy than me on that matter, so what do you think?
P.S. – I was stating my position on the bill killing, not accusing you of saying it.
Sandmann says:
22 December 2009 at 2:20 pm
_______________
I don’t believe that the HCR bill is as bad as progressives make it out to be. But, having said that, I agree 100% with your prescription: if you think that the bill is that bad (or worse), then IMHO yours is the attitude to have.
On a side note, it’s quite interesting watching the “leftbaggers” (oh, how I wish I could take credit for that term!) careen from talking point to talking point. A few months ago, they griped that a mandate was unconstitutional so long as private insurance was involved. It fell to others to explain — ever so gently — that the constitutional infirmity or otherwise of a mandate does not depend on what you are mandated to buy. If a mandate is unconstitutional, it matters not one whit whether it is private insurance or a public option providing the mandated product. Oops, and that was the end of that argument.
The current libertarian fascination suffers from a similar infirmity. If we all are all pseudo-Ayn Rands now, and object to being mandated to buy something we don’t want, our objections to the bill shouldn’t stop there. Rather, we should all be indignant that the bill mandates that insurers cease to decline coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Any libertarian worth his or her salt would argue that the government has no business telling the insurers what to cover: if others will not, the libertarian would go, that just provides a market opportunity for the intrepid insurer willing to provide coverage irrespective of market conditions.
I’ve perused all the faux-libertarian commentary I can find to see if this argument is made anywhere. Alas, it is not — the constitutional and philosophical reasoning is extremely selective in its application. To wit: a mandate is unconstitutional, but not if the mandate is to buy a government-provided insurance plan. Then it’s okay. Or this: a mandate is an affront to classic American libertarian values, but not if the mandate forces insurers to abandon claims practices that progressives object to. Then it’s okay.
I suspect the libertarian argument will suffer the same fate as the constitutional one. Once they understand that the logical extension of their argument is to strike down the pre-existing conditions section of the bill, the newly-minted Reason Magazine afficionados will slink away in abject disgrace.
Happy Holidays!!
I understand the rage, and I feel most of it myself. But a slap in face is not a punch in the jaw, and you have to be able to take both of them repeatedly to survive in the idealism business.
Grassroots organizing wasn’t invented in 2008. But it has to reach people who have not gone to college, who read with difficulty, and who cannot write a complete sentence without extreme effort. It has to reach people who don’t own computers or know how to use the ones they do have access to.
It means getting out in the snow and wet where the unregistered voters are.
And it means learning and internalizing the Barack Obama mantra: it’s never easy.
ogenec says:
22 December 2009 at 3:04 pm
Oggnogg! OG, my brother from another mother.
Good to see you man. I agree with you in general on the HCR bill. IMO, As flawed as it is, it’s the end of the beginning, the first step on the last leg of the race. Not a very popular sentiment around Progressive circles at the moment, but whatever, we all have our opinions.
I’m gonna get back to reading my leather bound copy of Atlas Shrugged now, so Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year to you and yours.