Reconciling Reconciliation
Reconciliation has been used with increasing frequency. That was bad enough. But at least for the Bush tax cuts or the prescription drug bill, there was significant bipartisan support. Now we have pure reconciliation mixed with pure partisanship.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t one of the Bush tax cuts only passed when Dick Cheney broke a tie in the Senate?
We’re going to hear an awful lot of hand-wringing in the next few weeks if the health care bill sneaks through the House and ends up passing in the Senate via reconciliation — as though using reconciliation were somehow immoral, or cheating.
I’m not sure I get what the issue is here. No Republican Senator is ever going to vote for the health care bill under any circumstances. It could have a rider in it mandating biblical readings up through the junior college level and you still couldn’t get even a very God-fearing Republican like Tom Coburn to vote for an Obama health care bill. Chuck Grassley wouldn’t vote for it if you moved the U.S. Naval Shipyard to an Iowa cornfield. They’ve locked arms on this bitch like soccer players on a free kick.
From the start, the only way this was going to pass was with 100% Democratic votes. So if there are 60 Democrats, you can do it without reconciliation. If there are 59, you have to use reconciliation. “Sympathy” has nothing to do with this; it’s math.
I also don’t get how anyone could have watched the Senate over the last year or so and not concluded that this thing is better passed with 50 votes than 60. With 50 votes, you have ten fewer Senators to bribe, which according to my calculations should bring the overall cost of the bill down by about at least fifty trillion dollars.
I hate this bill and have since the beginning — to me it seems like a radical and dangerous step to start forcing people to become customers of a seriously overpriced, inefficient product, thereby removing the last incentive for an already antitrust-exempted, horrifically-performing industry to improve itself in any way.
But I’m beginning to come around to the idea that if we do pass this thing, sooner or later Congress is going to get around to complaining about subsidizing the profits of WellPoint and Aetna and all the rest of them. Naturally the first place they’ll cut in future budget crises is the “affordability credits” for low-income earners, but there’s a slim chance they’ll get around to chiseling the fat from the insurance companies, too, which might in turn lead ultimately to a sane revamping of this ridiculous system.
Or maybe not. I’m trying to find a way to feel good about this thing. Is there a way this thing doesn’t suck? Input is welcomed here.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Nope.
No. There’s no way this bill doesn’t suck. The one thing I’m grateful for about this bill is that it has exposed “Fake” liberals like Markos Dipshit at Daily Kos and others like him who have been attacking Dennis Kucinich for being the only one to call it what it is.
I was also pissed at Kos for talking shit on Kucinich.
In response to another comment. See in context »Me too. It’s amazing that in one year Obama has managed to divide the Democrats so beautifully. We’re a split house, with many of us living out back in the shed, frankly. Kos et al are stuck in red/blue land and can’t see that we’re all getting screwed by corporatism. This bill scares me because it seems like yet another massive government handout to private, for profit industry. We’re privatizing the hell out of everything and this yet another example. Government subsidized premiums paid to for profit corporations. It’s outrageous!!
In response to another comment. See in context »Obama has lots to atone for, but I don’t think we can blame him for dividing Democrats. It’s easy for a group of backseat drivers to get together and criticize when Rove/Cheney are driving, but put that bunch behind the wheel and they won’t necessarily agree on where to go.
In response to another comment. See in context »Reconciliation could only come after the house passed its own health bill….and then the two bills, the house and the senate bills would have to be reconciled…..and then sent back to each house and voted on again
Another plan of the crooks in the house is to pass the health bill WITHOUT voting one it….rep slaughter’s totally unconstitutional plan
Are we going to trust those who sold out america to Goldman Sachs to run our health care…….?
It will suck if it doesn’t pass. Big time.
It’s a step in the right direction. A big step. Because once you add 30M+ people to the program, you’re gonna get 30M+ more voices demanding it be improved even more.
I honestly believe it’s a step toward Medicare for All. I think that’s precisely why the Republicans and insurance companies are scared shitless it will pass. Franken & Grayson already have plans to begin tweaking it after it passes.
If it doesn’t pass, the insurance companies win… HUGE. And, we’ll have to wait another decade or two before anyone tries to fix it.
All I can say is that health insurance premiums are the biggest expense for our small business. They were a relatively insignificant expense 15 years ago. We can’t hire more employees, even part time, because of our health care expenses.
And, I know a lot of people who are afraid to change jobs because they have pre-existing conditions. I know single payer is the ideal, but until that ideal is reached, can’t we celebrate the end of indentured servitude? Having job flexibility and mobility doesn’t suck at all, and this bill, for all its shortcomings, at least offers that.
And, it’s important to consider the psychological impact of this bill passing. People will expect health care to be affordable and available. That makes the jump to single payer substantially easier.
Picture a trashed house — crap everywhere. If I say, “Clean it up,” the task seems almost overwhelming. So overwhelming, that paralysis sets in. But, if I say, “Today, just clean this section,” that seems doable. As more and more sections get clean, picturing a clean house no longer seems overwhelming. In fact, it seems quite easy.
I look at Health Reform the same way. True, cleaning one section doesn’t solve all the problems, but it enables you to reach the goal of having a clean house quicker.
60-70% of Americans already support a strong public option, why would an extra 30million people mean anything?
In response to another comment. See in context »Here’s the problem I have with this argument, and I ask this question sincerely: On what basis do you think Democratic leadership will be any more inclined to revisit the health care debate once they actually pass this legislation? What makes you think the Reid’s and Durbin’s in the Senate will brush off the freshman Grayson’s and Franken’s and say, “We already did health care, it took over a year, it’s time to move on.”
That’s why it’s so important to get a public option in there (hell, even a weakened one). Once the government-run system is in place, there’s incentive, even necessity to revisit the program and build on it.
In response to another comment. See in context »I would imagine they will get around to fixing “reform” about the same time as they get around lowering the eligibility age for Medicare…
In response to another comment. See in context »No, Matt. I am not going to try to convince you. The bill does suck. It is yet another transfer of wealth to corporations.
I just don’t find it worth supporting. First of all, I don’t see the government (technically, all of us– but more like moneyed interests) allowing the government to chisel the fat from insurance companies. Well, not as long as congresspeople can be bought. Look at military contractors: once they have their grubby hands on government money how hard is it to take it away? How difficult is it to make them accountable to taxpayers?
But, another important point is that the insurance industry is only one component of the problem of runaway costs. There is nothing in this bill that meaningfully addresses this issue. And, I feel part of that is that we cannot seem to have a rational discussion in this country about this subject. Remember the new mammography screening guidelines that were released in the middle of this whole debate? Those recommendations were quite reasonable. But Jesus, you would think they had recommended leaving women with breast cancer to die!
The fact is there are so many actors in health care that are looking out for their interests: this includes medical device makers, manufacturers of diagnostic equipment, specialists, health care facilities, and pharmaceutical companies among others.
I believe single payer is the best way to go to control costs. Hey, I work in health care but I do think there are many other things that make life worthwhile. How are we going to pay for these things if more and more money goes to health care?
Reform is going to have to come at some point. Things are unsustainable as they are now. I just don’t think this is the bill to bring reform. I do think it can hinder the chances of real reform in the future– it will be a case of “look, this didn’t work! My premiums are still rising. That’s what happens when the government gets involved!” The Democrats will be blamed for this. And the Republicans will run with it– “See, the free market works the best..blah, blah, blah…” Even worse, this could have a chilling effect on all sorts of progressive legislation and embolden pricks such as Paul Ryan to push for his soak poor and middle class legislation that he favors so much.
Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid…
No, both parties have been moving further right and have already labeled this the liberal legislation, despite the fact that actual liberals hate it.
In response to another comment. See in context »There’s no way to move toward single-payer without a robust underlying framework of government authority. This bill provides that: the insurance mandate, various cost control measures, and the elimination of insurers’ nastiest tricks (recissions, pre-existing conditions, etc) all lend legitimacy to future moves to improve the health insurance market, and possibly expand Medicare or another system to fill the gaps.
In response to another comment. See in context »“the elimination of insurers’ nastiest tricks (recissions, pre-existing conditions, etc)”
Except the Senate bill really doesn’t eliminate them. It creates regulations but leaves their enforcement entirely to the states — essentially an unfunded mandate. As reported in this New England Journal of Medicine article:
There is no legitimate reason to require the House to pass the Senate bill instead of vice versa. Fifty Senate Democrats + Joe Biden can pass a better reform plan via reconciliation. But apparently the financial and physical wellbeing of Americans is less important than the insurance industry’s bottom line.
In response to another comment. See in context »I should add that, unlike the insurance company regulations, the individual mandate does have a federal enforcement mechanism in the Senate bill (the IRS as Blue Cross’s collection agent) — another example of who this bill is really crafted to benefit.
So with billions of dollars more from federally-guaranteed customers, the insurance industry will have even greater resources at their disposal to (spend in ways permitted by the Citizens United ruling in order to) undermine any future efforts at real reform.
In response to another comment. See in context »With a 1,200 page bill, dont think that there isn’t a loophole to every provision.
In response to another comment. See in context »So now it’s a “1200-page bill?”
The initial Republican talking point held that this was a 2000-page measure. Later it became a 2700-page “monster.”
This constant reference to the length of the Health Care Reform legislation is both laughable and pathetic.
Who CARES how long it is? Is is longer than most bills? Shorter than most?
Can’t Republicans READ?
Our elected officials in Washington get pretty nice salaries — and great medical benefits — and their time is supposed to be OUR time.
So why the fuck can’t they just read the bill and attack it on its substance, rather than its form?
Apparently, it’s easier to send right-wing concern trolls to left-wing comment threads.
I guess that makes Republicans lazy as well as illiterate.
In response to another comment. See in context »I was mistaken. It is approximately 2,000 pages.
In response to another comment. See in context »i agree with your comment 100%….the status quo is unsustainable and reform is necessary, but how much catastrophic destruction will occur between now and then? IMHO this is what really scares me
In response to another comment. See in context »The current Senate bill puts a cap on the amount an individual or family pays annually in premiums. Depending on how much you make a year the government will pick up the rest of the premium tab beyond a certain percentage of your AGI as explained here by the Center on Budget on Policy Priorities:
“Under the bill, families and individuals with incomes between 133 and 400 percent of the poverty line (between $24,350 and $73,240 for a family of three in 2009) would receive premium credits to help offset the cost of insurance premiums for coverage they purchase in the new health insurance exchanges. The amounts these households would have to pay for premiums would be based on a sliding scale, under which households’ premium contributions would be set at 4 percent of income for households at 134 percent of the poverty line and would rise to 9.8 percent of income for those at 300 percent of the poverty line. The maximum amount that households would be required to pay would remain at 9.8 percent of income for those with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line.”
This is may be one of the few points of leverage the average consumer will have; if the insurance companies decide to work around the inability to deny pre-existing conditions by hiking up premiums then the bulk of the cost will be shifted to the national deficit, not the beneficiaries. In my mind this makes it nearly a mathematical certainty that congress will have to buckle down and better address both general healthcare cost control(as you mentioned medical device makers, manufacturers of diagnostic equipment, specialists, health care facilities, and pharmaceutical companies) as well and tougher regulation of the insurance industry.
Can you imagine Congress still listening to health insurance lobbyists that tell them not regulate the cost of premiums when at their back is a deficit so big it looks like a sun that’s transformed into a red giant and is threatening with heat death?
So we wanted a shiny new 10-speed bike and got a fucked up uni-cycle from Good Will; at least this bill has a condition that if the insurance company wants to dick us over the national deficit has to share 90% of that dick. By the way here’s the link to the site that explains the amount of annual subsidy you receive based on income: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3004#_ftn1
In response to another comment. See in context »As a Canadian I’m always amazed at the American perspective on government controlled health care. I keep seeing comments regarding how the insurance companies will raise prices even more and gouge the system. The goal should be to take the insurance companies out of the picture entirely. Why are they even in the equation to start with? They provide no service yet suck loads of cash from the system.
In response to another comment. See in context »If anyone, and I mean anyone, were to walk into a Canadian hospital with an ailment of any kind. They would simply be helped. Insurance should not be part of that process. It comes down to basic human decency, and it seems the USA is loosing some of that.
Seriously!!! Why does the private, for profit health insurance industry exist at all? What do they provide? Only resource-sucking bureaucracy. They cause so much hardship — emotional and financial — and give nothing at all back. It’s sick. I am worried about our losing ‘basic human decency.’ People blame each other, hate each other, point out ridiculous differences when the real truth is that we are all — “red state’ and ‘blue state’ alike — getting completely screwed over by our government-supported corporatism. It’s horrible!!
In response to another comment. See in context »OK, sarcasm attempt noted.
In response to another comment. See in context »Now please – in a universal healthcare system what precisely is the need for a mediator between the client and the service?
Fantastic comment. I wish there was more (any, really) discussion about cost control.
Republicans are unrealistic in claiming tax cuts will always pay for themselves by causing the economy to grow and generate higher tax revenue. Democrats are equally unrealistic in selling the idea that the uninsured and the high-cost patients can be handled without major trade-offs. Unlimited care for everyone simply isn’t possible. Blaming everything on insurers who “deny coverage to increase profits” is deceptive.
I want to add that if we look at the health care system realistically, Stupak’s stand can be justified. Perhaps not for the reasons he gives, but from the standpoint of logical allocation of resources. I find it hard to accept that pregnancy is a disease, just as I find it hard define as a disease the inability of a 75-year-old man to get an erection. The money would be better spent on six-year-old children in cancer wards, no? We wouldn’t be outlawing abortion and Viagra, just saying we have higher priorities. If you want those, pay for them yourselves.
“Hey, I work in health care but I do think there are many other things that make life worthwhile. How are we going to pay for these things if more and more money goes to health care?”
I really like that point. Americans have differing mindsets when it comes to health care. There are people who run to the doctor every time they get the sniffles: health care is almost like a hobby to them, and they live to discuss medical situations. Others — I’m one of them — would rather take a beating then go to the doctor. I know someone whose father was diagnosed with cancer. The father decided against treatment because he didn’t want the hassle of the travel and hospital visits. He had people to transport him and it was all covered by insurance, but he didn’t want to go through with it. Now how the hell is it right to make people with his mindset forego the other things in life to pay for hypochondriacs and abortions and Viagra!
Okay, I fear I’m crossing into rant territory. My point is that if we are going to have any kind of forced “fair” treatment of medical care, it needs to be national and controlled federal government. It has to be funded like the military and FBI — taken from the general tax receipts. This hybrid system is crap. What next? Mandating citizens personally hire Blackwater employees to sling hash in Afghanistan so the self-interested politicians can try to avoid accountability?
At any rate, like you said, a discussion on runaway health care costs is impossible in the U.S.
In response to another comment. See in context »This may finally prove that a third party will emerge after the vote. Just makin’ lemonade.
I agree – the things stinks to high heaven but its either this or nothing. I kind of hope premiums go through the roof and you do get some sort of variation on the death panel accusation so congress will have to act because everyone is so pissed off. Thats all we can really hope for.
But you know what? When the premiums go through the roof the wingnuts will do a good job of pinning that on Democrats– not insurance companies. They always manage to control the debate when they want to. They’re pretty damn good at staying on message.
In response to another comment. See in context »The upside is we get to see all the good little “liberal” groups like MoveOn protest Kucinich. The irony is hilarious.
Back in the 90s the mantra was to hold out for a better healthcare bill. That made the Republicans thrilled because they could add just enough in the name of “bipartisanship” to make the bill too conservative for the hardline liberals and what did the American people get for the the next 18 years? NOTHING! Bupkis. Gooseegg. Nada. Zilch. Zip. For another 18 years insurance companies got to bilk, overcharge,thin the herd, make gigantic profits and rescind policies to their hearts content. Wow Dennis- what a victory for liberals. I like Dennis Kucinich, but let’s be clear what he is- a self-aggrandizing show pony. He is Don Quixote self-righteously tilting at windmills he knows will never come down. He knows the choice is not between the public option and this bill. It is between this bill and nothing. Of course, it is easy for him to pick nothing. He has health insurance. If you were standing at the shore and saw a plane crash into the Potomac, would you say “Oh well, I can’t save everyone so I am not going to do anything. Maybe I should go get a bagel?” No. The right thing to do would be to call 911 and help save as many as you can. 30 million? You say that like it is nothing. 30 million is a huge number of people. That is almost one out of every ten people you will meet. Think about that as you walk around today. Imagine every tenth person you meet and telling them that you are going to take away their healthcare? It doesn’t matter what 60- 70 percent of Americans like. It matters what the Congresspeople they send to Washington like. It doesn’t matter that 100% of the delegations from Vermont and Hawaii want when they are far outvoted by the conservative delegations from the Texas, Alabama and Nebraska.
Just as soon as Kucinich actually votes “no,” you can start bitching. Until then, step up and support a man who is using the power of his vote to improve this bill for the greater good.
And I’m sorry – are 30 million people going to be given free healthcare? Or, are they simply going to be MANDATED to purchase plans from private industry? I know more folks will be subsidized and/or given aid or even covered under parents’ plans a little longer (still, at a significant price) – but folks HAVE to stop throwing around the 30 million number like it’s some sort of magical giveaway.
In response to another comment. See in context »I would like to point out that the 60-70% numbers you are throwing around on here were the poll numbers for a public option. Which of course is no longer in any proposed bill. There are some honorable people left like Kucinich who feel compelled to fight for middle class America no matter how ungrateful they become. Check out his donor base on opensecrets.org and hopefully you will come away with a little bit more respect for the man.
In response to another comment. See in context »cavegal, I must say you are as lovely and articulate in your comments here as you are on HuffPo where I am more accustomed to seeing you.
Good to greet you on Matt’s comment thread too gf.
Don’t ya just loves him?
)
In response to another comment. See in context »I think asking whether this is a “good” bill — or a bill that “doesn’t suck,” is a non sequitur. Congress didn’t — REALLY — set out to truly, once and for all, fix all of our ntion’s health care problems with this bill. They set out to assemble a hodgepodge bill that is passable by Congress. The latter is a totally different intention, therefore, a totally different lens is needed through which to look at the result.
If, in fact, they manage to pass some variation of the jumbled mess they’ve created, I consider it a huge win. Here’s why: healthcare CANNOT be an untouchable issue for future administrations of either party. Our national healthcare system (or lack thereof) was failing when Clinton tried to fix it. It’s failing far more precipitously now. And it’s putting ALL of us at risk; not just Democrats. Not just Republicans. If any group or sub-group manages to kill this – Republicans OR Democrats – it will place the entire issue psychologically and strategically off limits for future politicians, and in doing so, endanger future generations.
I’m unequivocal. It’s desperately imperfect, and THAT sucks. And yet it absolutely, 100%, as soon as possible needs to pass.
It doesn’t suck because “it’s the best we can do?”
That’s what I settled on. Like a lot of people I got caught up in Bam’s language and promise. Now it’s back to making sure the right folks get the money, perma-war of the “choice” variety and making sure grad-student Mexican nationals on expired visas can’t see doctors once they’re in the ICE/DHS shadow prisons. Even if they have broken backs and late-stage cancer.
I know it’s sick but the fact that I have my evil empire back is massively comforting. Go Scott Brown GO!
This may sound too obvious Matt, but your argument is very math oriented, and has been all along since your Rolling Stone piece. The good thing about it is that it shows very well not only Republican hypocrisy and obstructionism, but also the embarrassment of the Democrat’s caving to and inexplicable appeasement of the private insurance sector, i.e. the fundamental flaw in the bill.
The problem with this math approach is that nothing short of a single payer or strong public option do over would really make you happy.
The factor that you need to count on equal parts with the math is the morality, or rather the immorality, of the status quo (the preexisting conditions, rescission, lifetime caps, etc.). When you do that, the result is clear, it would be far, far worse to do nothing than to pass this bill.
Absolutely nothing original in my comment, I know. but I thought it needed to be said one more time.
As good as fixing the issue of rescision, pre-existing conditions, subsidies to buy insurance, etc. are in this bill, none of them kick in for at least 4 years. The insurance companies can still kick you out and raise your rate up to 300% of ‘preferred rate’ customers. They get a $150 (no more zeros) everyday for each customer they rescind. Which is cheaper, $150,000 worth of treatment per year or $1,800 worth of fines to the DHS? Gues which they are going to pick?!
In response to another comment. See in context »Well said and an excellent point.
In response to another comment. See in context »First, thanks for making me laugh instead of banging my head on my desk some more. The only argument I find really compelling for this abortion of a bill (yes, I used that term on purpose) is that it gets us moving in the general directin of reform and that’s not nothing. Nothing would be much worse, both because Obama and the Democratic Congress really need to be seen getting something done, and because nothing means this issue won’t get any attention for at least another decade. It’s not what I voted for, it’s not what I was hoping for, but it’s better than nothing. That’s my big argument. Sucks I know, but it’s all I’ve got.
Yeah, it sucks. It’s an industry boondoggle, not any sort of real solution to human suffering. Not to say there are a few decent crumbs in the mess, but overall, it sucks bigtime.
They started the process by keeping the real answer (Single Payer) “off the table.” They saw what happened to the Clintons, where industry killed the effort, so this time around they just let industry write the legislation, with the results you’d expect.
A Mandate with a robust Public Option was bad enough, with a weak Public Option was worse, but without is completely insane. It’s a complete capitulation to industry. The Repubs maneuvered the Dems into this position of political suicide, but it is what the Donkeys deserve for getting into bed with industry in the first place. Both parties have abandoned representing the people for a share of corporate profits instead.
As others have said, this is all unsustainable. Something gonna break one of these days, and a real rain is gonna fall.
The fact that “deem & pass” is even being considered by the Speaker of the House shows what a turkey the Senate bill is. 60% in the Senate is bullshit: rule by the ultra-minority. Even with the reconciliation “improvements,” the House bill is better than the Senate bill. Simply put, the D’s should call the R’s bluff and shut down the Senate till Election Day if need be. (The R’s would cave much sooner, and the Senate would pass the House bill.)
How the hell can the Wall Street bailout be passed in 6 DAYS and we be at this stage after 60 WEEKS of so-called health care reform? There has been constant eroding of the middle class for the last 30 years. The Senate bill will make it worse. The scary thing is that without a third party, the country will turn to the fascist R’s in November and the impoverishment of America will accelerate.
My father worked in the hospital industry most of his adult life, first as an Army officer administrating an Evac hospital (what most Americans would probably call a M.A.S.H.) in Vietnam, and later running a civilian group management company in the US. At this point, he pretty much despises the system in which he worked, and he gets his (outstanding) health care through the VA. He considers this bill incredibly flawed, but he also hopes it passes. Lousy though it may be, he sees it as containing enough potential poison pills for the insurance industry that it will slowly move us toward something better.
There are a number of gigantic facts about American health insurance that are basically never discusses publicly, and one is that private insurance is not nearly the dominant force we often think it is. There are something like eighty million Americans on some form of socialized medicine through Medicare, Medicaid, the Armed Services, municipal employee networks, the VA, etc. Eighty million is roughly the population of Germany. That group accounts for around half the total health care expenditures in the country (in terms of money actually spent on treatment), because those are the people at that point in their lives where they need lots of treatment. The private companies have resigned themselves to the fringes already, and they are now fighting for a dwindling slice of the pie. With things like Medicare Part D, their strategy is to be deliverers within a socialized medicine structure, and that’s their future, because, despite the outrageous hardships they visit onto Americans on a daily basis, insurance companies, in the long view, are strangely irrelevant. And they know it, hence their tenacious fight against this reform.
Even this POS bill is fatal for them. Pass it.
Made my day. Love this comment.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t know all of the statistics on this, but private, for-profit insurance companies are subcontracted for at least some of the government-funded health programs you mentioned. When my husband was in Afghanistan with the National Guard, we were covered by Tricare, the plan for full-time military families. This was a government paid health insurance program run by Humana. My guess is that every senator and representative also has a plan run by Humana or another company. Probably the same for most government employees. I actually see the insurance industry further infiltrating government-run programs in the future, not the other way around. We are subcontracting everything these days. Just look at the military: soldiers aren’t cooks anymore. It’s all KBR. Who guards US officials? Xe/Blackwater folks. The insurance industry is actually thrilled by this bill. They can charge whatever they want and they know they’ll get their premiums. If someone can’t pay, the government will pay for them. Sort of like the bailout con, methinks.
In response to another comment. See in context »Good point; there’s a whole lot of private insurance company involvement in these government-run (or quasi-government-run) systems. And I think they’re looking to expand into that even more (as in Medicare part D and such), because the private for-profit model isn’t just dying, it actually ended years ago, but few people are publicizing that fact. It’s definitely a gray area: will they essentially become administrators within a government system, or will they be the proverbial tail that wags the dog, using their position within the system to corrupt it? Maybe a bit of both.
I’m certainly in favor of a public option at the very least, and I’m glad Kucinich and Grayson are going to be thorns in the administration’s side to the bitter end on that; it might move the bill in at least a moderately better direction. But there are successful models that incorporate private insurance to achieve near-universal coverage at reasonable rates. The Netherlands, for example. It does take massive regulation, though, and you’re surely right to suspect that isn’t going to happen.
In response to another comment. See in context »There’s plenty not to like in this bill.
But going from the mess we have now to single payer in one leap was never an option – not in 94, not now, not at any point in the future. This is what drives my ire at the purists who insist that anything that doesn’t get there in a single step isn’t worth passing.
There’s a lot to hate about this bill. But I personally have 2 friends who will be helped by it immediately. One was recissioned last year after a year-long battle with her insurer over whether a condition that was never diagnosed before she was insured was “pre-existing” or not. Currently, “pre-existing” is whatever the insurers say it is and good luck with ever buying insurance again after you’ve been recissioned. The other has (thus far) had 4 episodes where she bled out internally over the course of a week or two – because she’s uninsured and low-income, her “treatment” consists of going to the state charity hospital so they can pump her back up with transfused blood, until the next bleed-out. Because it’s something that only happens every 10 – 12 months, no one is bothering to try to diagnose the problem, much less fix it – to do that, she’d need tests when the bleeding is actually occuring, and they don’t do those for patients with no insurance and the lack of resources to come out of pocket to pay for the tests. So far, her mystery illness has resulted in about $75,000 of costs being shifted to everyone else – and no one has bothered even trying to diagnose the problem. That’s utterly retarded, aside from being a serious threat to her life. Which is why it’s so unsurprising that the Republicans make such a big deal out of touting how “ANYONE can get care in an emergency room.” Well, yeah, they can get really expensive care that addresses the immediate threat to life, but they get bupkis in treating the underlying condition that brought them to the ER in the first place.
At the very least, this bill will address a lot of these types of situations, though I’m sure not all of them.
So yes, it’s a sh*t sandwich. But what we have right now? That’s like 10 sh*t sandwiches. If we’re going to have to eat some sh*t, I’d much prefer to eat less of it.
Matt, it doesn’t suck. Here’s why.
First, in exchange for the massive “subsidy”, insurers are going to be forced to stop screening for pre-existing conditions. This is a massive, massive win for the public, and the only way to make it possible (without moving to single-payer, which would be better but wasn’t on the table) was to mandate coverage. You’re a smart guy, you’ve heard this before, so I’m curious why you don’t think it at least balances out.
Second, insurance companies aren’t really the problem. They’re a problem, but probably not the biggest. This American Life did a show on health care a few months ago that made a pretty compelling case that hospitals are at least as much to blame as insurance companies, who often have little leverage and get by by denying coverage (something this bill dramatically cuts back.)
Ultimately, the real problem is that we have a decentralized health care system – it relies upon thousands of hospitals making deals with hundreds of insurance companies, all over the country, and there are few if any efficiencies of scale, so we have to pay all kinds of transaction and opportunity costs. If we had a more centralized system – in the extreme, one nationwide “insurance” system paying one nationwide system of hospitals and doctors, and negotiating prescription drug prices – we’d save a ton of money and sacrifice little if anything in the way of care or benefits. This legislation moves us unambiguously closer to that, not just in terms of the system we’ll be getting, but also by reorienting the political center around a more-progressive health care system. Ten or fifteen years from now, a sensible centrist will find nothing at all problematic in the idea of universal health care, or in the idea that the government has a role to play in making that possible. And that’s how we move to a better system overall.
Come on man, what bs. Sure, they won’t exclude you, they’ll just jack your deductible and copays so high you’ll still go bankrupt. And if you make a single error or omission on your forms, they’ll bounce you for fraud (funny, because they wouldn’t be able to bounce you if you disclosed the pre-exising condition– they just have to make sure their forms are confusing and dense enough to ensure mistakes). Plus, Michael Moore says (and I haven’t confirmed) that the only repercussion is $100 per day fine.
In the meantime, the health insurance companies will have the profits from 30 million new premium payers (plus gov’t subsidies) to buy more influence than they already have. How’s that going to affect the chances of later modifications?
In response to another comment. See in context »Abraham is exactly right.
Doodahman, the bill specifically addresses your concerns by limiting out of pocket expenses and ending life-time caps. Moore is wrong about the fines, but even if he was right, altering the fees for insurance company misbehavior down the line if they prove insufficient is a winnable battle. Suggesting that a better course of action would be to not attempt to address their abuses at all by scrapping this bill is ludicrous.
In response to another comment. See in context »The insurance industry can still rescind when it involves “fraud or … an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage.”
Often insurers claim that a patient committed fraud by not mentioning a past condition, benign or not, on their application, so this new bill won’t change anything for some victims of rescission. I’d like to see rescission made illegal regardless of the application. The person who is sick still needs health care. How are we to provide it? The health insurance industry may not be able to keep their profit margins, poor things. But we’d have a healthier, more compassionate society. Of course, if we had a single-payer, government run system, there would be no such thing as rescission and we’d not have to spend any money investigating it or regulating it. How nice would that be!
In response to another comment. See in context »That quote was from the Senate bill, btw.It’s in section 1001, section 2712. Here is the entire section:
“‘A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).”
In response to another comment. See in context »Sophie’s choice. Sophie’s choice. Sophie’s choice.
Until this nation tackles campaign finance reform, really solves this influence peddling bullshit we will never have any meaningful bill pass into law that does not further the interests of the corporations. It is endemic to the failures in this HIR bill.
My git feeling is that the passage of this bill will do little in the near term to help anyone significantly and will ultimately entrench the for-profit health insurance industry, ensconsed in all future legislation.
There is I suppose some bleak possiblity that it will be the crack in the levy required to really force the government to give a shit about it’s citizens, even the poor and brown ones.
But I am still worried that until there are spending caps and public financing of elections and forcing the airways to be opened to free campaign ads in some prudent way, again no legislation will ever pass that will bolster the middle class. The oligarchs just can’t have total domination with any significant quantity of middle class citizens ever existing.
I *would* say that the bill fixes the preexisting condition discrimination problem, but all that’s going to do is give HMOs another excuse to raise premiums:
“Dear policyholder, we regret to inform you that for the umpcoming year your premium will rise by 47%, in large part due to the increasing number of old and fat fucks that the we are being forced to insure.”
It’ll be like the bailed out banks against the imposition of new taxes. Try to regulate them, and they’ll just find way to make *us* pay for it.
That the health care bill forces people to buy insurance is reason enough to oppose it. How is that even constitutional?
I don’t see any reason to support this bill. For me, the overriding consideration is that it empowers the enemy, period. Every “reform” in it has a compensatory giveaway for the insurers. People will find their premiums going UP, not down, as insurers will be allowed to charge 40% copays. (That’s what will happen to your current plan, which will be “cheaper,” and you’ll be able to get 20% copays back for more money.
The hysteria over “pass the damn bill” in the face of all that’s wrong with it proves conclusively the need to stand outside the collective in order to see halfway straight. In that sense, the formless anxiety of the teabaggers actually makes sense: there are things that go on with society as a whole that take away one’s ability to live free. This is one of them (mandates, etc.).
Overall, the bill is a massive statement of cowardice and failure. Along with the Wall Street bailouts, it says nothing good about America’s ability to adapt to changing times. Best to live our own lives in gradual disengagement from the collective, in other words, find new ways of living that don’t depend on what’s left of our “democracy.”
This bill blows, and the US middle class has officially been relegated to sub-prime status.
Is there a technical financial argument justifying the sale of surplus US population to Chinese salt and coal mines in exchange for federal debt relief?
Health care “reform” has sadly become emblematic of the Obama administration: it could have been so much better.
Don’t the supporters of this bill realize that a mandate isn’t the same thing as “extending coverage”??? Those 30 million will NOT necessarily be pleased at all. I wouldn’t be: I killed our Blue Cross policy because we couldn’t afford it and it did no damn good anyway.
And on the pre-conditions issue, there are of course work-arounds for the insurers. I’m just astounded at the naiveté of what used to be my fellow Democrats on trusting the great corporate state…
I know you talk about him too much, but if you haven’t, read Brooks’ column today in the NYT. WHAT an ahistorical idiot.
[...] also Chait, Benen, and Taibbi. Share and [...]
As depressing and frustrating as this subject is, reading the commentary here gives me hope. You people definitely get what is going on out there, and I take some solace in that. Now if we could just storm the castle…
[...] If David Brooks had a point, he might have a point. More from Taibbi and [...]
This bill is the feather of the vomitorium.
Obama and company carefully managed this to ensure that the bill did no damn good at all, and to put progressives, like Kucinich, on the hook. This bill is a betrayal– an absolute stab in the back to the people who worked to elect that SOB.
Corporatist horror plain and simple. One can be anywhere on the ideological continuum and still loath this bill. Democrats that claim that it is better than nothing have no idea how corrupt their politicians have become. The republicans are all in Newt mode and only want to chalk up a political W. The democratic party has lost it’s soul. I am a conservative. At this point I will vote for any person running for office that convinces me that they are virtuous (regardless of their stated position on any issues.) That’s why I admire Bernie Sander so much.
What really amazes me is that the Democrats have created a bill that will lead to their downfall in November…whether they vote for or against it! That is truly a thing of beauty.
For those wondering if this bill will bring costs down, consider this:
All shareprices of publicly traded American companies are based upon growth. The insurance industry will be given 31 million new customers. So if insurance companies bring prices down that means that their revenue will either decline or flatline, which will result in a drop in their shares. Do you think that they will allow that to happen? The anti-trust exemption will be intact and there will be no government alternative, so where is the incentive to drop prices? This is very similar to when the pols were convinced that NAFTA would result in an explosion in US exports. What is really mind blowing is that both this healthcare bill and NAFTA are/were championed by Democrats, but I guess if you follow Matt’s reporting then that shouldn’t be too big of a surprise.
So true.
In response to another comment. See in context »NAFTA is an excellent analogy.
At least during the Bush years, there was a concerted and organized opposition to corporate power. Not by the Democrats in office at the time (who seemed to do little more than shuffle and cower), but by regular citizens who were disgusted by the Iraq war, tax cuts, the Patriot Act, etc. long before the politicians decided it was safe to jump on those bandwagons.
I can’t understand why normally progressive people would support this monstrosity. It seems incredibly naive. When has any promise to “fix” corporate giveaway bills ever come to pass? And I shudder to think what the place will look like once the recent Supreme Court decision takes effect. Why would Congress be able to do anything down the line if they can’t do it now??
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
I hope you will support the HC reform legislation. As a strong single-payer/public option supporter, I am deeply disappointed we didn’t get more in this bill and agree that the negotiation process was mismanaged on many fronts. However, there are a number of reasons why I have come around to supporting this bill, and the more I learn about it, the more I am convinced of its relative merits.
For one, can we take a break from comparing this bill to some ideal legislation that exists only in the minds and comments of Fire Dog Lake readers? Can we take a moment to compare it to the staggering cost of the status quo? Because that is the choice before us. Rejecting this bill will not cause a magical single-payer pony to arrive for Dennis Kucinich to ride into the sunset. His next presidential campaign may depend on him standing firm in opposition in order for us to differentiate him from the sane candidates but the uninsured in his district still won’t be getting health care. Principals or not, that means he is just as much to blame for such an outcome as the GOP.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether specific regulations go far enough or whether certain cost control measures will save enough money, and I am happy to have that discussion. But to behave as though doing nothing is somehow a better option is absurd. This bill moves forward on a broad front to address cost (fully 9 of HC economists’ 10 best ideas for cost control are included in this bill in one form or another, per Jonathan Cohn) as well as accessibility (31 million more Americans uninsured, no more recision). It fundamentally restructures the individual insurance market in ways that are favorable to consumers and the future cost-curve.
I think objecting on the grounds of the individual mandate is a losing argument. Any credible HC economist will tell you that demanding insurers cover pre-existing conditions while not insisting everyone purchase coverage will result in a death-spiral. Insurers would be forced to raise rates to cover high-cost pre-existing condition patients, pushing more healthy people out of coverage. I agree that a public option would be ideal as an alternative once the mandate goes into effect and I’m disappointed we didn’t get one. However, there is no reason we can’t either add one later or expand Medicare at some point when the political environment allows.
Finally, failing now would likely mean not coming back to the table to address HC for years to come, with no guarantee that the next attempt will be any better. Every piece of major social legislation (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) has been subsequently strengthened and improved. Just take a glance at Paul Ryan’s proposed budget and HC plan if you would like to get a sense of what the opposition will do if it gets half a chance.
I have never been one to employ “cheeto-eater” taunts to deride the efforts the netroots has put into electoral politics and policymaking, and most of that crowd is on board (MoveOn members voted 83% in favor of supporting the bill). But those few holdouts who think opposition at this stage is the best bet for this country’s future are delusional about the kind of effort it takes to make progress in US politics and the kind of opposition we are up against. They also strike me as insulated from the human cost of inaction.
I’m actually just as worried about the human cost of acting by passing this bill. Did the bailout of the banks help homeowners facing foreclosure? No. Will this huge transfer of funds to the private, for profit insurance industry help uninsured and underinsured Americans? No. We are moving further and further into pure privatization. This will further that move. When lower income folks are unable to pay their premiums to private, for profit insurers, government will pay the premiums for them. Yet there are no caps on what these private insurers can charge, nor is there any anti-trust regulation of them to control the costs of premiums, nor are there any standards for coverage, meaning the poor could be charged outrageously for hideous coverage, all subsidized by the government. This is another transfer of government funds to private industry that will benefit few, if any, people other than insurance industry executives and shareholders.
In response to another comment. See in context »No, Matt, there’s no way this bill doesn’t suck.
Between the President’s behind-the-scenes dealmaking with the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and the Congressional sell-out to these same interests, it’s a wonder there’s anything in the measure that’s good for “the people” at all.
Now comes Chris Dodd with his watered-down financial reform package, additional proof that American Democracy in the 21st Century translates to government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
Hell, we can’t even shut down the payday lenders or revoke the insurance companies’ antitrust exemption. (Maybe the latter wil happen, but I’m not holding my breath.)
I think we all know, too, that the checks and balances of our system has failed completely now that the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on the legal and political standing of bricks and mortar.
What we’re witnessing here is not only a continuation of the insane crony capitalism which brought the world’s economy to its knees, but also the subordination of capitalism to a new U.S. economic model altogether: Feudalism.
When you consider the wholesale theft of wealth by the few, the decay of our schools, the usary that passes for consumer credit, the continuing decline of the labor movement, the erosion of Constitutional principles, and the corporate takeover of the media, you can only wonder if the situation is even any longer reversible.
Our solution to the crisis in education is to fire the teachers. Why don’t we just get right to it and fire the students? It would make their transition into our draconian prison system, America’s foremost growth industry, that much more efficient.
Are we, like the banana republics which came before us, merely the progenitors of future generations of “pesantes” who will owe their lives to “the company store?”
The tiny spark of optimism that resides in the furthermost corner of the basement of my soul hopes you’re right and that this pathetic excuse for health care reform will, in some way, lead to genuine reform.
Meanwhile, though, I’m neither celebrating its apparent passage nor mourning its doubtful failure: It is simply the latest artifact in a declining culture which deludes itself into believing it is a thriving democracy, full of vim, vigor, and lively debate.
We have become the patient etherized upon the table while the ragged claws of our elected officials scuttle the floors of silent seas.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. Beautifully said.
In response to another comment. See in context »Jacksonian,
You wouldn’t happen to be a member of brick and blood band of baseball bad-asses would you?
Do the terms the grocer, opening a can of orange whoop ass or the juice box mean anything…
Please pardon me if I am mistaken here; I read your reply to many comments here with admiration and wondered…
Sambito
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry, not a member.
But now I’m intrigued: Please tell me what this membership you reference is all about.
And thanks for your kind words.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, jacksonian was a handle for a website I frequented back in the days when I cared about major league baseball; I followed the Houston Astros for years until I realized my favorite team’s owner is close friends and aligned with the Bush family;
this particular member was particularly salient in his/her arguing, could bring a strong voice to bear and was someone who I enjoyed reading… So, I thought I would ask!
Cheers on St. Pattys
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah, it’s a mess. Too big a mess to pass. Obama has no one else to blame but himself. He did one lazy job. And he had all the cards and still lost it. He basicly lusts after the glory of a bill signing no matter what’s in the bill. It’s going to get worse, a lot worse.
I kinda was thinking along the lines of your RS piece; if this dies again like it did in 1993, no politician’s going near it. Obviously the GOP wants no reform and the Dems will be too afraid. And by the time it’s too urgent to ignore, it will be too late.
-tony healy
I will try to watch my language, out of deference to this forum Mr. Taibbi has provided.
There has to be a stasis in the system, whether it is public or private. (The private sector leeches a “profit,” but let’s put that aside for now.) You collect money from premiums, you pay out money for medical care. At heart, it’s not complicated.
Because no one is willing to discuss limiting treatment in any way, shape, or form (see the above comment regarding mammography screening guidelines), the only way to reach statis while adding expensive patients (pre-existing and the like) is by bringing more money into the system. This bill has decided the best way to do that is to force people without insurance to buy it. And not just *insurance* insurance — i.e., not catastrophic like you have on your car or house, but to buy insurance that is more like membership in a health care coop. So you take people who probably don’t have jobs (or they’d have employer insurance) and tell them they are the chosen group to fund the expensive patients. Does that make any sense at all?
Call me a communist, call me a socialist, call me a Che-loving, Chavez-kissing class warrior, but I feel the burden should be on, not the unemployed lower- and middle-income people, but — gasp — the upper income people. Maybe, just maybe, eliminate Congress’s gift to hedge fund managers called the “carried interest” loophole. And maybe, just maybe, you could raise the top bracket a couple of percentage points without those at that level throwing up their hands and saying, “That does it, 35 percent was fine, but 37 percent, well, I’m just going to sit at home and cry about the oppressive government stealing my money and never work again.”
What with taxes on fuel, food, and phones and a hundred other things, we probably already have a regressive tax system. Why not just reprise the — I said I would not curse — poll tax?
Single-payer is the way to go but it would require a half-bright electorate to do anything bold like that today. It might have been possible back in the day, before we became so ignorant, but not now. Now we’re so gullible to slogans and spin machines we can’t even stay out of a war that clearly didn’t need to be fought.
So as a country of pea-brained adult children, we have to take baby steps. It’s possible the bill we have now might have enough good things in it that it gains loyal users like Medicare and Social Security have.
…. and Medicare and SS both needed to be reworked over the years to become so reliable that most every teabagger is collecting one or the other.
In response to another comment. See in context »The bill doesn’t suck if you have some savings and really old decrepit parents with assets, and want to avoid paying $10k+/month to keep them alive when they can’t tell who you are when you visit the geriatric care center. The government will help you move them along. It also doesn’t suck if you wrote it. Your golden goose is about to lay you a nice big one; those campaign contributions are going to be truly fine investments indeed!
What makes this really suck is that ‘the incrementalistic’ nature of this bill catapults significant reform to the system back into the simplistic narrative of socialism versus hyper-capitalism…. (to be fought over for decades in an Omega death spiral)
By getting us to argue over health care change-lite; both parties succeed in covering up the major swindle of adding new market share and price point controls to an industry happy to oblige a 39% price increase for shit service…. dismantling the last bastions and structures of the new deal; even when popular consensus and cost cutting evidence is present…
No Matt, there really is no way to look at this is as progress unless you believe that extending the argument over time is beneficial for those who want changes made… Its like suggesting a 50 year mortgage to a 24 year old California Grad student who is already is hock…. This is complete shit!
Matt, to answer your question, nope. To take your mind away from health care for a moment with some mild entertainment, if you have the time, you may want to read something from a GS apologist that caught my eye yesterday.
http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=87581#addc
I had a bit of fun with some back and forth with the gentleman. I am sure he would appreciate the attention.
People who support the current bill passing are doing so for purely political reasons. Mostly they think it’s better than nothing and if it doesn’t pass then healthcare reform is gone for another 20 years.
No, if this thing passes, *then* real reform is gone for 20 years. Some people actually think that Obama might try and fix this later on, having got a foot in the door. What rubbish. Obama can’t wait for this fiasco to be over, and all he cares about is passing *anything* so it can be claimed as a victory at the next election.
He’s already talking about education reform now, the healthcare issue is already yesterday’s news for him.
The only way to get reform is to kill this bill and force the dems to start again. Which they won’t. But the mandate in this bill is illegal and immoral and passing this bill is almost guaranteed to make the average person’s cost of getting treat RISE.
And the 30 million people who will be covered now? It’s a myth. They can’t afford it now, they won’t afford it after the bill is passed. It will be cheaper to pay the fine and then get a policy when you actually get sick.
Politically, if this bill is passed then it’s a feather in Obama’s cap that he simply doesn’t deserve.
Here is how I’m looking at this debacle.
If, unfortunately, this crappy bill is passed my personal health insurance situation won’t change for the better.
But on the bright side, if the day comes when I do need serious, expensive medical care, I will be able to cash in my WellPoint, United Healthgroup and Humana stocks to pay for at least a part of that coverage.
Also hoping those stocks split a couple of times prior to me reaching Medicare age.
But I’m an optimist.
Yep. Monitor the stock prices of the companies in the healthcare sector around the time the bill passes, or doesn’t pass. It will be very revealing if the stock prices go down should the bill fail or if the stock prices go up should the bill pass.
In response to another comment. See in context »This is my take on this, and I mostly agree with you.
http://trueslant.com/zaidjilani/2010/03/16/kucinich-to-announce-his-position-on-health-care/
Matt – this bill sucks. And I LOVE it!
As a conservative, this bill has made me the happiest person in America. I’m Judy Garland watching Toto pull back the green curtain on the idiot behind it. Man, it’s been a long time coming. That curtain’s been shut in my face since 2008. Tried my damnedest to pull it back then but it wouldn’t move for shit. All I got was smoke puffed in my face that the ‘community organizer’ was this, he was that. Cough, cough. Obama was ‘brilliant’, he was a ‘literary scholar’, ‘free of corruption’, and ‘above race’.
Oh, yeah right. Obama was a ‘brilliant legal scholar’? Don’t make me laugh. He was a lazy moron with shitty grades and no papers who got elected president of the Harvard Law Review only because the school wanted to pat itself on the back for electing a black. If you’d peered though the damned smoke, you would have seen that not a single judge asked this ‘brilliant scholar’ to be their clerk and not a single top flight law firm offered Obama a position. Yeah, that’s a sure sign of brilliance.
And the smoke of his ‘literary genius’? Oh, yeah – it’s always been a sign of literary talent that this moron couldn’t write a single paper while he was President of the HLR, not even a postcard, and NO papers as he was a constitutional lecturer for a decade. Yeah, it always takes real literary talent to work 3 years on an autobiography and not be able to deliver a single sheet of an outline for it. Ahuh. Tolstoy had the same problem – that’s how come his wife wrote ‘War and Peace’. (Except in Obama’s case, his ‘wife’ was Bill Ayers.)
And the smoke about being ‘above corruption’? Oh, that’s rich – literally. The mansion in Kenwood, doubling Michelle’s salary after he was elected Senator, refusal to release his tax returns, etc. Yeah, no corruption there.
And the biggest, greenest smoke of all – being ‘above race’? Yeah, right. “Uncle” Wright screaming ‘God DAMN America’ and ‘white folks invented AIDS to keep black people down’ for 20 years was a sure sign Obama was above race. Just like me having the Gestapo for dinner for two decades proves I’m not antisemitic.
You know, you’ve got to appreciate the irony that the person who’s now pulling that damned curtain back is none other than the Idiot of Oz himself. The ‘hand’ of his corruption, his greed, his stupidity is what’s yanking that curtain back for good. No smoke can obscure the truth now. This man is a racist, corrupt, moron who wants to impose socialism on the greatest democracy in the world. Bite him in the ass, Toto!
Oh, Schadenfreude is wonderful. I am so going to love November when that curtain topples down and buries Barack in the green folds. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving idiot.
Ah, cheer up, Barack. Maybe Michelle will do a Scarlet and make a dress out of the fabric. (Though with her fashion sense, she’ll probably have the curtain pole coming out her ass.)
Stay classy, conservatards.
In response to another comment. See in context »Plus, he was born in Kenya!
In response to another comment. See in context »Carolyn, the depths of your stupidity are unfathomable.
Let’s start with your formal education, which apparently didn’t include a 6th-grade course in English grammar:
“As a conservative, this bill has made me the happiest person in America.”
Who’s the conservative, Carolyn, you or the bill? According to you, it’s the bill. Is that why it makes you so happy?
This is what’s known as a misplaced modifier.
In that sense, it’s not much different from the misplaced anger you bitterly cling to stemming from the 2008 election. You’re not really upset that a Democrat defeated the wrinkly-old-gray-haired white dude and his brainless sidekick: You’re pissed that the black guy won.
How do I know this?
Let’s sift through the G.O.P. talking points you spew here in conjunction with the histrionic views you picked up from a diet rich in Fox News and the Drudge Report.
He “smokes,” (cough cough), and whatever the community organizer (read: minority advocate) puts in his pipe leaves a “green” trail (wacky tobacky?).
He’s black, so of course his lineage is in doubt and you thus marry him to Bill Ayers and make him Rev. Wright’s nephew.
I’m curious: If he’s related to these two, can we at least agree that he’s probably an American citizen and, thus, the birther arguments are, um, a “smokescreen?”
You concede his academic achievements and scholarly enterprise while cloaking his accomplishments in an evil shroud of mystery and raising doubts about their authenticity, all the while peppering your conspiracy theories with non-stop ad hominem attacks.
And I do mean “pepper” and all of its attendant imagery.
Let’s get this much on the record, Carolyn: Between you and the President, you, in fact, are the unbrilliant, moronic, non-genius.
I’m curious: Have you ever held an original idea in your entire life, or do you cede all independent thought to the mental giants in whose shadow all of mankind walks?
This brings me to your hero and mentor, the paranoid and delusional Glenn Beck, whom you echo in your claim that the nation’s first African-American president is a racist, an assertion which those of us who reside on THIS planet find hilarious, as we did Karl Rove’s snark that Obama is a country club elitist.
In the immortal words of Pee Wee Herman, “I know you are, but what am I?”
You are correct about one thing, though. It is a great democracy that gives both free speech and a forum to the paranoid, racist, mentally challenged among us.
Point taken.
That’s it?
This is the ONLY rebuttal you can give? Calling someone racist and making fun of them? That’s it? You can’t refute the facts with facts of your own? You can’t disprove my argument – you can only name call? Come on – if I’m wrong, nail me with the facts. I said that NO judge offered him a clerkship and that no top flight law firm offered him a position. So refute that fact – give me the name of a judge, of a law firm. I’ve just said Obama’s appointment as president of the HLR was because of his race and not his brains – so defend him by proving that his incredibly high grades and plethora of papers got him the position. Come on. He’s your Messiah, so defend him before the cock crows three times.
I said he didn’t write any papers while serving on the HLR. So come on – bring up three, bring up two, hell, bring up ANY papers he wrote during that time. I said he didn’t write ‘Dreams of My Father’ but instead Bill Ayers did. So disprove what Christopher Andersen said on pages 164-166 of “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage” where Michelle admitted to him that Barack couldn’t write the book and so Michelle handed over all of the notes and tapes to Bill Ayers who wrote it himself. Pick up the phone and call Andersen and call HIM names and say he’s a racist! Look, I don’t make these things up – I just have this ugly habit of quoting facts. I said Michelle’s salary was doubled after her husband entered the Senate – so prove it wasn’t, prove that she took a pay cut instead.
Come on, I gave facts, so give facts of your own to refute mine. And calling me a racist and making fun of me is not refuting the facts, it’s just calling me a racist and making fun of me. And another thing – accusing me of something I never said (the ‘birther’ slur) is also NOT refuting my facts. It’s – sigh – accusing me of something I never said. And last but not least, saying I’m racist because I used the word ‘uncle’ in regard to Rev. Wright. Excuse me? I was quoting Obama. Hello? Obama said Wright was his ‘uncle’. So my quoting someone accurately is not allowed?
Ah, sheesh.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, Carolyn.
First, you offer no facts, just bullshit dressed up as facts, and then, second, you ask me to disprove them, which frankly isn’t my job.
And let’s face it: Not only is it tough to prove a negative, it’s damned-near impossible to discuss facts with the fact challenged living in an information void.
So let’s get this straight from the get-go: Just because you say it doesn’t make it so.
Third, you offer weak arguments, based on questionable “evidence” and fallacious assumptions. Here’s a prime example:
You assert that because President Obama didn’t receive any job offers from top-flight law firms and didn’t work as a judicial law clerk that he is stupid, lazy, and an academic underachiever.
That’s a fairly bold assumption, wouldn’t you say? Maybe he sought other things after receiving his law degree. Perhaps prospective law firms and members of the bench knew his interests lay in community service and so didn’t bother trying to recruit him.
Who knows? Not you.
How the hell would you know what was going on then? Also, are these the only measures of a lawyer’s brains and abilities? Because why? Because you say so?
What is the correlation between Obama’s victory in the U.S. Senate election and Michelle Obama’s career success? Do you have a secret tape recording showing some nefarious connection, or could it just be something you made up?
So you want to question their real-estate holdings too, huh? Because it’s simply inconceivable that two Ivy League lawyers, both gainfully employed and one a best-selling author, would live anywhere nice, right?
You claim to have an “ugly habit of quoting facts.” All I see is an ugly habit of inferring “truth” from lies, smears, petty distortions, small-mindedness, myopia, and general obfuscation.
And a penchant for ad hominen arguments.
For the record, Obama is not my messiah. In fact, I pretty much find him to be a spineless, feckless, weak leader who lacks the courage of his convictions and whose decisions thus far have been mostly disappointing.
Nor did I assert you are a birther — just simply noted the corollary argument to your caustic claims about the president’s lineage.
Sheesh. You’ve never heard of irony? Well, that doesn’t enter the curriculum until about the 8th grade, so whatever.
Here’s the ultimate irony in our discussion: You carry on and on about my failure to rebut your facts and arguments even though YOU HAVEN’T OFFERED ANY, at least not any that carry any measure of credibility.
One thing you excel at is making idiotic comments and then whining when someone calls you out on them.
You’re just another innocent victim, I guess.
Is there a school where conservative women learn this stuff? Is it one of the five colleges Sarah Palin attended?
That would explain a lot.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, to address the quote at the top of the article, you’re correct. The 2003 bill was passed by a 51-50 vote, with Cheney breaking the tie. The 2001 bill enjoyed more bi-partisan support, but only 12 of 43 Democrats voted for it. Not sure I’d call that “significant bi-partisan support.”
Medicare Part D passed the Senate with a 54-44 vote, so again, not a whole lot of bi-partisan support.
As another single payer, public option, and medicare for all fan, I agree the bill stinks, but worse is the crap that even the most feckless conservatives like your pal David Brooks shovel into the debate–”process.” In this case, ohh, that bugaboo of procedures, reconciliation, and how the use of it here to ‘reconcile’ amendments violates precedent–the straw that will, gadzooks!, break the back of the Senate’s regal decorum. Once again, we should be afraid, very afraid. I can almost see the staid columns of the rotundra imploding 2012-style. The apocalypse. And David Brooks, crying, beware.
Well, it’s time to take a stand for reason and level-headedness. Enough of letting Republicans “control the narrative” and frame everything, including the right to decent health care, as some monstrous thing to fear. Brooks engages in the same subtle terrorism as his more rabid brethren, lobbing the canard of radioactive reconciliation just like they have the economy, national security, freedom, and patriotism, to name but a few of the endless items from their kitchen sink. They’re engaged in an all-out, balls to the wall effort to make this Obama’s Waterloo. To make this democracy’s Waterloo. For that reason alone, we need to win it, because as muddled a step as it might seem, it just might develop into a departure, one where the once monolithic right shatters into factions of hostile, open, true believer warfare. Now that would be a sight!
As for the requirement that everybody buy in to an “overpriced product”; for one, I don’t have a problem with compulsory participation, just as I don’t have a problem with taxing citizens to pay for air traffic controllers and firefighters; second, maybe the high price will motivate people to take a second look at the public option sooner rather than later.
“As for the requirement that everybody buy in to an “overpriced product”; for one, I don’t have a problem with compulsory participation, just as I don’t have a problem with taxing citizens to pay for air traffic controllers and firefighters; second, maybe the high price will motivate people to take a second look at the public option sooner rather than later.”
My problem with this argument is that the fire department is not a for-profit venture. It is of the commons, for the commons. The for-profit insurance industry, on the other hand, is actually the enemy of the commons. I also have a problem with the idea that this will magically lead to reform because people will be so mad when their premiums go up. We don’t know that this will happen. But we do know that more people will suffer when they are forced to go deeper into debt to pay for health care. We know that already our system is contributing to our unhealthiness as it causes unnecessary stress and suffering, all in the service of a profit-driven bureaucratic monster that provides no actual health care to anyone. Will this bill alleviate any suffering? I don’t think so. In fact, I think there is a very good chance that this bill will cause more suffering while simultaneously furthering our national privatization enterprise. We are handing over our government coffers to private corporations. Meanwhile, the commons (infrastructure, etc) are being neglected and the people are suffering. How does this make sense? If this is just to preserve the egos of the Democratic leadership, to hell with it. I don’t see the point in electing Democrats when they abandon their stated principles as soon as they get into office. Are we to be a compassionate society that is driven by the desire to help each other, or are we to be a corporatist society driven by the financial needs of our corporate sponsors?
In response to another comment. See in context »One other thing on this. I also don’t believe that mandatory coverage will automatically lead to better health outcomes. Many, many insured people don’t go to the doctor when they ought to because they are afraid of the costs. Insurance doesn’t cover everything, regardless of how ‘premium’ your coverage is. I know this first hand. I had outpatient surgery several years ago. My insurance company didn’t even pay half of the bill (if I’d stayed overnight they would have paid more — talk about cost-effective!). I was stuck with a bill for $11,000 (yes, you read that right) even though my husband and I had paid over $6,000 in health insurance premiums for the year (we are on a university group plan). Fortunately, the research hospital where I had the surgery forgave the debt (they have a foundation to help underinsured patients). If they hadn’t, we would have been in pretty serious financial trouble. How common is this story? Too common. I don’t see how this bill will help the underinsured, though I certainly see how it will add millions of people to the underinsured camp.
In response to another comment. See in context »I guess we’ll have to see whether this lowers or increases the number of uninsured. My sympathies lie almost completely with your comments, but I’d like to think that I’m being realistic when faced with the alternative of not supporting this bill. As I said at the beginning, it stinks, but to my mind, scuttling it would produce an even worse outcome. I hope I’m right, since this ’stinker’ looks like it’s going to pass.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree with everything you say, even your critique of what was a facile remark on my part about high cost motivating the electorate for more reform. I wrote in haste. However, I don’t agree with foregoing this opportunity for some improvement over none, which this will be. The bill is not all BS; it actually does bring about real reforms, small and inexplicably delayed though they will be. Also, where you see higher premiums causing more suffering as a result of the bill, the CBO disputes that claim. If we don’t at at least pass this bill, premiums will rise anyway, and by all projections, at a more alarming rate. So doing nothing out of a puritanical wish for what we want seems to me the greater of two evils.
The next step is to push, like Alan Grayson is doing, for more reform (e.g., expanding Medicare to all).
In response to another comment. See in context »This sucks.
As far as the desperate search for a silver lining goes, the possibility that it might be improved in the future seems too remote.
Several people have suggested that when the public is confronted with the necessity of paying high insurance premiums and hefty co-pays they will be more supportive of a more progressive bill. This would be a valid argument if the public didn’t want health care reform. However, in advancing this bill the Democrats are already putting forth a bill less progressive the what the public wants.
Since money from the insurance industry is one of the things, perhaps the main thing, preventing progressive health care legislation, giving them more money will make them an even more powerful adversary. This legislation does just that.
This mandate to buy a product from a private company will establish a precedent that will make future government mandated purchases easier. Perhaps we will eliminate our schools and mandate that education be purchased from private providers. I just read some comments that pointed in that direction over on a blog discussing New Jersey’s current budget controversy.
The fate of people facing foreclosure while the banks were bailed out shows how the people in power feel about the working class.
I wish the fears of some sort of neo-feudalism sounded crazier than they do.
Lastly, it provides a disincentive to the self-employed to work and seriously hampers the ability of someone striking out on his or her own to start a new venture.
jaxyn, when you say it provides a disincentive to work, are you thinking of people who are on some kind of assistance? I ask because I see a way it could be an (unwanted) incentive TO work. For example, if I’m mandated to buy insurance I can’t afford — as a forced retiree too young for Medicare — I might rejoin the workforce to avoid the mandate.
In response to another comment. See in context »I was thinking of people who do not receive insurance through their employer. They will see a large portion of their take home pay going to the insurance companies. Why on earth would someone work to hand over most of their after tax income to purchase an insurance policy when, if they don’t work, the government will help them? What if someone chooses to not work or to work the least possible? Do they receive the government subsidies?
This is just speculation. I don’t know what the bill says about people who could work and don’t.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ah, okay, I see your point. If the subsidies go away because they start earning more money, they might decide working isn’t worth the effort. I overlooked the fact that not all employers provide insurance.
In response to another comment. See in context »