I’d have to say the most irritating thing about the blue dogs and the centrists is there just doesn’t seem to be much that can be done to them. You can’t even primary them.
Well, you can primary them, but what is the point? If they keep blocking reform, if they keep praying to the alter of fiscal conservatism and concern trolling about deficits while unemployment is at 10% for sustained periods, there simply is no point in primarying them- they will be the ones wiped out in November 2010. They live in districts where it is hard to be elected a Democrat in good times, in bad times, when it is time to unload on the party in power and the Democrats are the party in power, they are simply going to be decimated. The Republican tsunami in 2010 isn’t going to take out Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank. It is going to take out the blue dogs (and honestly, it is hard to really get too worked up about that at this point).
For some strange reason they think they will be spared in Nov. 2010 because they were “moderate” or not “too liberal,” like that means anything to the Republicans or an electorate out for blood. They are writing their own death warrants by blocking reform- primarying them would be akin to attempting to murder someone who is busy committing suicide. What would be the point?
It just makes you feel so helpless.
Bobby Thomson
You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new west. You know… morons.
Martin
Hate to point it out, but considering sunk costs, right now it’s liberals that are blocking reform because it isn’t as much reform as they’d like. Yeah, I understand they’re pissed that everyone except for the DCCC fucked up the MA election, but there’s a clear way out of this mess that they’re unwilling to take.
The Bearded Blogger
Well… the whole “model” of the rural democrats needs to be re-thought. “Conservatism” conflates pro-rich people and social conservatism. I think a new breed of “dogs” needs to be supported, one that is socially moderate/conservative but fiscally pro-people. Instead of primarying out current blue dogs, the grass roots should be supporting populist rural democrats against republicans at whatever level of government (local, municipal), such a brand of democrats can be found
arguingwithsignposts
Okay, this is weird. The front page in Flock shows no ads, no blogroll, no graphics except the top header.
If I click to go to the comments, the ads, blogroll, recent comments, etc. show up.
what gives?
SGEW
This is the human condition. It sucks, don’t it?
John S.
No, but yeah, but no, but yeah…
See, because like my bestest girlfriend in the world Sherri who has this slag of a boyfriend was out at the club, and he was wearing these ridiculous pants that she bought from my ex-boyfriend…and he says that Blue Dogs are stupid because they’re not blue and they’re certainly not dogs so what is the point in calling them that? And she was all, “What the hell are you talking about?” and everyone got in a row, and then they went back to the flat and had make-up sex and now she’s preggers.
Sorry, I’ve been watching Little Britain to cheer myself up.
Comrade Mary
@Bobby Thomson: Nice!
(I don’t see anything but central content on the home page, too, although the sidebar etc. show up fine in here.)
Zam
This is definitely true, they really should have taken the risk and passed some serious reform/stimulus. If it fails they are out if they go this moderate “lets not really do anything” route they are gonna be out, but if it pays off they might secure a permanent spot.
Dave Fud
Ultimately, it seems likely that we will have to resign ourselves to no progress during this year, and then hope that the Senate changes its rules to a simple majority rule, thus defanging the blue dogs.
Majority rule is the solution to the blue dog tail wagging the blue party – if the Democrats last long enough in power to actually do this, and actually decide legislative accomplishments are more important than whining about how the other team didn’t let them do anything.
It seems to me we might as well check out until 2011, cause the dynamics of the legislature surely haven’t changed.
NR
@Martin:
FIFY.
Also, Stupak.
Frank Chow
“Time to get our own version of the Teabaggers. Tea Potters?
Anyone remember what went wrong in 1994. We felt helpless and did nothing. Time for a revolution.
Streaking in the quad! Let’s go streaking! Who is with me?!!”
*crickets
John, this Massachusetts hangover will pass. The only way to beat it is with a good night’s rest and the waking up with a new found spirit. It might seem hokey, but doing nothing and just feeling helpless would be much worse. The Blue Dogs should just shift to the Republican Party, then Republicans will have a super majority that accomplishes nothing because it would be ruined by Bluish Red Dogs.
Midnight Marauder
@arguingwithsignposts:
This has been happening for me with Safari. And on a similar note, has anyone else not been able to use Ctrl+V to paste an address in when the hit the link button? It’s a small thing, sure, but holy hell is it annoying.
stevie314159
“Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.”
—-Friedrich von Schiller
John Cole
@arguingwithsignposts: Tim forgot to close a tag in his open thread below. I fixed it and it should be normal now.
Irony Abounds
You can debate health care reform being the problem until you are blue in the face. The simple fact is that as long as the economy is in the shape it is in, the party in power is going to suffer for it. If unemployment had started to fall in July or even September, and were down below 9% today, Coakley would have won going away and we’d have a health care bill finished and in place.
People are angry because they are either in dire straits, or afraid of being in dire straights (we really have become a nation of cowards). Yes, there are some angry white males who, knowingly or not are reacting to a black President, but the vast majority of the rabble is upset because the economy stinks and the light at the end of the tunnel is, as of yet, indistinguishable from a train. I agree entirely with John’s analysis that the moderate Dems are doing themselves no favors, but passing HCR without a demonstrable pickup in the economy in the next six months would not save them either.
John O
We are helpless. We’re owned, lock lock, stock, and barrel.
What you have to do now is figure out how to survive it, which options depend a lot on both your age and how much money you have.
I think it is an under-discussed thing, really, that everyone deciding on our health care will never worry (and likely has never worried) about their own health care.
(Yes, I know it has been done, but it sure as heck isn’t a part of our Sunday talk show Pundit Freak Show, that’s for sure.)
Chyron HR
@NR:
FIFY
Oh, okay, we’ll compromise–the House can just vote on the bill that doesn’t have their Stupak amendment in it. You’ve driven a hard bargain, sir.
BombIranForChrist
This is absolutely 100% correct, and it is backed up by history. When there is a wave, the moderates go first. That is what happened to the Dems in the 90’s and the Republicans in the late Naughties.
I guess every Congress person has their reason for acting as they do. Some is stupidity, a lot is ego, and some is a combination of stupidity and ego: future plans for a shot at the presidency (see Lieberman, Bayh, etc.)
Alex S.
I’ve heard that Mike Pence is thinking about a race against Evan Bayh. And I already know that the more Bayh runs to the right, the more he will lose – because you just can’t beat someone like Pence by agreeing with him on everything.
On topic, we are all mayans now.
Violet
I wish we could find a way to take away health insurance coverage for our elected representatives and their families.
It’s so easy to get coverage on your own, I think our representatives should see just how fun and awesome it is. And of course their plans should be scrutinized and be forced to be made public so their constituents can see for sure they’re not getting any sweetheart deals from insurance companies.
Irrelevant,YetPoignant
“People are bloody ignorant apes.”
– Samuel Beckett
liberty60
I am not ready for this despair.
In 1976, after the Carter victory, Time (or Newsweek) ran a cover story entitled “Can the Republican Party Survive?” and it had a long scary article about how the GOP might just disappear.
Then in 2002, Rove was talking about a permanent Republican majority.
In 2009, we heard the same song and dance, about a major realignment for a generation.
Stop this shit. The Village loves to invent trends and tell us where the momentum is, and therefore justify their foolishness, and our powerlessness.
Political fortunes change, and aggressive action at the grassroots level DOES change things.
Who is coining the term “Republican Tsunami”? Fuck that.
A “41 seat majority” is a joke, people, not a reality.
Panurge
1. Frank Chow is right–helplessness is the last thing anyone needs. OTOH, ISTR that few people really thought the GOP would take over Congress in ’94. It’s different this time, and that ought to light a fire under us. If not, why not?
2. Who would be hurt by the Senate bill?
paradox
Jane Harman is a House blue dog and her district is classically liberal.
Jane Harman deserves to be and can be primaried.
Comrade Dread
Whiskey Rebels. We’d have much better parties. And blackjack. And hookers.
bobbo
It seems fairly clear that the Dems could pass the Senate health care bill today if they wanted to, so I can only conclude that they don’t want to. There was the letter to TPM from the Senate staffer saying that people seemed relieved that they had lost their 60th seat. So what’s going on here? Why do these people run for office, if they don’t really want to do anything? And why should I vote for them?
mcc
A running theme in the HCR process has been “moderates” watering down the legislation because they think this will be the way they defend themselves to angry constituents who are against the bill– they can say, look, I voted for this super-liberal thing, except because of me it wasn’t as liberal as it might have been otherwise. Except then it turns out the angry constituents didn’t care how liberal or conservative the bill is to begin with. They just wanted the bill blocked. There are people who will turn against a bill because it’s lacking “liberal stuff”, but no one who will turn to support it because of such.
It seems like the critical thing here is that these “centrists” really just aren’t acting out of either any kind of principles or beliefs or ideology, or any kind of analysis of what a bill will do once it passes. They’re acting solely out of a short-term analysis of what will or won’t help them in the next election. And– this is the important bit– they’re not very good at it.
fasteddie9318
As long as a majority of the country lives in a minority of its congressional districts (those big, blue cities you see on the electoral maps), this is going to be true. Sure, we could follow the, you know, original intent of the framers and limit congressional districts to 60,000 residents and actually restore the equal representation of those major population centers, but that would make the House like really big and stuff and probably permanently
DemocraticCommie Terror-Lover. Can’t have that. Also too.http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Even with Blue Dogs and centrists there is a simple majority in both houses to support decent, if imperfect, legislation on health care, financial reform, climate change, and so on. The conservadems are irrelevant, if leadership will be big enough pricks to make them so.
chrismealy
You’d think the Democrats could remember how poorly the defensive crouch worked back in 2002.
donovong
“It just makes you feel so helpless.”
More like disgusted. I am the biggest Obamabot out here, but based on the most recent reports that even he is about to roll over and play dead on HCR, I am up to my eyeballs in bile. The smartest thing in the world would be to pass the goddam Senate bill thru the House NOW and then make the necessary corrections later. But, there doesn’t appear to be the COURAGE necessary to do so. FUCK BIPARTISANSHIP.
And fuck the Democrats if they don’t pass HCR now. The chickenshit motherfuckers.
Martin
@NR: You’re right. The millions of people that could get covered by the Senate bill don’t matter. The elimination of pre-existing conditions doesn’t matter. What really matters is that insurance executives don’t lose their Ferraris and that Joe Lieberman get punched in the neck. Got it.
The Stupak amendment is in the House bill, not the Senate one that the House can now vote on.
Maybe if you stop being pissed at legislators and start thinking about what the bill will actually mean to people, you might not say such stupid fucking things, Jane.
mr. whipple
I’m not so sure it’s cowardice, maybe just impatience.
When FDR took over in 1933, the country had been in the toilet since 1929. Unemployment was at 25%, and actually got worse the first year of his term.
It took all the way until entering WWII for unemployment to hit 10%.
Somehow he was able to get reelected despite all this miserable crap, again and again.
Now, we have a president barely one year into the worst recession ever, just averting a global financial meltdown, and people are impatient that it hasn’t turned around 7 months after the stim passed.
liberty60
@Frank Chow:
Panurge
3. There’s another reason for primaries: It would get liberal ideas into the discourse of the various districts and states that really haven’t heard from them in years, maybe decades. You don’t even have to hurt the general-election chances of the Blue Dog of your choice to do at least some good.
Darryl
Fixed.
Kristine
I am guessing that my rep, former-Blue-Dog-now-New-Dem Melissa Bean, believes that her work to weaken the CFPA will counteract her support of health care reform. Maybe it will.
I still called her office to ask her to support the Senate bill. Damn little else I can do.
Martin
@Panurge: People who care more about punishing Joe Lieberman than helping people who need health insurance.
scarpy
just to echo everyone else — it’s not the Blue Dogs or centrists this time who are in the way. It’s the liberals.
Which is fine, right? I mean, everyone else has fucked this thing up along the way. They should at least get to deliver the coup de grace.
I just wish they didn’t delude themselves into thinking things can go a little bit at a time or whatever. If this half-assed pile of compromises and betrayals can’t pass, then health reform will never happen. Because I’m sorry folks — our system moves through compromises and betrayals.
It simply will not get better from a lefty perspective. Even if/when the system utterly collapses, who would trust Dems to have an answer when they have a track record like this?
John O
@liberty60:
Please don’t interpret anything I said as despair.
Everything could change tomorrow. An asteroid heading to Earth, the San Andreas falling westward into the Pacific, Obama actually talking Brown into his way of thinking, any old weird thing.
freelancer
@Comrade Dread:
In fact, forget the blackjack!
[…]
You mean people will actually pay for companionship? That gives me an id-
STUPID anti-pimping laws!
Martin
@mr. whipple: If you can’t change the world in 100 days, what fucking good are you?
johnb
or as megafaun would put it:
lazy suicide
J.W. Hamner
I’m sort of glad I’ve been sick all day and not paying too much attention… but isn’t passing historic legislation what these cats are supposed to be coming to D.C. to do?
Don’t they feel even a little bit bad that they’re more concerned about getting reelected than helping people?
Lev
Which centrists are taking to the media to talk about how they’ll never vote for the Senate bill? Seems mostly like ideological blowhards like Grijalva. Look, I like me a good public option as much as the next man. But the single-minded obsession that some progressives have with it never ceases to amaze me. Shitcanning all the regulatory stuff now just seems weird. And if you can’t set up the exchanges through reconciliation, how could you have a public option? I mean, one that could actually garner any support?
Why don’t they just offer to put a stripped-down P.O. in the reconciliation bill? Fixes everything, I think.
Darryl
From Rachel Maddow to Ezra Klein to TPM, I’m seeing the message being pushed that if Dems let HCR fail, they will pay a steep price in November. I hope Dems in congress are being inundated with that message.
Everybody call your representatives, please. I called mine, Ander Crenshaw, but he is a supporter of Tea Bagging, so lot of good it’ll do.
Edward G. Talbot
Your are dead right John, and it’s been fairly obvious at least since the summer. 1-2 dozen blue dogs are going bye-bye, maybe more if the dems really stay tone deaf. I cannot accept that they are all that stupid, so my conclusion is that many of them expect to be lobbyists or the like after they lose.
jacy
@John S.:
Can I have healthcare reform?
Computer says no.
General Winfield Stuck
It is a complex web we dems weave. We have the blue dogs who are afraid of the prog agenda, so they hold out to get as compromised a bill as they can get, but still one with some important progressive reforms. The progs go batshit and want more than some, team up with the wingnuts, at least in using GOP tactics of scorch and burn politics with buckets of misinfo flooding the wire, in order to kill the bill.
The bluest state in the Union, and presumably the one with the most prog power on the grassroots activist level, ends up electing a bonafide wingnut tea bagger, and we get it’s Obama’s fault from the progs in a state where they should be game changers on the ground in state elections.
Now the blue dogs feel both scared and empowered to push for more centrist (gop light) policies and progs swear to defeat them with primaries after empowering them with efforts to kill the best bill that is much better, albeit not ideal, than the bluedogs and their winger allies would come up with on their own, or with 41 votes now to filibuster.
So the solution of the progs is to primary the Blue dogs in wingnut districts, thusly ensuring getting more wingnuts who would never vote for a bill the progs would support, and would never vote for a bill that is half that prog ideal bill.
I do hope this purity is worth it.
Bobby Thomson
@Martin: You forgot Stupak! (Not sure if he’s Polish.) dday at Hullabaloo has the whip count of wavering centrists and conservatives, even assuming that all the liberals held together and voted for the Senate bill.
Panurge
House districts, as far as I can see, are all about the same size; that’s what all the proportioning is about. Rural districts take up enough real estate to have the same number of people as urban districts that might only cover a couple hundred square miles.
Still, there have been cases made for expanding the House to between 700 and 800 members–enough to give each state at least two Reps. Actually, proportionalizing the Senate would still extend at least some weight to small states, supposing the size was kept at 100 and each state was entitled to at least one Senator.
Max
I see on the Twitter that Barney Frank just came out and said he was a drama queen (no pun intended) and HCR isn’t dead and he’d support the Senate bill, with some promises to fix it down the road.
Nancy’s dropping the hammer, seems to me.
But, what do I know, I’m an Obot.
Linky
Lev
@Darryl: The damnedest thing is that, for all the angry talk about how the left has had to make so many compromises, either going for a new, stripped-down bill or going through reconciliation are inevitably compromises, and ones that aren’t necessary. The shit with Lieberman and Nelson, that had to get done to pass the bill. Killing HCR for some unpredictable pipe dream isn’t.
Robin G.
On the plus side, it does sound like Barney Frank did realize just how badly he shot himself in the foot on this. I hope it was partially the phone calls from his constituents, which (as posted on TPM) he did actually have the balls to take himself. If he was influenced by the calls, maybe the rest of the calls did some good?
Optimism rears its ugly head.
Thoughtcrime
@Irrelevant,YetPoignant:
“Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”
-George Taylor
Citizen Alan
@scarpy:
That’s why I have finally swung around to supporting immediate passage of the Senate bill. It’s horrible, but if we don’t pass it now, I think
CarterObama and the radical-centrists are just going to scrap everything and start over with extreme tort reform and huge tax cuts for insurance company execs. And still get maybe 2 Republican votes.Jorge
WTF?
All this whining because some idiot ran for office in Mass with out knowing anything about the Bosox?
Really, we feel helpless and the ship is sunk because Southies are all butt hurt that the broad running for Teddy’s seat didn’t even know who Schilling was?
Man, Cole, you really have become a Defeatocrat.
cyntax
@scarpy:
So the solution is to water down the HCR bill further? Blaming progressives/liberals for this is doesn’t account for what people in Mass wanted. Look at the polling:
Obviously the problem with HCR and the reason Brown got elected was because the Dems aren’t being bipartisan enough.
batgirl
@Kristine: She isn’t in my district but I gave money to her when she first ran and won. Now every time she asks me for more, I tell her where she can shove it. You’d think I’d get off her mailing list but she keeps trying.
Irrelevant,YetPoignant
@Thoughtcrime: It’s a mad house. A mad house!
Bender
If it weren’t for the damn people, democracy could solve all of our problems!
If you’re angry because you have just realized that there are too damn many righties and centrists for your tastes as compared to hard leftists, well, get used to it — America is not a hard leftist country, and it does not often elect hard leftist governments. Same goes for the right — those who pine for abortion bans and hermetically-sealed borders feel just as helpless.
What I find hilarious is that some of your boys here are still, after running a losing candidate in Massachusett(e)s who’s I.Q. looks like LeBron’s PPG, are still running “we’re just smarter than the moron farmers.” Those who do not learn…
batgirl
@Panurge: The House isn’t the problem, IMHO. It is the Senate where Senators representing a tiny fraction of the population can fuck over the rest of us.
Elie
@General Winfield Stuck:
‘sigh’
I might have to retreat from all of this and drown my sorrows in bread dough and pies. (I cook when I get upset) Hell with my incipient diet. I feel a need for ooey gooey pasta and cheesy delights..
Heading for my bread book right now…
Bobby Thomson
@Bender: I assume you mean me, since I threw up the quote, but I join in any estimation of Coakley as the worst candidate since Kathleen Townsend.
Brian J
It does make you feel helpless. It also makes me feel enraged, because most of these people are operating on incoherent beliefs and/or spite and personal motives.
But it can be changed. If a Republican who could possibly kill Kennedy’s long held dream can win his seat after he dies, anything can be changed.
Citizen Alan
@mr. whipple:
FDR always gave the appearance of working hard on the problems that plagued the American people (even when those efforts were less effective than he’d hoped) while using his bully pulpit to attack those who opposed his efforts. “I relish their hatred,” he said.
Whether you consider it a fair description or not,
CarterObama seems diffident to the problems which are plaguing American people today. He has, instead, given every appearance of catering his presidency to the same people who caused our financial meltdown. And after months of shamelessly kowtowing to the Right, he is now reaching out to the man who insinuated his bastardy on national television.People don’t like a loser.
Martha Coakley
@Bobby Thomson: What, do you expect me to run a campaign? Why can’t I just hobnob with famous people?
Neutron Flux
The shitty thing about being a Liberal is that we get soooo close to getting something done, and the then fucking people get to vote.
This voting thing is why we don’t get nice things.
scudbucket
@batgirl: Word.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@donovong:
Ditto that. I have immense reserves of patience and political history (aka “we are so fucked” in politics is a permanent condition, dating back to at least the Neolithic), but today I just want to shoot somebody in the back of the head. And not just GOPers either, which is a change from the usual joie de vivre.
Thoughtcrime
@Comrade Dread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA22XEuuR-U&feature=related
Demo Woman
@Citizen Alan: Would FDR have survived the left and right wing blogs? Would he have survived Fox News and talk radio? Sorry to say it but democracy died with Reagan and the changes to the FCC.
mey
Wait, wait…
What is this BS?? What, there are some House liberals from liberal districts where they might be endangered if they don’t take liberal stands? Oh nooooooz, that’s only an excuse Blue Dogs can use!! And as we know, It. Is. Always. Always. Always. The. Liberals. Fault. The all-mighty powerful liberals, that control the media, the government, big business, everything! Why can’t we get rid of our Liberal Masters?!?! We are doooooooomed, doooooooooomed!
mey
@scarpy:
Exactly!! We would have gotten away with real Health Care Reform if it wasn’t for those meddling liberals!
kay
@Citizen Alan:
I get the appearance of kowtowing objection, and I think that’s (sadly) valid, but on unemployment, really, how much better would it be with a larger stimulus?
The stimulus we got lowered unemployment 2 points, to 10.
So, had Obama doubled it, we’d be at 8 or 9.
Would you really be on here saying Obama saved the economy for the middle class if unemployment were at 9?
Would he get any credit for that? Remember: he got no credit for shaving off 2 points. Would 3 really make a huge difference? To Left, Right, or Center?
The economy sucks. I’m just not sure he could have budged it all that further in a year. Not only that, I don’t know that anyone would have given him huge credit.
Elie
@Bobby Thomson:
But you know, I have to side with some who commented that as leader of the Democratic Party, Obama (or rather some strong folks from his team) shoulda been in there and taken over the shit…Didnt they play out any scenarios about what would happen if this gal lost — esp right now????
I am surprised also at the flaccid response today. I know that he is a cool dude and all, and I certainly mostly respect that, but Geez, how about a little push back and a little defiance?
Those of us who had his back through this whole period, well, I feel completely disappointed and most of all, demoralized by this whole sad thing. Can I get off the floor and fight forward again? Depends. I think we desperately need something to pass that will help make things better for at least the folks completely left off of the grid and to prevent recisions and prior conditions.
But I want to see a general with some fire in his belly and a sense of mission — not just a clerk duly noting some flashy repub piker just got elected to perhaps the most symbollically important seat in the freakin senate!
Its just going to take a while to put perspective on this for me and if that is so for a former Obot like me, I can only imagine the doubters who, at least from the comments around here, seem to be enjoying this immensely.
mclaren
The conventional wisdom here, as so often, makes no sense and is almost certainly wrong.
Let’s think about this. Economic times get tougher, so the average voter will eagerly cast hi/r ballot for…a bunch of far-right fringe lunatics who promise to shut down the food stamp programs that’s keeping your family alive while you live in the local campground?
Nope.
Doesn’t make sense.
What I think is going to happen is that if economic get tougher (and they will), the electorate will move farther to the left. That’s what happened in 1932. That’s what happened in 1992. The Charlie-Rose-Tom-Friedman-Cokie-Roberts-David-Broder “conventional wisdom” is complete horseshit. It’s reliably wrong, consistently wrong, 100% guaranteed every-single-time opposite-of-the-truth wrong.
kay
@Citizen Alan:
If unemployment were at 8 or 9, instead of 10, people would credit Obama for having saved them from 10% ?
No, they wouldn’t. They’d do exactly what they’re doing now, which is crediting him with the unemployment number, which is too high.
Is he getting credit for not letting unemployment reach 12?
No.
Why would he get credit for not letting it reach 10?
I just don’t think people credit you for what didn’t happen.
Martin
So, it’s pretty clear that a number of people here think that the Senate bill is worse than no bill. Can someone please defend the status quo in the face of what the Senate offered, so I can better understand where this view is coming from?
Seebach
@Citizen Alan: I’ve been out of the loop? Who is the guy who insinuated his bastardy, and why is he being reached out to?
Elie
@Demo Woman:
Definitely agree here.
Fwiffo
There are SOME in liberal districts that can be primaried. E.g. Al Wynn who represented a majority-black district in Maryland and who was a huge tool was replaced that way. Jane Harman is another that comes to mind, as is Joe Lieberman.
eemom
shit, I am so depressed today I can’t even muster the energy to say something snarky about Jane Hamsher.
Neutron Flux
@scudbucket: Nahhh, but close.
The Senate represents exactly no persons. They represent My Good Friend Senator XXX and whatever slice of the campaign donation pie that they can grab.
That and only that is what they represent. You and I were out of this equation long ago, my friend.
cyntax
@Martin:
No need to defend it since we’re most likely going to get something even less reform minded than the Senate bill, so it’s not an apt comparison anymore.
Personally I’d like to see Obama come out swinging for the fences by asking to have the Senate bill passed and making commitments to the progressive side of the House about exactly what would get fixed in reconciliation. But given today’s statements by Obama and Reid, that ain’t gonna happen cause we need to wait for the centerfold senator to be seated. Course Pelosi’s still looking to get the Senate bill through and fixed but then she seems to be the only one in a leadership position who likes to lead.
Mary
@Martin: On a micro level, get ready for anecdotal arguments from union and non-union workers that the Senate bill’s excise tax on insurers will ruin a person’s life because lowered insurance premiums will lead to junk coverage and the reduction in premiums will never be reflected in cash wages. The evidence to the contrary is false. Gruber and the other economists are not to be trusted.
On a macro level, get ready for arguments that the Senate bill institutes a mandate for citizens to pay private entities and enshrines the power of insurance companies and that this is the final step to fascism. Never mind that the House bill did the same thing, albeit with a weak public option.
jcricket
Based on the reaction of the “common folks” it is indeed depressing.
A huge swath of white, middle class people are convinced that the mildly centerish Obama Agenda is somehow “destroying their way of life”. They feel this strongly despite nothing happening and the ridiculousness of their claims (esp. in light of how bad things got under Bush, et. al.) But their categorical error will consign all of us, including themselves, to worsening wages, healthcare, employment and security for everyone except the super-rich. Also, their environment will be despoiled, their infrastructure will crumble, crime will increase b/c poor people keep having their social services cut (watch CA very closely), etc.
Even when that happens, they’ll learn the wrong lesson (like Democrats do) and blame over regulation insufficient tax cuts, or Jews, or gays or black folk, or immigrants taking American jobs or whatever.
Someone said it recently, but thank god for minorities. If not for them we’d have a military dictatorship by now. That’s the only thing that keeps me going – that the racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism and religious zealotry that fuels the Republican party will continue to turn off the emerging majority of non-white, non-straight, non-religious folks.
Demo Woman
@Mary: This is a very interesting post. Would you mind providing links to your research?
Comrade Luke
Ha ha – good one!
This can’t be repeated enough: one day after losing one Senate seat the entire Democratic party from the president on down are taking their ball and going home.
Unbelievable.
I swear, it’s like the party gets together and says “OK, what the absolute worst possible decision we can make, that pisses off the most people. OK, let’s do it!”
debbie
Having hoped for a single payer option, I’m more than disappointed in how this has turned out. But Democrats have only themselves to blame. One would have had to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to know there was considerable opposition to the mess that was being created. They lost me when they whored out to Ben Nelson.
I look forward to seeing what this “scaled down version” will be. Hopefully it will scale back on all those special interest giveaways that have given this process of compromise such a bad name.
I still believe in bipartisanship. It’s just become obvious that these jackasses on both sides of the aisle are incapable of achieving it.
mclaren
@Martin:
Righty dighty. Here goes. Listen up, I’ll move fast:
[1] The American health care system is currently on a highway to hell because skyrocketing costs will bankrupt us unless something is done, and every year more and more people lose access to health care as health insurance costs rise and employers cut back.
[2] The current “reform” dumps a whopping big tax on the poorest people who have insurance while requiring by law that they buy insurance from greedy corrupt private insurance companies who keep raising premiums at a rate 10% greater than the rate of inflation. So people who work part-time on minimum wage, or who work for themselves and just barely scrape by, or who work for a dinky little mom-and-pop business whose owners can’t afford to pay $18,000 a year per person healthcare insurance premiums, are the folks who are currently shut out of the health care system. This “reform” does nothing to help that bottom economic quintile of the American population, but slathers on a huge excise tax on top of the already unaffordable health care private insurance premiums. So the bottom economic quintile of Americans still won’t be able to afford health insurance under the current “reform,” but they’ll see money drained from their pockets by the excise tax. Congratulations! Welcome to hell, working poor families! You still won’t get health insurance, but now you’ll have the delightful choice of whether to go to prison, or go without food for your kids by paying the excise tax.
[3] The current ‘reform’ does absolutely nothing to constrain costs. As a result, when health insurance premiums steadily ratchet up every year at a whopping big 12% per year rate (that means your health insurance premiums will double every 6 years) the middle class folks who can afford to pay for health insurance today won’t be able to afford to pay for it tomorrow. And as the remorseless rate increases skyrocket higher and ever higher, soon the entire middle class will find themselves priced out of health insurance, and paying a gigantic excise tax because of the misnamed “cadillac tax.”
[4] Welcome to torture, damnation, suffering, horror, madness and death! It’s the worst of both worlds! You still have no insurance…but now you’re poorer. And the insurance industry has just turned into Skynet, eating people alive, because the goddamn federal government has forcibly mandated that everyone in America must buy their shitty crappy worthless defective product.
Now do you understand why the status quo is better than this rotten gift-to-the-corrupt-plutocrats “reform” from hell?
The status quo means you die screaming in agony if you get sick because you have no health care.
The “reform” means you die screaming in agony and your family lives in a tent because of the excise tax..and you still have no health insurance.
LosGatosCA
Here’s how American politics really works:
Republicans get punked for being Krazy, they get Krazier.
Democrats get punked for being cowards, they run away.
Pretty funny, if you don’t need health care or you joined the National Guard to defend America, not be a Republican human shield.
jcricket
@debbie: What you want will not happen (“giveaways scaled back”). Basically most of what’s in the bill has to be package deal. If you get rid of pre-existing condition clauses, but don’t have a mandate, people will just wait until they are sick and sign up. Healthy people dropping out will skyrocket the rates for everyone else. Also, if you require everyone to have insurance but don’t help them pay for it (subsidies) you’ll bankrupt everyone. And if there aren’t some form of exchanges people won’t be able to even get individual insurance, etc.
So basically the current bill is about as minimal as you can get and make a difference. And lord help us if they try to add anything else (like the Medicare buy-in). SOCIALIZSM!
Barring this bill, the only hope at this point for any meaningful healthcare reform is the total collapse of the employment based healthcare system.
If there was a point where, say, 50% of Americans were uninsured b/c their employer doesn’t offer coverage or coverage is unaffordable there will have to be some kind of system (Medicare for all, Medicaid for all, whatever) that at least covers those folks. It won’t be single payer for all, and it probably won’t be great coverage. We’ll get something like crappy but reliable coverage for most folks, and nice coverage for rich folks (sort of the way everything works in this country).
Mary
@Demo Woman: I’ve made several posts so I’m not sure what you want links to.
Sasha
Congratulations, John. You are now officially a true Democrat.
gex
@The Bearded Blogger:
Are you mad? By the way, you don’t get fiscally pro-people policies from people who spend a lot of time judging others.
Annie
@Comrade Dread:
And what do the women get?
Wile E. Quixote
@mclaren
Yes, the tendency of the electorate to move farther to the left when the economy is in the shitter is what explains Teddy Kennedy’s landslide upset of Jimmy Carter for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination and also explains Kennedy’s massive, landslide victory over Ronald Reagan in the general election that year.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Problem is, your question in the second sentence doesn’t follow from your first declaration. One can make an argument that no bill is better than the Senate bill (I’m not sure I buy it, but one can make that argument) and one can also argue that the status quo is unacceptable.
The tactical argument against the Senate bill is that everybody would clap their hands together and declare it done; Obama made a statement to the effect that he intends to be the last President ever to address the issue. In truth even some of its proponents admit that it doesn’t come close to addressing all the long-term problems. So, you would have big problems remaining but no one recognizing the urgency of addressing them. There is also the argument that the Senate bill is an electoral albatross around the Dems’ necks, which would damage not only health care but any other urgent initiative over the next few election cycles.
The idea of passing the Senate bill and then doing some reconciliation measures is an intriguing one and we’ll see how that plays out.
I don’t think you’ll find any of the most notorious kill-billers saying that the status quo if preferred above all else.
I hope that helps, but it would be better if the question was properly formulated to begin with.
WereBear
@jcricket: Exactly!
the racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism and religious zealotry that fuels the Republican party
We have big chunks of the electorate learning exactly that. I couldn’t have planned it better if I were a mad scientist genius.
But that’s long term. Short-term: my exposure to Coakley was short and dismayingly negative. Why did such a person run when she didn’t want the seat?
I understand she took a vacation during the campaign? Uh huh. She didn’t want the seat.
Blue Raven
@mclaren:
Sorry, but you seem to be discussing the health care reform bill that was submitted by Bizarro Obama. Care to check the real one? Y’know, the one that limits who has to pay the penalty based on income? The one that forces the insurers to keep their costs down? The one that will not deny you medication for your obvious problems as a pre-existing condition?
Demo Woman
@Mary: 86.. The one that I linked to. It would have helped if I had put the number down. Thanks.
cat48
What Scott Brown did was what every GOP candidate in the country is prepared to do this year – engage in hand-to-hand combat for every loose vote out there the way Obama did back in 2008. Democratic candidates in every state are going to have to run high octane, turbo charged efforts to get out the vote FROM THE BEGINNING this year. If Democrats are not prepared to rethink the scope of their campaign efforts, who are not ready to figure out how to pull in every rag tag coalition and single issue faction in their districts into the fold, who are not ready to shake those hands and kiss those babies until their bodies become numb – you can expect to join Martha Coakley’s example come Election Night in November.
Read more…
This is from the blog Brown Man Thinking. It is one of the best things I read today. No you don’t go on vacation during the short campaign she had.
mclaren
@Mary:
Evidence.
Proof that your baseless and contrafactual claims about the predictions of economists on this health care “reform” are what you say they are.
Unlike you, I provide evidence to back up my claims.
An insurance industry CEO explains why American health care costs so much.
Why?
Because the basic price for each service is wildly higher than in other countries. Not just 20% or 20% higher, but 500% higher, 700% higher.
And why is that?
Because in America, doctors are encouraged to act like good little capitalist businessmen — so they run a fee-for-service business. Even better, they set up their own labs (they’re businessmen, remember?) to provide insanely overpriced scans and lab tests to hospitals (which are also businesses…run by doctors), who then merely pass the costs on to the health insurance companies (which are also profit-making businesses)…who in turn add more profit on top and pass on the now grotesquely inflated costs to the consumer.
Don’t believe me? Read this New Yorker article that explains the sky-high cost of American health care.
Of course you still don’t believe me, so feast your eyes on these charts showing how much American pay for health care comapred to the rest of the world.
Now take a look at these charts detailing what American get for all that money they pay for health care. Basically, nothing. Nada. Zip. Dick, Diddly. Zilch. Nada. Bupkiss.
And for the coup de grace, the stab in the heart, take a gander at this chart showing the rate of increase in U.S. health care costs since 1970. This is really the only graph you need to see in the entire health care debate:
health care cost increases since 1970 per country.
Of course you still don’t believe anything I say, so it’s time to bitch-slap the hard cold facts into you. Take a look at this graphic of the DJI showing the trillions of dollars that have poured into health care insurance company stocks over the past few weeks.
Now, to beat you upside the head with a two by four, like a mule stubbornly stuck on the railroad tracks while a train barrels toward you at full speed, let’s hear what an actual economist has to say about the current health care “reform.” This is Umair Haque, an economist at Harvard:
Why Does Wall St Love Healthcare Reform?
In fact, it’s a de facto bailout of health insurers. Welcome back our old friends rescission, premium inflation, and price discrimination – all flavours of moral hazard. Say goodbye to, well, better health care.
Why does Wall St love healthcare reform? As the chart shows, money’s poured into health insurers over the past few days – hot money from hedge funds in search of, by the microsecond, fake, value-destructive alpha. Why? Because a massive transfer of wealth from society to pharma/hmo shareholders is written into the so-called reform bill.
Source for Umair Haque quote.
I’ve just cited a whole ream of facts and statistics and graphs and charts, all taken from official government numbers and historical census and economic data.
You’ve cited…nothing. You have…nothing. No logic, no evidence, no facts, nothing but your baseless and vacuous assertions.
The current health care “reform” does nothing to address any of these problems. No cost containment. No change from doctors and hospitals acting as profit-making businesses that charge the absolute most the market will bear. No change from skyrocketing inflation in health care pay, no change from individual health care services that cost 500% to 700% what the same health care service costs in Europe or Asia (cost of an MRI scan in France: $40. Cost of an MRi scan in America: $1500. Cost of a typical doctor’s visit in America: $120. Cost of an average doctor’s visit in Germany: $30. And on and on it goes…).
Game over, Mary. Try trolling a less-informed audience.
Comrade Dread
It was a Futurama reference.
But the whiskey rebellion could be equal opportunity: we could have hookers of all gender persuasions, and other forms of gambling.
And comprehensive Health Care Reform, and a realistic plan to balance the budget and pay off the national debt when the economy isn’t in the crapper, and a magical pony for all that poops gold.
Comrade Dread ’12
mclaren
@Blue Raven:
You need to improve your lying skills.
Those lies qualify as distinctly sub-par. They’re just not up the usual standard of Republican smears and Swift-Boating.
Let’s take a look at the “[health care reform] that limits who has to pay the penalty based on income”: there are no limits, since the “cadillac tax” remorselessly ratchets up over time to include more and more of the middle class in that penalty.
Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.
Source.
Oh, too bad, Blue Raven, your lie just got outed by the Congressional Budget Office. Better luck with your next smear.
Now let’s take a look at the provisions in this health care ‘reform’ package, you know,
Here they are:
That’s right, there’s nothing there. Nothing. There are no provisions in the current health care bill that would “force the insurers to keep their costs down” because there’s no public option to provide a hammer that would induce ’em to do that. The health insurers can raise their costs without limit and what can anyone do, according to this bill? Nothing. Just sit there and take it.
Lastly, let’s deal with your third and more contemptible obvious lie, namely, that
Demo Woman
@mclaren: Congress tried to fix some of the scam by having dr.’s give a list of facilities who offer xrays. It has not lowered the cost though. Dr.s say they provide additional tests because they are afraid of being sued. Yeah right.
Thanks for your post.
Annie
@Comrade Dread:
Great. I will start with the pony.
Mary
@mclaren: I see the wandering crowd has moved on from declaring Gruber a fraud to shrieking about the level of provider payments and investments in healthcare stocks but I was discussing the issue of excise taxes and whether the mandates amount to fascism.
It might help if you try looking at Martin’s original question: What are the arguments that the status quo is better than the Senate bill? If your answer to his question is the level of provider payments or a DJI graph, so be it. Rant on.
Are you and Demo Woman a tag team?
mclaren
I meant to include this chart showing why health care costs so much in the USA (from an Ezra Klein article in the WaPo). Take a look at the comparative costs in the USA vs the rest of the world for basic routine health care procedures.
It’s mind-boggling. Americans pay 5x to 7x times what the rest of the world pays for simple basic stuff like routine visits to the doctor’s office.
To paraphase the famous quote from the Oliver Stone movie Wall Street:
“Greed, for lack of a better term, is good [for doctors]. Greed works [for the health care industry in America].” — Gordon Gecko (who would today be a health insurance CEO)
Citizen Alan
@kay:
I question the basis of this statement. The stimulus should have been bigger, but it could also have been more efficient by diverting money to actual job creation that was instead squandered on tax cuts for no other purpose than to secure three Republican votes. On a related note, I can’t imagine FDR standing by (well, sitting, I suppose) with his thumb stuck up his ass while Republican politicians ran around giving photo ops complete with big checks that came from stimulus funds that the politicians in question had voted against.
Honestly, I think it might have made a big difference in several important ways. First of all, psychologically 10 is a lot bigger than 9 because it has two digits. That sounds stupid, but there’s a reason businesses charge $9.99 instead of $10.00 — that lost penny of profit (as well as the mildly higher expenses incurred by handling pennies in the first place) are offset by the fact that people are more likely to buy something that doesn’t cross that magical dollar mark. In the same way, I think 10% unemployment set off slightly more alarm bells than 9% employment would have. Secondly, if unemployment had stayed at 9%, it would have been closer to the administration’s early estimates about the present unemployment rate. I think a lot of people started to lose confidence in Obama’s ability to handle the unemployment crisis when his team missed the mark in their predictions by such a large margin.
Citizen Alan
@Seebach:
Brown, the winner in Massachusetts, made statements in an interview last year suggesting that he either didn’t believe or wasn’t sure whether Obama’s mother and father were married at the time of his birth. The idea that they were not actually married when he was born and/or that some other man was Obama’s actual father are both tropes used by the birthers. I think a clip is still up at Josh Marshall’s site from last week but you may have to hunt for it.
Citizen Alan
@Mary:
There are also the not-inconsequential concerns raised by the pro-choice lobby that the Senate bill will lead to the backdoor abolition of covering abortions through one’s insurance policy, but the pro-choicers got thrown under the bus so long ago, I can’t even see the skid marks from where I’m sitting.
John
@General Winfield Stuck:
I think you presume wrong on that front.
Mary
@Citizen Alan: I know that’s an argument but the House bill was worse and I believe that the representatives who voted for the House bill said that they weighed the Stupak amendment against the benefit of providing coverage and other benefits to so many poor and uninsured women who didn’t have insurance for anything, let alone an abortion.
General Winfield Stuck
@John: ah, did I hit a nerve? Nope. It’s a safe assumption. But thanks for your opinion.
Elie
@mclaren:
Man (or woman), just explain your points. You don’t have to be contemptuous or nasty. If the facts are on your side, we arent stupid, we will get it. We may still disagree with some or all of what you assert, but we will get your argument without the ‘tude.
This is a tough day for a lot of us. Appreciate that. Lighten up some. Impart your facts or ideas and lets have a dialogue, rather than you doing some sort of ‘clinic’…
jcricket
@WereBear:
Yeah, long-term I’m convinced the Republicans aren’t going to get saner, and America’s not getting whiter and more Christiany (on a macro level).
But in the next 5-10 years, things can get really, really bad before there are “enough of us” to really keep “them” out of power nationally. Hundreds of thousands suffering due to lack of healthcare, food insecurity, etc. during that time, irreparable environmental damage due to lack of regulation, falling bridges, failing sewer systems, blackouts, educational cutbacks that will take a generation or more to undo, etc.
That’s what I can’t get over. I mean, right now, I’m facing a scenario where I might be out of healthcare coverage and have to deal with the whole no-individual-market worth-a-damn and “pre-existing condition clauses chase you forever”.
So fuck anyone who thinks going back to the drawing board and waiting 10-20 years to get something better is the right way to go. Fuck off and die.
mclaren
@Elie:
Which of the charts and graphs and statistics I cited wasn’t clear?
See, this is the problem with Democrats and liberals… They think if they have facts and logic on their side, all they need to do is cite the facts and use logic, and presto! Change-o! They win the argument.
BZZZZT! WRONG!
Humans are driven by lizard-brain emotions, not facts and logic. People respect toughness and strength and certainty, not facts and reality and pallid etiolated logic. So when you’re dealing with fringe luantic far0right concern trolls, facts and logic won’t do the job. Instead, rhetorically speak, you must rip off their heads and sh*t down their necks.
Then they shut up and back down.
Democrats are never going to get anywhere being polite and reasonable. They’ve got nail the goddamn neocons and teabagger to the door, crucify ’em with their own words, take a rhetorical chainsaw and ram it between the bastards’ legs. And then when bystanders start whining and whimpering that, like Alan Grayson, ooh, ohhhhh, ohhhhhhhh, you’re being too shrill…that’s a sign to crank it up to 11.
“…I am against the malefactors of great wealth… They are unanimous in their hatred for me, and I welcome their hatred.” — Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Why aren’t any Democrats speaking out against “malefactors of great wealth”?
Why aren’t any Democrats telling the American public that they relish the hatred of the bankers and corrupt neocons and war-starting kiddy-raping sociopathic Republican torturers and swindlers?
We need a lot more tough language on the liberal side of the fence, not less.
If FDR was around today, methinks you guys would be looking down at your noses at him as “to shrill” and “too harsh” and “too unpleasant.”
Kristine
@batgirl:
My first clue should have been when one of her canvassers stopped to talk with me about Bean during her initial run. No mention of party on the pamphlet–when I asked if Bean was a Dem, the canvasser said “She’s more of an independent.”
I can understand this–the 8th was in Republican hands for a loooong time, and it contains a number of conservative communities. I don’t believe that a progressive would stand a snowball’s chance. Bean’s a DINO in many ways…but at least to this point, she is a health care vote.
‘Tis a muddy pool…
McMartin
@mclaren:
Well, one, because torture polls well these days. You want to get the government against torture, you’ll need to get the populace against it first.
Second, even FDR had a carrot to offer the banksters of his day – he wasn’t going to spearhead an actual communist revolution.
Liberty60
@mclaren:
Amen!
Grayson and Franken are the only ones with balls enough to speak the truth.
Or more importantly- even in the early 70’s when liberalism ruled the land, conservatives proudly stood up and said “By God, we are Conservatives!”
Today, when Democrats rule all the branches of government, they are afraid of their own name- who stands up and says “By God, I am A Progressive!” ?
When you are ashamed of your own beliefs, you will always lose.
Thoughcrime
The Dems Plan B: http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content08/suicide-booth.jpg
How did we get leadership like this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY
kay
@Citizen Alan:
Sorry. I don’t really buy it. I don’t think a bigger stimulus would have solved our economic woes in a year. I’m wary of arguments that start with the premise that something we didn’t do would have had wonderful effects, when the something we did do had measurable effects, and we can draw conclusions from that. 10% or 9% unemployment. That’s the conclusion we can draw.
I think you veer dangerously close to the same magical thinking hard-right conservatives use when you keep insisting that the problem with nearly everything is that it’s not liberal enough. Liberalism can’t fail, it can only be failed. That makes me nervous. I don’t want to end up there.
I agree that Obama should have defended the stimulus better, but he had a tricky needle to thread. he couldn’t be seen as not sympathetic to the unemployed.
Too, salesmanship and PR works both ways. Liberals trashed the stimulus we did get, and I think that was completely counter-productive. They helped make the word stimulus toxic. That was flat-out stupid, since 65% of the stimulus was predicated on liberal economic theory. I have no idea why trashing the actual entity known as “stimulus” helps anything at all.
debbie
@jcricket:
Far from it. It’s the unnecessary provisions like promising to pay for Nebraska’s Medicare that gave ammunition to opponents. You may think that the overall percentage of pork in the bill is negligible, but it’s the fact that it’s even there in the first place that is the real problem. It totally destroys credibility and, sadly, makes the Democrats look as useless as they appear this morning.
debbie
@jcricket:
Far from it. It’s the unnecessary provisions like promising to pay for Nebraska’s Medicare that gave ammunition to opponents. You may think that the overall percentage of pork in the bill is negligible, but it’s the fact that it’s even there in the first place that is the real problem. It totally destroys credibility and, sadly, make the Democrats look as useless as they do this morning.
kay
@Citizen Alan:
Too, Alan, it’s simply not true that the House produced a tight, job-focused stimulus and Olympia Snowe wrecked the thing. The House members spread the money so thin, to pet projects, that it wasn’t infrastructure focused. Arguably, had they resisted the urge to bring money home to their districts they could have presented a coherent national argument for stimulus as a concept. Instead, they ended up defending specific programs in their districts, instead of selling a broader infrastructure spending idea.
I don’t mind, at all, discussing the mistakes that were made, but liberals (in my view) have taken this fictional “stimulus” that never existed and compared it to what actually happened, and you skip a lot of the interim steps.
That worries me, because it’s a lot like listening to local conservatives when Bush started to crash and burn. All of a sudden, the guy was a liberal.
I see the same thing happening with health care. If we’re going to compare the Senate bill to single payer, I’m not playing. That’s a fantasy. I’d like to talk about what happened.
Buddyg
Jane Harman is being primaried by a progressive: Marcy Winograd. She will be a vast improvement over the Blue Dog status quo. Check out her website at winograd4congress.com.
mclaren
@jcricket:
Actually, no. The current bill as it stands makes no difference. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Diddly. Nada.
What the current health care bill does is to look superficially as though it does make a difference — but the current HCR bill is written with diabolical cleverness to insure that, when you dig down and study its provisions, it actually lets the insurance companies do exactly what they’re doing right now, with no change. The current HCR bill merely changes some of the language for what insurance companies and doctors and hospitals are doing. But no provision of the current HCR bill prevents or even meaningfully deters insurance companies and doctors and hospitals from endlessly jacking up premiums to infinity and beyond, from recission, from refusing insured treatment to patients with expensive illnesses, from cherry-picking only the healthiest people to insure and denying all others coverage, from denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions, from letting health care costs rise without limit at a rate far beyond inflation, and from bribing legislators to continue these obscene atrocities.
Let’s run down the list:
[1] The mechanism that’s supposed to prevent insurance companies from raising premiums to infinity is a trigger that kicks in to set up a public insurance exchange if premiums continue to rise beyond the rate of inflation. But, you see, the exchange is so small that it will have no power — so instead, the exchanges will get used as a dumping ground for all the sickest patients. The insurance exchanges will clog up with chronically ill people, the states which fund the exchanges will go broke and shut the exchanges down, and there you are! Voila! The current bill allows cherry-picking and denial of coverage to the sickest people and the continued growth of vast legions of people who can’t get insurance…just in a slightly different way, under another name.
[2] The current HCR bill allows recission, just under another name. You see, the current bill lets insurers revoke coverage from patients if the patient is guilty of fraud — and get this! Fraud is defined as failing to let your insurance company know you have a pre-existing condition…even if you didn’t know you had it. Hahahaha! Beautiful! Work of genius! There you go, recission, just under another name.
[3] The current HCR bill will let insurance companies jack up co-pays to infinity and beyond. So instead of refusing coverage to the sickest people, the insurer will merely raise the co-pays to the point where the really sick people can’t afford to pay. Presto, change-o, watch the rabbit get pulled out of the hat, folks. There you go. Refusal to cover the sickest people, just in a slightly different way.
[4] Last but not least, the current HCR bill does nothing to prevent health care costs from rising at a rate 4 times faster than inflation, forever. You see, the main driver of America’s sky-high health care costs is doctors and hospitals going into business as for-profit corporations and charging insanely more for ordinary medical procedures than any other developed country does… Example: in France, an MRI scan costs $40, while in America an MRI scan costs $1500. Why? Because doctors pool their money and buy an MRI machine, then set up an imaging lab and bill the hospital grotesquely inflated rates for each MRI scan. The doctors high-five one another and shout “Acapulco vacation, baby!” every time a sick patient gets an MRI, and the sick patients lose their homes to pay for the doctors’ Acapulco beach vacation homes. That doesn’t happen in any other developed country. And nothing, absolutely nothing, in the current HCR bill prevents doctors and hospitals from continuing to operate as for-proft operations charging as much as the market will bear. Which guarantees that in another 20 years, America will be spending 25% of its GDP on the medical-industrial complex, and in 40 years, if nothing changes, we’ll spend 40% of our GDP on the medical-industrial complex.
Bottom line for those of you who haven’t been paying attention:
The current HCR represents no change at all. Zero. None. Recission and cherry-picking and endless premium increases and refusal to cover sick people and denial of payment to the insured are all permitted under the current HCR bill, just under different names.