Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Robert Kuttner: A Wake Up Call (how HCR became a poison pill for Democrats)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:50 PM
Original message
Robert Kuttner: A Wake Up Call (how HCR became a poison pill for Democrats)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/a-wake-up-...

Robert Kuttner
Posted: January 17, 2010 11:09 PM

A Wake Up Call


How could the health care issue have turned from a reform that was going to make Barack Obama ten feet tall into a poison pill for Democratic senators? Whether or not Martha Coakley squeaks through in Massachusetts on Tuesday, the health bill has already done incalculable political damage and will likely do more. Polls show that the public now opposes it by margins averaging ten to fifteen points, and widening. It is hard to know which will be the worse political defeat -- losing the bill and looking weak, or passing it and leaving it as a piata for Republicans to attack between now and November.

The measure is so unpopular that Republican State Senator Scott Brown has built his entire surge against Coakley around his promise to be the 41st senator to block the bill -- this in Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts. He must be pretty confident that the bill has become politically radioactive, and he's right.

It has already brought down Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, a fighter for health care and other reforms far more progressive than President Obama's. Dorgan championed Americans' right to re-import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, a popular provision that the White House blocked. Dorgan, who is one of the Senate's great populists, began the year more than twenty points ahead in the polls of his most likely challenger, North Dakota Governor John Hoeven. By the time he decided to call it a day, Dorgan was running more than twenty points behind. The difference was the health bill, which North Dakotans oppose by nearly two to one. The fact that Dorgan's own views were much better than the Administration's cut little ice. He was fatally associated with an unpopular bill.

So, how did Democrats get saddled with this bill? Begin with Rahm Emanuel. The White House chief of staff, who was once Bill Clinton's political director, drew three lessons from the defeat of Clinton-care. All three were wrong. First, get it done early (Clinton's task force had dithered.) Second, leave the details to Congress (Clinton had presented Congress with a fully-baked cake.) Third, don't get on the wrong side of the insurance and drug industries (The insurers' fictitious couple, Harry and Louise, had cleaned Clinton's clock.)

But as I wrote in Obama's Challenge, in August 2008, it would be a huge mistake to try to get health care done right out of the box. Obama first needed to get his sea-legs, and focus like a laser on economic recovery. If he got the economy back on track, he would then have earned the chops to undertake more difficult structural reforms like health care.

Deferring to the House and Senate was fine up to a point, but this was an issue where the president needed to lead as only presidents can -- in order to frame the debate and define the stakes.

Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people.

As policy, the interest-group strategy made it impossible to put on the table more fundamental and popular reforms, such as using Federal bargaining power to negotiate cheaper drug prices, or having a true public option like Medicare-for-all. Instead, a bill that served the drug and insurance industries was almost guaranteed to have unpopular core elements.

The politics got horribly muddled. By embracing a deal that required the government to come up with a trillion dollars of subsidy for the insurance industry, Obama was forced to pursue policies that were justifiably unpopular -- such as taxing premiums of people with decent insurance; or compelling people to buy policies that they often couldn't afford, or diverting money from Medicare. He managed to scare silly the single most satisfied clientele of our one island of efficient single-payer health insurance -- senior citizens -- and to alienate one of his most loyal constituencies, trade unionists.

The bill helped about two-thirds of America's uninsured, but did almost nothing for the 85 percent of Americans with insurance that is becoming more costly and unreliable by the day -- except frighten them into believing that what little they have is at increased risk of being taken away.

All of this made things easier for the right, and left people to take seriously even preposterous allegations such as the nonsense about death panels. It got so ass-backwards that the other day Ben Nelson, who successfully held out for anti-abortion language and a sweetheart deal for Nebraska's Medicaid as the price of his vote, found himself facing a wholesale voter backlash.

Nelson began running TV spots assuring Nebraska voters that the Obama health plan is "not run by the government." That's one hell of a slogan for a party that relies on democratically elected government to offset the insecurity, inequality and insanity generated by private commercial forces. If not-run-by-government is the Democrats' credo, why bother?

So we went from a politics in which government is necessary to provide secure health insurance -- because the private insurance industry skims off outrageous middlemen fees and discriminates against sick people -- to a politics in which Democrats, as a matter of survival, feel they have to apologize for government. Thank you, Rahm Emanuel.

The budget-obsessives around Obama also insisted that most of the bill not take effect until 2013, so that all of the scary stuff gets three years to fester before most people see any benefit. Call it political malpractice.

Finally, the health insurance battle sucked out all the oxygen. When Obama made time to work the phones personally, it wasn't to enact serious financial reform (this was left to the tender mercies of Tim Geithner) or to fight for a real jobs program (deficit hawks Peter Orszag and Larry Summers got to blunt that one). No -- Obama got on the phone and met with legislators to round up the last vote or two for a sketchy health reform that crowded out far more urgent issues.

-snip-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. K & R & Fin A.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
What a great choice. :eyes: x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Excellent
K n R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I agree - it's the best concise analysis I've seen of the HCR fiasco yet, and it's damning.
HCR could hardly have been handled worse.

"Political malpractice" - exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grand Taurean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Dealing with the banks was more important
than healthcare.
If the economy does not show improvement by mid 2012, Obama will lose re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
101. You call what they did, dealing with the banks? Or was it protecting the too big to fail?
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 05:29 PM by Mithreal
And your argument resonates with the idea that government can only focus on one thing at a time.

edit for clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is so ridiculous
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 11:21 PM by ProSense
The measure is so unpopular that Republican State Senator Scott Brown has built his entire surge against Coakley around his promise to be the 41st senator to block the bill -- this in Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts. He must be pretty confident that the bill has become politically radioactive, and he's right.

Every Republican is against health care reform.

And what does Brown have to do with Dorgan?

Ludicrous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. There are none so blind
as they that will not see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Nothing like BS in someone's eye to blind them
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 11:33 PM by ProSense
It has already brought down Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, a fighter for health care and other reforms far more progressive than President Obama's.


Dorgan supported the Nelson Amendment, and what does this have to do with Brown?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
104. You can lead a pig to the jewelry store but can't force em to wear the pearls
something like that anyway

I agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Who said Brown had anything to do with Dorgan?
Further, of course every Republican is against health care reform. The fact that such a position is selling, and in Massachusetts no less, illustrates how badly Dems have screwed this up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. "The fact that such a position is selling, and in Massachusetts no less"
Do you have proof of this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
57. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
122. It will come by this time tomorrow night
I hope I'm wrong, but at this point, I don't think so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
82. Really?
It doesn't occur to you that two separate events can follow from a single act?

Dorgan retiring is due to the botched HCR.
Brown is doing well because the base is so demoralized after HCR.

The two have nothing to do with each other, and you are the only one claiming they are related.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #82
105. Strange it is. At least we are getting insights into people's intellectual capabilities.
A whole lot of folks are acting clueless about what is happening. It has infected the WH as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
107. Notice she didn't address
her use of subverting the point of the thread. Then promptly did it again. Typical. If this is the best they can do to refute progressives, no wonder we have a problem in MA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
43. Hey Rip, did you just fucking wake up? Where the fuck you been..........
..........for the past year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
62. What is "Dorgan"?
Seems the "HCR" bill is pretty radioactive, imho..
I doubt we will lose in MA, but that has been the story.
Why?
every GOP is against HCR.
most dems want HCR.
what we got ain't much..
no wonder we have our backs to the wall..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #62
106. Most average people both Dems and R's wanted REAL health care reform
just not this hcr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
103. I have rarely seen an argument as weak as the one you throw up
in your first statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
123. Only you dear, only you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R thanks for posting! only 1 minor quibble:
Kuttner wrote that,"Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people...."

with this kind of campaign financing, the die may have been cast before the reform process even got started: health insurers' interests were paramount:


Health Sector Totals to Candidates
Display: Select a Sector Agribusiness Communications/Electronics Construction Defense Energy/Natural Resources Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Health Lawyers & Lobbyists Transportation Misc Business Labor Ideology/Single-Issue Other

Total to these candidates: $41,912,484 (Dems 66.7% and Repubs 33.1%)

Health
Obama, Barack $19,462,986
McCain, John $7,389,547
Clinton, Hillary $6,397,849
Romney, Mitt $2,283,350
Giuliani, Rudy $2,075,197
Paul, Ron $828,483
Richardson, Bill $778,170
Edwards, John $587,941
Thompson, Fred $537,429
Huckabee, Mike $491,202
Dodd, Chris $339,850
Biden, Joe $283,880
Brownback, Sam $108,580
Thompson, Tommy $67,811
Nader, Ralph $62,251
Kucinich, Dennis $54,357
Vilsack, Tom $32,800
Tancredo, Tom $31,600
Hunter, Duncan $27,930
Barr, Bob $22,550
Gilmore, Jim $15,600
Gravel, Mike $11,721
Keyes, Alan $11,600
Baldwin, Chuck $6,050
McKinney, Cynthia

opensecrets.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
59. very interesting...
and K&R for the thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
108. Absolutely. Excellent post.
Strangely that is not on the incumbents' agendas, or is it and I am unaware?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julian09 Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
137. Reason dems got more money
They have 30% percent more senate members and big majority in house.
They are all equally bought, dem and repugs. The senate is easier to buy with fewer members, count the conservadems as repug light, and subject to political bribes {Ben Nelson, Landrau} AND outright bribe contrabutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. So, I hit the REC button and the tally jumps from 13 RECS to 16 RECS.
I LOVE my newfound powers of RECCING!!!

This flat out sums it up perfectly.

Democrats apologizing for government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. this^^^^^^.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
13. Bravo!!!Bravo!!! Bravo!!!
Magnificent analysis.

Makes me sad, but it is important that people read
and intellectualize this completely.

One serious mistake, Obama has only Conservative Democratic
Advisors. He needs a few reasonable Liberals so that he
stays anchored.

Pragmatism is okay. It is only effective if the person
has his own inner compass which makes him have a line
over which he will not step. Does Rahm have this or
is it --put any old bill together??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. it's the "no health insurer left behind" bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. His choice of advisers was what first made me think, "Oh no, we've been had."
Not one measly left-wing adviser or Cabinet member. Not one.

When he was elected, he was a cipher, since his campaign had been made up entirely of vague promises, but I was 50/50 hoping for some real progress.

But when I saw his advisers and Cabinet, I knew we were in for a lot of disappointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Hiring Zeke Emanuel to advise on HCR was the giveaway on this particular issue.
But all the important issues have their red flag advisors and appointees. That they would come out of the gates so very DLC and then expect to be loved by the people for it is truly bizarre.

Must be a beltway-blindness thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #21
131. I think they underestimated the intelligence of the electorate
A safe bet for Republicans but a little riskier on this side of the aisle. I wouldn't bet one Republican voter in 1000 would understand health care policy unless they are lobbying for the industry. Hell, most of them think this bill is a government takeover of health care. Democrats, on the other hand, include a significant population of nurses, doctors, social workers, and other health care professionals as well as a slew of policy wonks. And, oh yeah, a lot of IQ's above room temperature. I just think the beltway has pandered to the uninformed for so long they thought we wouldn't notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
73. !!!"Not one measly left-wing adviser or Cabinet member. Not one."

The DLC New Team
Chamber of Commerce Approved!
Working Class Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

Who could have predicted that letting Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snow write the Health Care "Reform" Bill would have pissed off so many Democrats? :shrug:

NOTE:
The White House and the Democratic Party Leadership could have CRUSHED Lieberman any time they wanted to....IF they had wanted to.
Anyone who clings to the belief that this failure is Joe "(former Chairman of the DLC)" Lieberman's fault is naive beyond belief.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #73
133. "If they had wanted to..."
Nobody wants to hear it but I know Russ Feingold did not pull that out of thin air and he's never given me any reason to doubt his honesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
97. When he started picking his economic advisors before the election was the tip-off.
Rubin, Summers, Goolsby, Geithner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
46. He CHOSE these advisers. This is HIS AGENDA. He said on healthcare, he got 95% of what he wanted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #46
117. Yep, he did. And those of us who remember real statesmanship
On important policies will not forget how sold out this man was on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
110. Emmanuel's-- and, I think, Obama's-- agendas are political, not practical.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 05:53 PM by Marr
They want to secure more corporate money for the party and more firm control of the party for their little DLC faction. How they do the country's business is really limited by that larger concern. So healthcare reform becomes a handout to industries that funnel them cash.

I agree, Obama would be better if he dumped all these DLC, corporate-whore advisers. But why would he? He's one himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
130. Well, Rahm's compass is not 'put any old bill together.' It is put only a bill the insurance and
pharmaceutical industries will love together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. So Now We're Going to Lose Dorgan. I wasn't aware of that. Wow that sucks.
It must've taken place during the time period when I had tuned out of disgust.

So, which Senators exactly will we be losing in November now that the corporate takeover of the Democratic Party is complete? It would be hrelpful to have a general idea in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
22. Gallup shows the support/disapproval for the bill pretty evenly divided.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Suppo...
This is a very recent poll. I think what is effecting Mass is more about the economy but what do I know. Repubs who hate the bill and liberals who want to kill it may be on the same side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blasphemer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. The interesting thing in that poll is the results amongst Indies
Independents don't like the bill. There isn't a breakdown so we don't know exactly what aspects of the bill they don't like. The PPP MA poll is Independent-heavy and shows similar results. The problem is with the Independents who are surprisingly willing to vote for a Republican despite how disenchanted they are with the GOP in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. That poll was also asking a rather generic question, and many people responding
might have had only vague ideas about the bill's details, or if they knew more they might have been hoping that parts they were unhappy with would be fixed as the House and Senate reached an agreement on the final bill.

Polls have shown the majority of Americans are in favor of health care reform as a basic goal. That's never really been in question.

The devil is in the details.

And what's hurting the current HCR mess is the inclusion of an individual mandate without a public option or Medicare buy-in.

This explains just how much that hurts us:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/poll-health-ca...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Ding ding ding.......no public option....no mandate.
It is that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #22
129. Yeah, but you know it's tepid. No one actually cares for the bill
even the most enthusiastic supporters know it sucks ass but feel it is something. I suspect the issues in MA are pretty much a perfect storm of crappy bill that's not even better then RomneyCare so not a benefit to those voters but with extra taxes and whatnot, a candidate that took votes and voters for granted while taking a month off only to reappear at a pharma fundraiser (horrid optics), and the expected bad temperament of an electorate in a horrible economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadEyeDyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
23. what a mess n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
24. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
26. A big ass K&R.
Nailed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
27. Exactly the truth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
29. excellent article. KR+41
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
31. If the bill passes, tirllions will go to big insurance to crush any real reform - it's a no-brainer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
98. And it will be recycled back as campaign contributions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
32. My family's microcosm:
Me: I want Canada's system...I hate the bill.
My parents: would brand it communism no matter what the Democrats come up with...they hate the bill.
My older brother: voted for Obama but on the conservative side of moderate...he hates the bill.
My younger brother: probably a bit more liberal than my older brother but also an independent...he hates the bill
My sister: a slightly more moderate version of my parents...she hates the bill.
So take that as you will...a family that runs the entire political spectrum and we all hate the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
64. Yes, the whole political spectrum hates it, even though for different reasons
People who don't know much about the bill, who are desperate for health care and who think it's a Canadian-style or British-style proposal, are for it, but they turn against it when they learn what's actually in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rapturedbyrobots Donating Member (364 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
112. exactly
i visited my girlfriend's family. we usually avoid politics as i'm a social dem and they are gung ho conservative republicans. but one thing we could ALL agree on (even if for different reasons)....this bill SUCKS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suede1 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
33. Well put. How far we have dropped in the last year. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
western mass Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
34. HCR only ONE reason to loathe corporate Dems
This isn't about HCR, it's about corruption and the fact that people can see it quite plainly.

The problem with this article is that (as usual) if frames the anti-reform measures of corporate Democrats as bumbling rather than what it really is, corruption plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
35. Obama needs to replace a number of cabinet members.
Start with Rahm Emmanuel, Timothy Geithner, Summers and at the Fed Bernanke.

Obama should not replace any of them with Schwarzenegger. I am hearing rumblings around that idea.

Many think that Schwarzenegger should be entrusted with certain environmental issues. Horrors. He could not get along with the California legislature well enough to get budgets through. And, his solution to California's fiscal problems has been to sell off public properties some of which are very valuable -- at low, low, low, low prices. Do not trust Schwarzenegger around public lands. He has too many friends with thick fingers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betty Karlson Donating Member (902 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Agreed.
Although Geithner and Bernanke would we a good enough start for me. Changing too many horses at once could hamper the ongoing race, to paraphrase a common saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Yeah, but ya gotta admit, he looks cool as shit!!!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
37. This paragraph speaks volumes:
"Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people."

For those who don't get it, THIS is what irks us "irrelevant lefties" the most. It's going to be a tough sell for this administration to regain our trust. Being sold out by those you invested your trust in, leaves the deepest scars. It doesn't require a degree in Political Science to understand WHY this clusterfuck screw up will ripple down and hurt ALL Democrats, EVEN the real Progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
72. Well put. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
38. K & R . Concise, on-target, plain and simple. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
39. utter nonsense. this explains nothing as to how Coakley lost a 25+
point lead in 3 weeks. Furthermore, none of the polls earlier this year showed Dorgan beating Hoeven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usrbs Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. One explanation is her about-face on HCR 1 day after primary
Coakley wasn't the establishment candidate, Capuano was, but Coakley was loyal to Hillary in a state that went heavily for her, and when Coakley claimed that she wouldn't vote for HCR with the Stupak amendment, that certainly sealed the deal for me. The day after the Primary, however, she did an about-face claiming the Senate compromise was sufficient, and in doing so she made it clear she was just another talker politician that can be counted on to fold when it really counts.

I'm still voting for her, but haven't lifted a finger or given a penny, and I know of others who are abstaining because of this or even voting for Brown.

Her timing was off - proving that you're the establishment choice after all wen people are so disgusted with what's going on was not a smart thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
40. Rahm Emanuel - Political Malpractice - Spot On.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
41. Every point he makes has been made here on DU
when a lot of people saw how this was headed early on and tried to scream long and loud about how far off the tracks this bill was going.

They had the greatest chance in modern history to craft something really great. After much sturm and drang they came out with a bill that tinkered around the edges and keeps in effect the most bloated and inefficient healthcare system in the world. And they will be booted out of office for it. Those are the hard cold facts. They just didn't have it in them to create a bill that put people before corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #41
65. Yes, if they had pushed for single-payer health care (and publicly denounced
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 11:03 AM by Lydia Leftcoast
the Baucuses and others who were acting as the insurance industry's errand boys as being the allies of Big Money against working Americans), the Republicans might have kicked and screamed about "tyranny" and "Communism."

However, once a few Teabaggers had had medical emergencies and didn't have to fight for payment and didn't even receive a bill, the Republicans' kicking and screaming would have looked silly and spiteful.

If the current Prop Up the Insurance Companies Corporate Welfare Act passes, the negative impacts on large segments of the population, liberal and conservative, will be huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
78. Kinda like the squandered opportunity bush had after 9/11.
Makes me wonder if it was all part of the plan... :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
42. Once again the Democratic leadership gets rolled
This time by greedy Senators taking campaign donations (bribes) to ensure the moneyed interests get more of our resources.
The Health Care Reform bill could have been boiled down to one clause, Medicare for all. Instead we have a monster that's over 2000 pages of double talk designed to maintain a health care system that cannot be sustained.
Health care for profit is unworkable in the long run. That's what the rest of civilization has discovered. We are at once the richest and dumbest country on the planet. The problem is the rich have completely taken over our system of governance.
When the Supreme Court gave corporations personhood and equated money to free speech the shysters saw openings too big to pass by.
Lewis Black puts it all in perspective. The Republicans get in power and create a pile of shit. Then the Democrats get in power and look at the pile of shit.
Liebermann provides good cover for the rest of the Democrats who continue to take lobbyists' bribes.
So if you take the time to contact your Congressmen and Senators, always remind them that the bribe taking has to stop.
The Democrats were voted out in 94 because the failed to do their constituents' bidding. It's about to happen again.
With the Republicans on the ropes, the Democratic leadership managed to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Rahm Emanuel is walking point for the patrol into the abyss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #42
51. Only one point of disagreement...
The administration wasn't rolled. The public was, and the administration was in on it. Obama got the bill he wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeCanWorkItOut Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
47. So even the illiberal Bob Kuttner doesn't like this reform plan
He makes some good points.

But he doesn't have a lot of respect for most Americans.
He's actually an intense advocate for the doctors' lobby,
which lobby happens to be an important reason
why health care costs too much,
and the health system is so monopolistic
And in this case, that's another way of saying inhumane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
48. K & R.
Also, since a deal has been cut to limit the taxing of those "cadillac" policies, where will the lost revenues come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shimmergal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #48
75. Hoping to finance it
solely from "health system 'reforms'" was one big mistake.

Sure, a lot could be saved if the fraud and abuse could just be monitored better; there's very little effort made to even catch actual criminal rip-offs thru medical procedures. Much less the duplicate tests etc. that are unnecessary.

But it's just psychologically stupid to try to tax people on their health care benefits, or up the co-pays for already bloated costs. Most people DON'T enjoy going for doctor visits or tests, and do it only when they feel it's essential. The more it costs them, the more they'll tend to dodge that visit to the doctor, no matter what.

The trick, if we need addt'l taxes, is to at least isolate them from medical procedures. Or even better, attached them to things that are pleasurable. The late lamented proposal to tax sodas is a good idea (although I'd apply it to everything that's carbonated, and possibly to all drinks except water, milk, and genuine fruit juice.) People aren't going to stop buying them because of a nickel-or quarter-tax per 12=pack. Just stand in the grocery and see how they're in almost every shopping cart. This would bring in an enormous amount of money for the health system, and people would hardly even feel it--the normal weekly fluctuations in pricing are larger amounts than that.

And/or, how about legalizing and taxing marijuana? Nobody'd suffer except the drug lords and War on Drugs Warriors, who have too damn many connections already.

Just a couple of ideas--there are lots of others, in case we ever get a second chance to redo this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
49. K & R
"The bill...did almost nothing for the 85 percent of Americans with insurance that is becoming more costly and unreliable by the day"


No cost controls or structural reform. That was the whole reason for reform in the first place. Addressing spiraling costs is the only thing that will really help the uninsured and everyone else, too.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
50. Kuttner has nailed this situation. What a disaster. Our one chance wasted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
52. I do see this as big problem..
Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olegramps Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
53. When I suggested that Obama tackle the financial situation first my post was met with riddicle.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 08:43 AM by olegramps

This was met with ridicule by most of those who responded to my post. I am not attempting to play the role of some know it all, but consider the situation that he inherited; a financial system in collapse due to continued deregulation primarily sponsored by Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats who have been bought body and soul by big business. The outsourcing of jobs and the lack of job creation had escalated dramatically during the Bush administration as well as every economic indicator going into the toilet.

Instead of attacking the problems that are paramount to every working class citizen, Obama chose to take on the Health Care Industry. He was totally naive in thinking that the Republicans were going to be cooperative. He thought that by some miracle a comprehensive health care plan would magically emerge from congress as they all hugged singing Cumby-yah. As far as I am concerned he blew it totally. He had the impetus to take on the greedy financial barons of Wall Street and get legislation passed to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs. Job creation should have been his primary concern and when he had righted the ship he could then address health care. And when he was in a position to take on this issue he shouldnt have allowed congress to create some monstrosity. He should have laid out a comprehensive plan, essential a Medicare for all option, that would require a couple of pages every citizen could comprehend instead the ludicrous 2000 page piece of crap that congress created.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
54. Give me a big fukkin break!
HCR is corporation's bill, a big wet dream for profiteers
AND the senators in their pockets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
55. Uggh, defeat of this bill will cost me a bundle and I may lose my job over it
Small business is being put out of business paying 2-4x the rates that larger businesses pay for health insurance. I will be depressed for a long time if this bill fails :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #55
61. Reality isn't well-regarded in the health care situation.
People have their minds made up around slogans and don't want to consider what might actually happen if we have to wait another 15 years for health care reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. It's the most depressing part of this debate
I feel like the Republican attitude is in effect - I got mine and "oh well" that you don't - "if the bill doesn't put the insurance companies out of business, then I can't support it". I feel like there is no political group that cares about the average person just trying to get by - never mind the thousands of people who will die due to lack of preventive care :( I hate the world right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat_in_Houston Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #68
81. I "am" an average person just trying to get by and I'm 100% against this bill
It seems obvious to me that by the time this bill is finalized, anything in my favor is going to be extracted from the bill and everything in the insurance companies' favor will remain.

I have cancer in my past, and I have never believed that these crooks and shysters were going to accept patients with pre-existing conditions. Their business is making money - not losing money.

And by "my" favor, I mean all the other "average" folks out there, as well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. You can believe anything you want
Nobody is forcing you to trust government, but the bills will not do as you say and you are making an assumption without facts to rail against the bill. Show me facts and not emotions and we can talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
griffi94 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. you accuse the above poster of making assupmtions
without facts, and you want facts not emotions, but in the post right above his you speak of being depressed and hating the world. you have no more facts than anybody else. after watching what were supposed to be good policies for the people get mutated into shit, remember no child left behind, i think it's a bit unwise to settle for a shit sandwich now hoping that later on it will turn into tuna salad. apparently i'm not the only voter in america who feels this way. HCR was on my list of priority issues, but just passing some crap bill to claim "victory" won't carry the day. jmho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #87
115. Fact: exchanges will lower my rates by more than 50%
That is a fact and I have stated it previously here no less than 30 times.

Disprove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
griffi94 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. here's another fact for you
i'll be forced to purchase insurance. i don't have the money to purchase insurance and by using the
calculator that was making the rounds here a few weeks ago i'll pay about 5800 a year. i could get that same policy now(if i had the money)and the deductable would make it all but worthless. sorry i don't want to go into the hole for a product that i can't use. so if it comes down to what's best for you and your family or what's best for me and my family....well, i think you see where that's going. i'm sorry you're depressed and hate the world. i'm even more sorry that our leaders didn't do as good a job looking after the peoples interests as they did looking after the bottom line of the insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #84
109. Typical slack logic.
You accuse someone of not having facts to base his post on. How is is any less "believing what you want" for you to say that you trust government and that the bill will do as you say?

Look. If you want to fall for the silly PR on this bill, go ahead. As you say, you can believe anything you want. But don't be so disingenuous as to claim that your version of belief is any more factual than someone else's. You are just as obviously making an assumption without facts to heap praise on this pig of a bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #55
76. The bill in question
does not guarantee affordability (except by millionaires' warped standards of what is affordable) or coverage, since it allows, nay, encourages high deductibles by taxing "Cadillac plans."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. You really need to look into "exchanges" before talking about affordability
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 01:54 PM by HughMoran
Spouting off the latest talking points about "Cadillac plans" does nothing for me. The real advantage is going from the current pool of less than 10 workers to a pool of thousands like the plan at my past company.

My Big Company family plan was $12k/yr

Small Company family plan is 36k/yr.

Either bill will bring my rate down to about 15k/yr - that's a real fact that no talking point can deny. Try reading the actual bill rather than repeating the latest DU talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. But what would the plans COVER?
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 02:20 PM by Lydia Leftcoast
What would the deductibles be?

Cheaper plans with higher deductibles would be no bargain for the individual worker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #86
114. Same as what my $12k plan at my big company did
Why does the same plan cost 3x as much at my small company?

Do you think this is fair?

Don't you think that if small companies could pool together (i.e. 'exchanges') that they would and should get similar rates to what large companies get? All fit workers in either case - in fact I would venture to say that small companies have healthier go-getters working at them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #80
132. I've read the bill and it may help you but it's not going to be good for a lot of us
Edited on Tue Jan-19-10 03:58 AM by laughingliberal
I can't speak to what will happen with your premiums but if the Senate version of community ratings passes, I expect those over 50 will see the same or higher premiums. .

The above poster's worry that those with preexisting conditions will still face problems is well founded. To begin with people with employer sponsored benefits can be charged many times greater premiums if they fail to meet goals in 'wellness programs' which the employer can force them into. Not only will it run up costs for those with preexisting conditions and health concerns, it is a huge hit to privacy.

The Senate bill also contains loopholes which will allow rescissions to continue and annual limits to continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
56. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moondog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
58. This pretty well nails it.
Nice going Rahm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight armadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #58
63. Time to fire Rahm!
I'm hard pressed to identify any strategy he's ever pursued on any political issue that's actually worked out in the long term for the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
66. The problem is in the Senate you didn't have the votes for the public option. Just didn't have it.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 11:41 AM by RBInMaine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. So what do you think we need, 100 Senate Democrats in order to pass any progressive healthcare bill?
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 01:39 PM by Better Believe It

Many people are endorsing the idea that it's impossible to ever elect 51 Democratic liberals, much less 60, because in order for Democrats to win in "conservative" Red states, they must campaign as conservatives!

Do you subscribe to that theory?

If that is true, you'll never even elect a mildly liberal Senate that isn't controlled by Wall Street and corporate America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. No, the problems were
1) No leadership. Nobody has made any effort to reign in the more.....eccentric Democratic senators.

2) Pre-compromise. Instead of starting out further to the left and ending up "where they want to be"*, they start "where they want to be" and end up with crap. Just like the stimulus.

* This statement presumes that the people in charge of this debacle actually wanted something effective, such as a real public option, and not a big wet kiss to the insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pundaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #66
125. What competent negotiator doesn't start with more than he expects to get?
Either amateur negotiators, or people who have made secret behind the scenes deals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #125
134. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
67. huge knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
69. Obama was ABSENT the whole process
You can blame him for picking the dipshit cabinet, but not for making this abortion of a bill. There's one good thing about not participating in something, which is that you don't own the result. Now if Obama SIGNS the final bill, he OWNS it, but not until then. So all this Obama this and Obama that stuff in this article betrays a fundamental lack of perspicacity in the author.

I hold out hope that Obama will not sign the bill with all these flaws in it, particularly when he sees the damage it will do to our party.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #69
79. Hi Rahm!
"There's one good thing about not participating in something, which is that you don't own the result."

This is a delusion believed by idiots. The most prominent being Rahm Emanuel. Obama already owns all of health care reform. He always did, despite his hands-off approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. Who would make such a statement?
You say that someone who doesn't participate in something DOES own the result? I wonder what school of logic THAT inference came from! lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. This is politics, not logic class. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #85
95. Anyone who cannot see through O's Sleight of "hands off policy"
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 04:42 PM by ooglymoogly
is seeing the world through rose colored gin bottles.
O has grand standed on the public option when it was safe to do so without fear of it gaining momentum and quickly back tracked when its popularity began to make its power felt. O has molded this bill with his doppelganger Rahm and the bloodsuckers from the beginning; And they used folks like Lieberman, Snow, Baucus and the blue dogs, to make sure when anyone grandstanded on anything productive and progressive, they could check run it in the ground. Progressives in congress gingerly put things out that clearly helped the majority and waited for O and his allies, the bluedogs, to swat it down. Make no mistake this is O and "never let a good disaster go to waste" Rahm's bill based on what was good for the insurance bloodsuckers: A boondoggle, a cash cow in fact. Both of these shysters should be ashamed of themselves. They are both masters of the shell game; Making things appear what they are not. If many of us progressives had known what was really in the poke, things would have turned out soooo different and perhaps O would have been Secretary of State where I am sure he would excel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. WHEN or IF he signs it, THEN he owns it
I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

I've been watching the news and all the ugly Senators and Congresspeople arguing away everything we ever wanted, but I have not seen Obama at work crafting either the Senate or the Congressional bill. As you know, any resulting bill will be put up for the president to sign, and THEN he will either own it or veto it.

I don't think it's certain he'll own it in the end. Likely, but not certain. As of now, Obama is free to criticize and/or laud it as each bill, at the moment, BELONGS to the body that CREATED it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #100
113. It's hard to understand because it's absolutely not in the least true.
Tell me with a straight face that at present you believe Obama and the health care bill are not inextricably linked in the public imagination. If you do believe that, I would encourage you to perhaps consume some sort of media, either in print, broadcast or online format, that deals with the subject of the health care debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #113
126. Oh, sorry, I didn't know it was LINKED IN THE PUBLIC IMAGINATION
Edited on Tue Jan-19-10 12:47 AM by Cronus Protagonist
Sorry. I was thinking of reality. There I go again, being all grown up and everything. In my imagination, I'm a millionaire, but so far I haven't been able to SPEND any of it! lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #126
127. Self aggrandize much? I guess it goes with the territory
of deluding ones self.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. Well, I see you don't need schooling in that area yourself
You have quite the imagination, no doubt that's part of this "public imagination" someone else posted about. I prefer reality. And I don't make up Machiavellian fantasies and imagine them to be truth. I'll let you get back to your Dungeons and Dragons now. Time's a wasting and there are SO many conspiracy theories that still need your thumbprint. Have you seen the film of the Kennedy assassination yet? lol (rhetorical question)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #95
118. That is exactly what happened. I don't think I've seen it
put more concisely are accurately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
70. Former. Investment. "Banker".
Soon to return to the multi-million dollar bonus world he preserved.
:kick: & R

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
71. I was listening to NPR yesterday and heard a reporter say "The Public obviously
holds health care reform low on their list of priorities, as seen by the soft support for Coakley." So the MSM interprets it as a "lack of interest" in any changes to the status quo of the health care industry instead of anger with the lack of effort to change the status quo by either party. Just more smoke and mirrors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
102. idiots
it's most certainly NOT low on anyone's list of priorities. There is real rage out there about this...on the right it's unsurprising but on the moderate to left side they better watch out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
83. K&R . . . but notice that . . .
as obvious and evident as this reality is . . . the Democratic leadership

is NOT rushing in to restore a Public Option.

We all understand that had Obama/Dems begun with a single payer/MEDICARE FOR ALL

plan that NO Dem and NO Repug would have been able to vote against it without

being run out of Congress.

The PO was the "compromise" fall back vs single payer.

We also recognize thatd had Obama/Dems gone with MEDICARE FOR ALL that it would

have set the Dems up for the next 40 years -- and guaranteed Obama's re-election.

Only the corporate control over both parties explains any of this --

And it makes clear that the corporate control over the Democratic Party intends it

to fail -- and its candidates to fail.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burning rain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
88. k & r
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
89. Yep... That's Sounds About Right... Excellent Analysis, Once Again !!! - K & R !!!
:shrug:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
90. K & R. Kuttner is right.
This is turning out to be a debacle of the first order.

So sad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
92. It's a DLC plan,
a bonanza for the insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
93. K and R. Thanks for post.




:hi:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moostache Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
94. Typical democrat result
A public ass kicking and nothing to show for the beating anyway....at least if Obama had STARTED from a position of universal health care and scared the bejesus out of the pukes...ah, fuck it already....no one REALLY cares or the message to Obama would have been "we are going to stand up strong for what we SAY we believe in or we are going to cease existing as a political party".

This was never a serious debate on policy or social values - it was a dog and pony show to distract people from the ass-raping that continues to this day by the banksters and their kin....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
96. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
99. Kr; Right over the goal post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
111. God, some here must be tired of having their support
so eloquently and so expertly diced, sliced, and pureed.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
116. Here it is right here:
"Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people."

Here it is in a nutshell. Instead of landmark health care legislation that benefited the people, we get landmark health care legislation that benefits health insurance companies.

A public option that takes profit out of the health insurance equation is the only real option. It's the only thing that keeps the health insurance companies from fucking us.

Now that it's off the table, the debate is slowly dissolving into how hard are we going to get fucked and how much Vaseline are they going to let us have before hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
husky92 Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
120. Colossal FU
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 08:50 PM by husky92
This whole healthcare things has been an abortion from the get go. I know the Republicans wanted no part of it from the start for obvious reasons. However, as the writer said, it could have been handled differently. A large portion of the American public wants reform. While polling showed that, the message to the people was screwed up, those wanting a public option or single player were left by the side of the road and some of the Democrats had far too many people in bed with some of the insurance/drug companies. It was a recipe for disaster. I also think Obama dropped the ball by being far to detached from things. Instead of getting in and rolling his sleeves up and giving it some direction, he let others run with the ball and they went in all different directions. The Progressive got shit on and they smooched Nelson, Lieberman and Landrieu's behinds. I agree this might have been something Obama could have waited on with the economy what it is, but as we all know, he had the numbers in the Senate or House and he had to get it going early on. While all the Democratic strategists who went on TV in the last few months mocked the Republicans for not doing anything and being disorganized, the strategy has worked. I knew this was going to happen. The American public's attention span is such that they are now the good guys. Look at the polls. Everyone keeps saying they want to kick them all out (Dems and Republicans), but if you ask all these people screaming that, probably 90 percent would say it's all the Democrats fault in Washington. I guarantee if you asked these tea baggers, almost all our Republicans. Coakley will probably go down on Tuesday and many other Democrats will do so as well in the midterms. It makes me sad to see how quickly the public turned on Obama. I think he has a lot of good ideas, but public perception is working against him now. Let's face facts. The Republicans have a huge advantage with their media machine. I was driving out West the other day and was channel surfing on the radio. I must have heard 5-6 conservative/right-wing stations in the two hours I was driving in So. California -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs, as well as a couple of local LA righty stations. You add all those up and people's opinions are swayed by the constant harangue from these people. The left has little or no chance of mounting any opposition to these media giants. Air America and lefty talk are on the 1,000 watters, while righty talk shows are on the 50,000 watters! It's like going to war with a pea shooter!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
121. yeah.well said. ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eecumings Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
124. HCR equals wads of cash for "insurance" companies and big PHARMA
Brown wants a larger stage, more money, more power...and he can espouse his idiocy to the entire nation.
E-man-u-l and Obummer have the big stage, more than enough money...and excellent health care. American people
do not need health insurance; they do need an excellent health care delivery system. The 10 percent who own the
country do not care about the 90 percent who have no power to stop them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
135. Pretty well nailed the situation
I do think if we had done health care reform correctly it could have benefited the economic and job recovery efforts, killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Instead, it wasted time we needed to be dealing with the jobs and the economy and left us with a bill that will become it's own burden on the 'real' economy just about the time we might think the country is on the correct path again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SandWalker1984 Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
136. Will House Dems approve Senate version of HCR bill to get passage?
Just when you think it can't get any worse....

Dems look at bypassing Senate health care vote

Jan 17, 11:30 PM (ET)
By CHARLES BABINGTON


BOSTON (AP) - A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday's Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.

The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100118/D9D9U7Q80.html

*************************

So, that means we would be stuck with the Senate version of "health care" reform, the version that is mostly about keeping corporate profits intact and full of loopholes such as:


Provisions permitting insurers and companies to charge more than double to employees who fail wellness programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.

Insurers permitted to sell policies across state lines, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.

Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.

Insurers may continue to rescind policies for fraud or intentional misrepresentation the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julian09 Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #136
138. The other option is to vote Dem today
So they can make the bill more palatable. It's far off the mark and the author of original article is 100% correct; but we can't cut our nose off to spite our face and kill the Obama presidency. There are other issues that are at stake in the next three years.
I blame the conserveadems in senate finance, Barcus and Conrad. Lieberman is another.
Obama can't vote in senate or house, his hands are tied, limited by senators that represent 5% of the US population. Vote the democratic obstructionists out, then we can get real reform.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
139. hate to say it, I agree. damn that hurt. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
140. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC