Progressives – ‘my way or the highway’ does more harm than good
The Senate health care reform bill made it through the first of this week’s critical cloture votes this morning. Barring any unforeseen maneuvers by Democratic senators looking for a few more presents to be placed under their Christmas tree, all systems are ‘go’ for final passage on Thursday night.
Yet, the slings and arrows of the progressive left, who believe that doing nothing is, in this instance, far better than doing something, continue to be hurled at Senate Democrats in an unrelenting hail of anger.
While I identify with progressives – and I think my track record backs me up on the statement – I cannot identify with those who would do away with something that promises to help millions of people (and, yes, I know all too well that it is also going to benefit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies) because the bill fails the ideological purity test. Most who read my page know that I not only think that single-payer is the best way to go, I believe it will be the inevitable result of our current health care system. But I’m certainly not about to forget about those who may be helped by this legislation simply because I’m not yet getting my way.
For those of you whose anger is based on the belief that the legislation will end up causing you to pay more for health insurance, you might be right. However, you might also keep in mind that, for the first time, the government will make subsidies available to help millions afford coverage. For the first time, insurance companies will face regulation designed to prevent them from treating their customers like cattle. For the first time, insurance companies will be barred from taking our money and then bailing out on us when we actually need their help. For the first time, insurance companies will be forced to spend between 80%-85% on actual health care rather than spending it on overhead or feathering their profits. For the first time, insurance companies will have to provide a minimum standard of service if they want to participate on the health care exchanges designed to make them compete for our business.
We all know that the legislation is not all that it could be, but there is simply no denying that the legislation will help a lot of people who are badly in need of help.
Still, the liberal media continues to scream bloody murder.
These are the same people who railed against the Bush Administration’s faith based initiative to help fund soup kitchens and provide other aid to the poor using religious institutions as a means of delivering these benevolent programs. When first proposed, the Left rose in fury, arguing that the Bush program was an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
But do the hungry homeless really give a damn how they get a sandwich? Do they refuse the food because it is being delivered in a manner they deem to be unconstitutional? I don’t think so. They, like those who are more fortunate, want and need to eat.
I recall having dinner one evening with a few friends arguing this very point. As the waiter brought the nice bottle of wine we had ordered for the table, the irony was overwhelming. Here we were, all well-meaning American progressives, having a lovely meal inside a cozy restaurant as we debated the ‘proper’ and constitutional way to deliver a ham sandwich to those living on the street so badly in need of help.
Are we now doing the same thing with healthcare?
While I spend a lot of time trashing conservatives, and I think for good reason, there is an old adage about liberals that we might care to think about. Liberals love to help people – so long as everyone agrees to do it the liberal way.
As I’ve listened to the progressive liberal media, both in the mainstream and the blogosphere, I have yet to hear one such critic say, “I don’t have health insurance for my family, but I would still rather defeat this crappy bill than pass it.”
I suppose that there may be a few young, single bloggers who would be willing to make this statement. But, honestly, aren’t they part of the immortal young who still believe they will never get sick – and don’t have children to worry about?
Just like the folks who criticized faith based initiatives from the comfort of their dining rooms and restaurant tables, it’s awfully easy to criticize health care reform from the comfort of the television studio or seated at your computer in the warmth of office or home, knowing your family has coverage.
As I calculate it, I will, personally, end up paying more for my health insurance and I don’t like that very much. But at least I’ll know that I’ll be able to have health insurance. For someone with my medical history, this is not a small thing.
There are millions out there just like me, just as their are millions out there far worse off because they cannot provide their families with any of the necessary health care they need. I don’t think we should forget about them in the name of progressive purity. I don’t think we should make them wait for help as we take a stand to delay any assistance until we can get a better deal.
While we’re busy being angry, it might not be a bad idea to identify the true villain of the Senate process that produced a bill far less acceptable than the House version.
Paul Krugman reveals that villain in his column today-
The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.
Via New York Times
Joe Lieberman would not have been able to hold up health care reform had it not been for the supermajority now required to pass legislation. Nor would Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landrieu.
Note that there is no filibuster procedure in the House of Representatives where far better health care legislation made it through that body. Their bill is also not perfect, but it does present a reasonably fair compromise between the progressive, centrists and conservative Democrats who make up the majority.
The United States Constitution set up the Senate to be a body where the majority rules – not a 60 vote supermajority. Thus, this ridiculous, overly used procedural opportunity does not have to continue.
Why not direct that progressive anger where it can do some good? Focus on ending the filibuster that brought down the dream of a more progressive health care program. Because if you think that sniping at the current Senate bill is going to help anyone, you are simply repeating the mistakes of history. If there is no health care legislation passed this time around, God only knows how long it will be until it can be placed back on the national agenda.
Do you like Social Security? Did you know that, as initially passed, millions of people were left out of the program, particularly African-American citizens? As time has progressed we’ve fixed it, constantly improving the entitlement to treat everyone more fairly. Do you like Medicare? Did you know that, as initially passed, the coverage did not extend nearly as far nor as deep as it does today?
We have what we have and, if nothing else, it is a beginning. The crime is not that we didn’t get everything we want. The crime will be if we simply forget about it after passage and stop working in the coming years to make it better.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I dropped everything and rushed right over.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think part of the problem here is that for many of my fellow lefties health care reform is more about hobbling the insurance companies than it as about getting people the help they desperately need. Lets face it “Don Quixote syndrome” is part of the liberal psyche. I think the future of the American health care will be a very tightly regulated insurance industry and a substantial safety net. Is this what I was hoping for health care reform to be? Far from it, but I can live with it.
I think you are exactly right. And we’d all like to hobble the insurance industry because they deserve it. But, as you understand, to do so at the expense of those who are in need of immediate help is cutting off the nose to spite the face — and its usually someone else’s nose, not the critic’s.
In response to another comment. See in context »OK, I’m back just for a quick comment and to answer Rick’s questions from the previous thread and then I’m out:
Re: getting rid of the old people in congress:
I tend to believe that younger senators would be more likely to be less corrupted by big business and more progressive in thought and action in representing the people. (I could be wrong). There are always exceptions to my generalization.
Yes, Rick, I do have health insurance. I am fortunate to have a relatively good plan and I know that many people cannot afford insurance or must pay for it without employer assistance, but I have dealt with insurance claims being denied in the past and think there must be a better way.
I am for single-payer, and I am NOT a ‘my way or the highway’ progressive, but I think we can do better. We should hold our representatives in Washington to a higher standard. Just because a bunch of senators have come to an agreement doesn’t mean the bill is final. They still have to reconcile with the House bill, and hopefully, they’ll improve the bill a bit before they pass the thing.
The other thing I wanted to say was that the problem with the current way they do filibusters is that they don’t make the congressmen sacrifice anything to perform them. It’s far from the ‘George Bailey’ version many are familiar with, and that’s the problem.
Look at how much the filibuster has changed over the years: http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=227
Two changes to current filibuster rules would fix the process. 1) The person doing the filibuster must actually be present and hold the senate floor.
2) A simple majority of present senators can break it.
That said, I still think they should call the bluff. You might be surprised to see a few senators get their arms twisted to get the 60 votes to break it.
I agree with pretty much everything you are saying except the following -
1. I’m not convinced that younger Senators would be less subject to being corrupted by special interests. Our system rewards candidate who can raise more money than the other candidate. Thus, money from any source often makes the difference between winning and losing. Younger senators would need this money to win as much as the older ones. The only way to solve this is to remove private and corporate money from campaigns and allow the government to give every candidate for a particular office the same amount- like they do in the UK.
2. I wish I could believe that there is still an opportunity to twist arms in the senate to get a better bill, however I’m absolutely convinced that it won’t happen. There is no getting around the math. There is no REpublican who will vote for cloture. Lieberman is not gong to back off and neither is Nelson.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well said, Rick.
thx
In response to another comment. See in context »Bravo, Rick, and this applies to so many more issues than health care. The irony is that progressives, if they favor anything, ought to favor progress, which is almost always incremental. Take the gains, then push them further. When we flatly oppose, we’re forming a block with Republicans (e.g. Nader+Bush v. Gore).
The ‘my way or the highway’ label applies more accurately to Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu than to the liberals who are rightfully outraged at this watered-down bill.
As Dean noted last week, this senate bill could’ve been done through reconciliation, since it is a budgetary bill. No filibusters are allowed in the reconciliation process, and 51 votes would’ve been all it needed to pass. But no, Reid insisted on going for the 60 votes, and that required so much backroom horse-trading that it sacrificed true reform, to appease just one obstinate, fickle senator(who even campaigned on the expansion of Medicare to those 55).
Those who applaud the passage of this bill, and claim that these sacrifices were necessary to secure 60 votes, are helping to prop up this bogus political theater. 51 votes would’ve passed it in reconciliation, so it could have kept the public option, as well as abortion funding (and it would prevented the bribes via extra medicare funding for certain states, as well).
As it is, this bill will benefit the insurance industry more than the American people. Shame on you Reid, for perpetrating this sham on the American people with your ‘required 60 votes’. If some of you want to celebrate the passage of this travesty, fine Mr. Ungar, but don’t stoop to insulting those of us who can see through Reid’s legislative shenanigans.
Groucho=
Then how about if I insult you by pointing out that you simply don’t have a clue as to how reconciliation works? Nor, apparently, does Governor Dean.
What can and cannot be put through the Senate using reconciliation is determined by first seeking the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, currently a gentleman named Alan Frumin.
While the Senate is not obligated to follow the advice of the Parimamentarian, it is very rare that they do not as failure to do so, brings into play an enormous number of complications for legislation if the rules are not properly follwed.
In the case of the reform bill, there were items that the Parliamentarian believed could be accomplished through reconciliation, but vital parts of the bill, having nothing to do with budget were not. All of the regulatory aspects including clamping down on the insurance companies with respect to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc., etc., etc. would have been omitted.
In response to another comment. See in context »So, you know, get over yourself. While I agree that all of the senators you named are guilty of ‘my way or the highway’, that does not justify sticking your nose up and denying help to people who need it.
Tell me, Groucho, do you have health insurance? Do you have a family? If you do have a family, are they protected? How easy is it for you to take such a bold stand? What are you going to suffer if the legislation is defeated?
And what about those in the Senate with pretty damn good progressive credentials who have agreed that it is better to have this than have nothing? Boxer, Harkin. etc?
I think something that has been lost here is the fact that there is nothing preventing the congress from doing a public option via reconciliation after this bill is law. However what many people fail to realize that many aspects of the senate bill could not be made law by reconciliation, insurance regulation for example.
In response to another comment. See in context »correct
In response to another comment. See in context »Apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about. The bill could’ve been split into two. The budgetary aspects of the bill, which would’ve included the creation of the public option, could’ve indeed been passed through reconciliation. The non-budgetary aspects, such as regulation of insurance standards, could’ve been done in a separate bill. Or weren’t you aware of that? I’m sure you are well aware of this, and you are just being incredibly disingenuous with your reply.
In response to another comment. See in context »As for myself, I have been working for the same small company for the past 11 years. At first the company paid for my insurance 100%, then 50%, then 0%, due to ever-increasing rates.
According to the information in the CBO report of 11-30-09 on the senate HC bill, here’s how the bill will effect me: I will receive no government assistance, because I make too much ($50K). It will require me to buy a policy at a minimum of $5200 a year, with an out-of-pocket deductible of $1900 per year. That basically means that I still couldn’t afford to go to the doctor unless I had a very a serious problem.
This is no better a deal than what is already currently available to me. And if I don’t purchase the policy, I will be fined 2% of my income, $1K (although I’ve heard that there is a $750 cap on the fine, although I’ve yet to see it in writing). I’m not looking for free HC insurance, but I was hoping that the government would at least help reduce the deductible for someone in my shoes.
BTW, I’m a longtime comics/animation fan and I’m glad that you left Marvel Animation – they’ve finally made some decent cartoons since you’ve been gone.
Geez guy, seriously creepy.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, as to your first point, let me just say, “duh’. Of course it can be split in two. And while the fiscal parts of the bill could have been pushed through by reconciliation, the policy potions would have been successfully filibustered. While maybe that works for you, it certainly wouldn’t work for me. And as Brian correctly points out, once the policy elements are put through, we can always go back and push through a public option or Medicare buy=in using reconciliation.
Secondly, if it costs you over 5K to get insurance for your family, and you earn 50L, you would NOT be penalized for not buying insurance as the hardship rules extend to anyone who cannot buy the lowest priced health insurance policy that costs more than 8% of their income.
Thirdly, you’re comments on cartoons are, as Brian says, creepy, The good news for you is that television sets have an on and off button and nobody can force you to watch. As for me, I’ll try to somehow muddle through life as best I can knowing you disapprove of my creative efforts.
You’re welcome to disagree with me all you wish. In fact, it’s encouraged. But let’s try and keep the stupid stuff out as it wastes other readers’ time.
In response to another comment. See in context »It seems that your attitude towards creating cartoons and legislation is similar. “Who cares if its half-assed, we got it done!” – “Hey, Stan Lee is putting his name on it, so that means its approved by the House of Ideas!”
Yes, I’m quite grateful for the ‘off’ button myself.
Okay, back to the issues – as you note, if the budgetary part had gone into reconciliation, the second part of the legislation, which would’ve applied to regulations, would’ve been subject to filibuster. But without the public option, or any funding aspects in the bill (such as abortion), it would’ve been much easier to get the 60 votes. It’s called FORESIGHT and STRATEGY.
Reid’s handling of this bill has been disastrous from the get-go. First he put it in the hands of Max Baucus, who needlessly forfeited the Democratic majority on the finance subcommittee in the name of ‘bipartisanship’. Grassley’s inclusion on the finance panel insured the removal of the public option then, just as the ‘need’ for Lieberman’s vote did this time as well.
I certainly hope that this bill does indeed help the uninsured poor, and that it is improved upon through future legislation. I will most likely bite the bullet and pay the fine for not having insurance, why should I pay $100 a week for a policy that I still can’t afford to use?
In response to another comment. See in context »I have been a labor democrat all my life and have been frustrated every year since Reagan. Frankly I’m sick and tired of losing to big business out of compromise and reasoned and realistic positions.
It would be nice to identify the real villain but the White House selected Howard Dean to be that villain in a continuation of Clinton’s disreagard .
lib I’m not sure what your Clinton reference means. But lets get real, the right hasn’t gotten everything it wants either. We’re not forcing our children to pray in school. We have a black president, abortion is still legal and likely always will be, I could go on.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian,
Simply stated the Clinton reference is an observation that the White House looks like Clinton administration part 3. Not that such a thing is not a vast improvement over the horror of Bush/Cheney but I voted for Obama, for a departure of both Bill and George both of whom were far too chummy with Wall Street, Banks and big business. Progressives have tried to point out that there is something systematically wrong with out economy, including health care, but it seems the status quo is being maintained and not even questioned.
In response to another comment. See in context »“the White House looks like Clinton administration part 3.”
Except, Libtree, that the Clinton Administration never accomplished this much health-care reform. On my topic, environment, the Obama Administration accomplished more in the first 100 days than Clinton did in eight years. Even raising fuel-efficiency standards for cars was too much for Clinton. Now we have them.
“Progressives have tried to point out that there is something systematically wrong with out economy, including health care, but it seems the status quo is being maintained and not even questioned.”
The ’something systematically wrong’ is capitalism. We can either have a president who achieves progress within that system or we can have a local version of Hugo Chavez in the White House, ranting against the status quo. But how much would Hugo get past our Senate?
In response to another comment. See in context »Points taken.
However I do not want a President raving against the status quo but one who would examine that status quo, find where it went off the rails and make some attempt to correct the situation.
I do not see that happening and it worries me.
Given I may be impatient and annoyed that the very people who brought on the collapse are in charge of fixing the problem.
In response to another comment. See in context »Damn…I wish my cat would not submit comments so let me continue. Howard Dean is not the villain, the man deserves some respect. The idea that Rahm can just take progressives for granted is insulting and what we have passed is a bill that Hillary would have and probably did craft and it is not a pretty picture but a perfect example of neo-liberal thought of letting business get on with business.
Now we will see a spat of mergers and will before long have health insurance companies too big to fail regardless of the fact that their business model does not work.
So our only hope is to have democrats get a super duper majority of the Senate so we can improve the bill although Gingrich promises that Republicans will undo everything the democrats have done if they get control of congress.
Krugman said this today:
“But our current situation is unprecedented: America is caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority party determined to block action on every front. Doing nothing is not an option — not unless you want the nation to sit motionless, with an effectively paralyzed government, waiting for financial, environmental and fiscal crises to strike.”
If this bill is an example of action from the White House we are, as Bette would say,”…in for a bumpy ride.”
Lib-
In response to another comment. See in context »Your comment that this will force insurance company to merge and get too big to fail is kind of interesting.
I completely agree that we will see a bunch of mergers. Health insurance companies work on very narrow profit margins – estimated, on average, to be about 3.5%. As the new regulations will make it harder for them to profit, I think they will begin to merge. But it won’t matter. Even as larger entities, they will have trouble showing annual profit increases that are enough to please Wall Street. As a result, they will either have to raise prices or lower benefits. The government isn’t going to allow them to lower benefits. as they seek to raise prices, they will run up against the problem of pricing themselves out of the middle class. THat’s when they will be all finished. And there won’t be a government bail out because the government is already in the business. That is when we will have single-payer.
Rick,
I do not disagree but there is a third option for the insurance company that would require something that these companies are adverse to doing: negotiate lower prices for drugs and services.
What worries me is wall street chopping up policies and selling them as securities is done in life insurance business. Hopefully after the new year we can get to work on a meaningful financial reforms to stop that nonsense. When wall street started popping champaign over the legislation I get worried. I am quite happy about the non-profits, at least there is some hope of cost containment.
I will admit the White House has left a bitter taste in my mouth and a feeling of betrayal from Rahm.
In response to another comment. See in context »Lib – just to keep it straight, the insurance companies are not allowed to sell their life-insurance policies as securities. Where they got in trouble was taking the money they earned from selling life-insurance and investing in derivatives. Mortgages, on the other hand, can be sold as insurance policies.
In response to another comment. See in context »The reason Wall Street has reacted positively to the legislation is they like the mandates that will keep business flowing to the insurers. But, keep in mind that Wall Street investors buy for the short term- not the long term. By the time the heath insurers are unable to stay in business, today’s investors and today’s management will be long gone.
[...] Rick Ungar reminds… Do you like Social Security? Did you know that, as initially passed, millions of people were left out of the program, particularly African-American citizens? As time has progressed we’ve fixed it, constantly improving the entitlement to treat everyone more fairly. Do you like Medicare? Did you know that, as initially passed, the coverage did not extend nearly as far nor as deep as it does today? [...]
Spiro Agnew took $248,000 in bribes…..not enough to even warm up coffee reid, nelson, dodd, et al
Yeah…Spiro Agnew…those were the good old days. Just a tiny point of differentiation. The money negotiated with the senators you mention will be in benefits to their states. Spiro got the money in manila envelopes delivered to his office and put in his pocket.
In response to another comment. See in context »Groucho-
So your argument is that had the public option been separated out and passed by reconciliation, the opponents of the policy would have simply rolled over on a separate bill that contained the non=fiscal elements? That’s your strategy?
It is becoming increasingly clear why you don’t like my television shows. I don’t think you were up to following them. Fortunately, most of the kids who watch are bright enough to handle them.
Deride the idea of splitting the senate HC reform bill into two, and ramming the budgetary aspects through with reconciliation, all you like; your opinion has no bearing on whether or not the strategy would’ve worked. It would’ve saved the public option, as well as abortion funding, making it worth the extra effort.
Without such lightning rods as the public option and abortion funding, what would have been in the regulatory bill for Lieberman and Nelson to object too? The controversial parts of the senate HC bill would’ve been passed already in the budgetary bill.
As for your ‘creative efforts’, most of the shows you produced are reviled and disparaged throughout fandom. During your tenure with Marvel, the DCAU soared to great critical heights. Marvel certainly has characters and storylines just as compelling to draw upon, but the shows you produced …well, the word ‘lackluster’ comes to mind. And ’stupid’.
BTW, you claimed that you forgot that Mutant X was already a comic book before you used the name for a series? Disingenuousness seems to be a recurring character trait for you.
Insult me all you like, but I’m not the one gullible enough to fall for the political charades that you’re championing. If you like the bill, fine, but why the need to tear down those of us who can see through the senate’s BS? Do you think we all need to tow the party line, like good little democrats, comrade?
In response to another comment. See in context »As long as we’re getting all ‘geeky’, thought you’d like to know that I showed your comments to my good friends, one of whom was president of Warner Animation in the time period referenced and produced all the DC stuff, the other the publisher of DC Comics.They both enjoyed the comments immensely. One of them responded, “I agree! My shows were way better!” and the other noted “While DCAU may have soared, I’d rather have had your stock options because they really soared!” Amen to that.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course, they both then wanted to know what I thought about the health care bill. I told them to read this post and the comments. One of them, I won’t say who for his own protection – emailed me and said, I’m glad this guy has good taste in comics because he’s not too clear on politics.”
I guess the bottom line on this is that, in your anger and bitterness, you just don’t get the legislation thing. And, again, I’ll find a way to live with your critique of my time at Marvel.
Rick, I feel like perhaps I’ve gone too far with my attacks on your work with Marvel. In truth, your FF series wasn’t half-bad, especially when compared to the more recent FF animated trainwreck.
In my original post, I did not mean to insult you with my statement, “If some of you want to celebrate the passage of this travesty, fine Mr. Ungar, but don’t stoop to insulting those of us who can see through Reid’s legislative shenanigans.” Did this somehow offend your delicate ego?
Apparently it did, because you came out of the gate swinging at me, with your reply:
“Groucho= Then how about if I insult you by pointing out that you simply don’t have a clue as to how reconciliation works?” And then you proceeded with your overly ‘faux-naïf’ reply.
Basically, the point I’m trying to make is that why doesn’t Harry Reid and the democrat leadership make better use of their having the majority? They certainly could if they wanted to.
Baucus’s limiting the senate finance panel to an equal number of republicans and democrats is a classic example of this, and this creating a need for 60 votes is another. With better long-range planning, the democrats could be legislating with far more effectiveness.
Many bills have passed with less than 60 votes. Its true that republican filibustering has become much more prevalent as of late, but there ARE ways to get around that. Of course that would require a much stronger Majority Leader. I’m just sayin’…
In response to another comment. See in context »“did not mean to insult you with my statement”
Bullshit and as far as appologies go groucho that’s something else you can add to the long list of things you know little about.
In response to another comment. See in context »snappy come back groucho.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m accused of many things -but rarely a delicate ego.
I really didn’t think this post insulted anyone and that is why I responded as I did. IF you’ve read any of my previous posts, you would find that I’m as disturbed with not only the Senate’s behavior – but particularly critical of the president’s behavior in the health care effort.
Now, to provide a serious answer to your question, the reason Harry Reid doesn’t do a better job with his majority is because he doesn’t really have a very strong majority. Yes, there are 58 democrats and 2 independents, however the truth is that the conservative democrats are more effective at being republicans than republicans.
But this is nothing new. The battle for social security was very much like the battle we have been experiencing. the battle for Medicare was also very similar. There was huge objection not only from the Republicans of the day, but also the Democrats. Indeed, it was the Democratic chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, Wilbur Mills, who stood as the greatest obstacle to the passage of Medicare.
I’m not sure why you are suggesting that the Senate Finance Committee is equal in its membership (there are 13 democrats and 10 republicans) so I’m guessing you’re referring to the ‘gang of six’ panel he set up. I would agree that this was a waste of time. But the reason for it was the difficulty that has always been faced in trying to pass major, social legislation without bi-partisan agreement. That was what Baucus was going for – it clearly didn’t work.
However, had the finance committee done its work without any republicans, the outcome would not have been different. Joe Lieberman was never going to support a public option because he is far too beholden to the insurance companies based in his home state. How else do you explain his being for a Medicare buy-in just three months ago only to turn against it now? It’s because his masters would not permit him to support it. With no Joe LIeberman, a filibuster could not overcome. And I promise you that LIeberman would have made it very clear that any effort to ’split’ the bills would result in him voting against both. He may not have been able to stop the filibuster on the public option, or Medicare buy-in but he never would have rewarded the democrats by not filibustering the bill that was not fiscal. Same for Nelson, Landrieu and all the other Democrats against further government involvement in health coverage.
I speak to these people in Washington on a fairly regular basis. They’ve known for sometime that they would have big problems from these people, not to mention Evan Bayh who managed to hide during the debate but would have been against a public option because he owes his personal fortune to his wife’s job at Wellpoint.
It’s not that I’m a big Harry Reid fan as, it happens, I’m not. But only a majority leader – or president- with pictures (like LBJ) would have been able to twist these arms – unless they had overwhelming public support, which they don’t. They should have. This is where the president blew it.
As for the Marvel stuff, I promise you it doesn’t bother me at all. Truth is, I get a kick out of it. I’ve been getting crap from fanboys forever, as has everyone else at Marvel. You should see the emails Avid Arad gets! I get off easy.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am in total agreement with you finally. Thanks for taking the time for the thoughtful reply, and sorry I was a bit of a jerk earlier. Feel free to insult my work anytime. Grouchiness is my schtick, and I just can’t help myself sometimes.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
I must admit that as a novice in the ways of wall street, but this article did make raise some alarms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06insurance.html
And saying they are acting positively is not exactly accurate, some stocks are up 30%, that is acting hysterically positive.
lib-ah…i see why you arrived at the conclusion you reached.I was unaware that they were trying to do this, but it is a bit different. A life insurance company cannot package a life insurance policy they’ve issued to you and sell it as a security. What the article you forwarded is talking about is you being able to take your life insurance policy, which has a face value of 1 million, sell it to someone at a discounted price, say 400k and that buyer of your policy can package them and sell a bunch as a security. This only works if you are willing to sell your life insurance policy at a great discount to face value (only worth it when you’re dead) so you can get money while you are still alive.
In response to another comment. See in context »This couldn’t be done by health insurers as health policies have no face value to you as a consumer. In other words, owning a life insurance poiicy with a 1 million dollar value is a guarantee that when you die, it pays off 1 million dollars. There is no such thing with health insurance.
Am I explaining that clearly??
Rick,
Thanks…I get it. Still learning.
In response to another comment. See in context »Criminal harry reid has second early morning vote for senate health bill…..harry reid is a common thug
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/12/22/senate-vote-puts-health-reform-closer/27197/
The “health” portion of the bill starts in 2014,
the tax portion of the bill starts next year
Congress has made itself exempt from this bill