A front page post over at the GOS is a perfect example of why I decided to walk away from posting at Daily Kos.
One of the Front Pagers has decided to present the musings of a conservative pundit published in a conservative rag as an example of why Democrats should NOT pass HCR.
It is concerned trolling at its best and it is sad to see the front page of DKos being used to fluff wing-nut talking points as POVs that Democrats should embrace with fear.
WTF?
It is time to: Pass. The. Damn. Bill.
Have you made your calls today? As Tim F. said earlier today:
Tell Senators to get behind reconciliation to fix Medicare reimbursement, the excise tax and whatever else the House demands. Might as well ask for a public option if it pleases you. Tell your Congressperson to Pass. The. Damn. Bill. whether or not the Senate eventually reciprocates.
Switchboard: (202) 224-3121.
Guide for first-timers here.
Progressives embracing wing-nut frames is getting beyond old and stupid, even at the GOS.
This is foolish chicken littlism at its worst.
Cheers
dengre
scudbucket
With a lede like that, why read more? I used to like McJoan :(
rā¬nato
yo all… sad news for 40somethings, Doug Fieger died of cancer today.
Mark S.
Geez, the Kos entry isn’t concern trolling; it’s explaining why the House hasn’t passed the Senate bill. Who cares if it’s quoting Michael Barone: he doesn’t say anything I don’t suspect on why House Dems are reluctant to vote on it. I wouldn’t trust Reid to fix anything in reconciliation either.
The only thing I’m not sure is whether they are really 100 votes short. If they are, then HCR is 90% dead.
VOR
Look, bottom line is they are going to get tarred with the negatives no matter what. House reps can talk until they are blue in the face about how the House bill was different, but the the low-information voters won’t grasp the distinction. And the Wurlitzer will not educate them.
So you will get the downside no matter what, why not get some of the upside too?
And if you fail to pass it, the message will be that Democrats are spineless weaklings who couldn’t pass anything even with record majorities.
plasticgoat
Despite your needless ego bumping by bashing the blog you left when you failed to get everyone on board your agenda machine, even those of us who do not think that the Senate bill is the only way to go, have been calling congress and the White House on a daily basis for the past 4 months. This is a great strategy, too bad you had to sully the post with your resentment of the dailykos. I once held you in high esteem.
General Winfield Stuck
Hippie puncher.
Although it is a very good idea to keep calling our reps, with this particular bill, it is in the hands of House liberals and is mostly not a matter of showing liberal support by calling them, imo. Though it will buck them up some and that’s never a bad thing.
They know what the score is and are individually making judgments on pro and con. And no large part of the con is resentment toward the Senate, that while wholly justified, cannot be a reason to let HCR die. I think they know that and are human and need sometime to swallow this bitter pill and explain it to many of their blue collar labor dem constituents.
Weighing that against failure which would likely be electorally catastrophic given other anti dem elements that exist currently and the fact that people will continue to die from an unreformed HC system. They don’t need another with the death of their signature issue. I am optimistic they will with some time bite the bullet and pass the senate bill, with a promise and a prayer that the senate at some point sees fit to do it’s part in fixing their own bill.
Violet
Haven’t called today because it’s a holiday and I’m certain my lazy Congressperson’s office will be closed. Also I’m sick. But I will try to resume calling later in the week.
The GOSsites seem to think that if the House scraps the Senate bill, some other better bill will magically appear and both houses of Congress will vote for it in unison and thus everyone will get a health care pony. I really want some of what they’re smoking.
Zach
I mean, to the extent that the Senate can act first, it should do it. The task should be politically easier in the Senate and the required changes (axe the cornhusker kick back and probably the Landrieu thing even though it’s OK, modify funding mechanism) fall under the auspices of reconciliation. I’m not sure there was ever a definitive determination as to whether or not the Senate can act before the House, though. If so, the Senate should do it’s thing… the House will still have to whip votes to deal with the abortion language in the Senate bill.
All Obama has to do is present the credible threat of withholding the OFA voter file from any Senator who doesn’t sign on. Changing the funding mechanism shouldn’t lead to much industry resistance; it doesn’t affect any of the players at the table except for the chamber of commerce & related organizations (and I’m not sure which they’d prefer).
General Winfield Stuck
@General Winfield Stuck:
should be (a) large part, or , no (small) part
Guster
How about responding to the content of the argument instead of the source?
NR
@Violet:
I want some of what you’re smoking, because nobody over there has called for the Senate bill to be scrapped. They have consistently called for it to be fixed via reconciliation and then passed by the House.
DougJ
Good Lord, that’s bad. When you said conservative pundit, I thought it was going to be Kathleen Parker or Bobo or one of the more sane ones. But Michael “Thugocracy” Barone?
Embarrassing for GOS.
That garbage doesn’t belong on the front page of GOS.
Martin
I have a reliable source (that, you understand, must remain anonymous) that tells me the Dems will craft a new single payer bill that will also cure cancer by distilling the bodily fluids of insurance CEOs, and eliminate the filibuster all as part of a reconciliation package that would be easily passed in both the House and Senate.
The only holdup is that the current bill needs to be defeated, and a few more Dems voted out of office. To further this liberal agenda, Move On and ACORN are pairing up with Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, and the Keep America Safe groups.
DougJ
@Guster:
Is that really necessary? “Let us all hang together or surely we will hang separately” was first said over 200 years ago.
Napoleon
I thought McJoan’s post was good, and it was hardly an argument against passing the bill so much as exactly what was pending when the Massachusetts debacle occurred presents a problem to the House. I hardly think that is a controversial theory, and it is supported by the House making noise before Mass. that they were all done this session passing things (like cap and trade) just to see the Senate f— around with it and leave the House with tough votes on their record and nothing to show for it.
DougJ
@rā¬nato:
Yeah, I saw that. Weirdly, my grandmother knew him.
freelancer
@plasticgoat:
As plasticgoat falls, so falls the web.
Woodbuster
More anonymous sourcing from unnamed persons who know all there is to know about everything. Must be Politico!
Anybody who gives credence to stuff like this deserves the confused disappointment they reap.
mr. whipple
Yes. For decades health care has been part of the party platform, and a huge campaign and fund raising issue for Democrats. Essentially, we’ve been told for decades: give us the money, walk the precincts and man the phone banks, and we’ll get this done if we get a majority.
Well, they got their majority. And for the past 6 months Democratic voters have been treated to the spectacle of trying to herd these impossible cats into getting done what we’ve been promised.
I think they can spin an imperfect bill, but I don’t think they can spin failure. When polls are showing something like 88% of Democrats still want them to get this done, as well as a majority of Independants, it’s necessary to get this passed or they’re gonna have a very, very hard sale for why it’s so important to reelect them.
General Winfield Stuck
@Guster: Well, Guster, I would say that the simple act of using a Barone comment on anything as some kind of wisdom supporting your argument is simply insane.
Secondly, Mcjoan is arguing the House not pass the senate bill until they fix it. That is thoroughly magical thinking at this point with the Senate being as it is. And a sure way to end up with nothing. I feel for the House members. They got screwed by the Senate, royally. But it is hardly the first time, so they must face reality that unless they vote for the existing bill, there will be none, nothing , nada. That is the choice. Not counting on a fantasy. It is on them, the House, in the unfair world of politics. They can do the adult thing, or not. Their choice only.
Guster
@DougJ: Well, I guess I’m hoping there’s a more convincing rebuttal than that. Largely because I think we’re dealing with a great many people who think, ‘You all may hang separately, but I’m gonna hang onto my office in my safe district until sun explodes.’
DougJ
@Guster:
You may be right.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
A couple of complementary posts. Ezra Klein on how that bad, bad Senate bill would have pulled the rug out from Anthem’s massive rate hike, and ThinkProgress on FoxNews scolding Anthem for reinvigorating the health care debate (I hope they’re right about that
LM
You’ll get beaten up every time you say this, so even though I have nothing to add, I wanted to say thanks. It was maddening to see dKos front-pagers mischaracterize the Senate bill’s provisions day in and day out, and it’s mystifying now to see so much advocacy for… what exactly? What does “fix the bill” even mean in the context of where Congress is(n’t) with things right now?
BTD
Hilarious.
Unfortunately, this post is all too typical of Balloon Juice these days.
Reality based community all right. “Pass The Bill!” Wheeee!
Funniest post of the year.
Guster
@General Winfield Stuck: I agree with most everything you said, but it still doesn’t answer the question: “Would you take that bet, put your career in the hands of the Senate Dems led by Harry Reid?”
You seem to think that doing the right thing is a primary motivation. I’m not so sure. It is possible that passing the Senate bill, while the right thing to do, is a bad career choice for many House Dems?
Napoleon
@General Winfield Stuck:
I read her post some time ago and scanned through it when I did, but is she arguing that or is she just pointing out that is how the house members view it? I took it as the latter.
ChristianPinko
One of the better projects I’ve seen recently is fixitandpassit.org. A day or two of massive, overwhelm-the-phone-system calling in might have more of an impact than a steady trickle of calls.
I don’t know and don’t care at this point whether the Senate is to blame for not passing “sidecar” legislation via reconciliation or whether the House is to blame for not simply passing the Senate bill as is. At this point, the Dems seem more interested in avoiding responsibility for HCR. It’s up to us to make them see that they HAVE to pass comprehensive health care reform — or else they prove that they are in fact useless, & there’s no reason to vote for them. And yes, I’m thinking about Supreme Court appointments, President Palin, etc., when I write that.
DougJ
@Napoleon:
I see your point, but isn’t there something laughable about holding up a Michael Barone column based on an anonymous source as some kind of wonderful wisdom?
BTD
@Guster:
I would add if there was a functioning brain attached to the writer of this post he may have figured out that his call to arms citing Tim F.:
“Tell Senators to get behind reconciliation to fix Medicare reimbursement, the excise tax and whatever else the House demands” is actually the message of the daily kos post that you reality based folks hate so much.
You know, I actually should apologize to Tim F. and Cole too. They would not have written this imbecilic post.
NR
@General Winfield Stuck:
There is more going on here than just resentment. Apart from the politics, there’s also the fundamental question – is the House a co-equal legislative chamber with the Senate or not?
You said it yourself – this is not the first time that the Senate has passed a shitty bill and told the House that they have to accept it. And unless the House takes a stand, it definitely won’t be the last.
There’s a principle at stake here. The founders designed a bicameral legislature. We cannot afford to let our entire legislative process become controlled by one of those chambers, especially not the one that is drastically unrepresentative of the population. If that happens, this shitty health care reform bill will only be the beginning. So I’m glad that the House has decided to take a stand, and I hope they hold the line on this as long as they have to. Because the alternative is a complete disaster for this country.
David
That front page post is indefensible, mcjoan is basically as useless as slinkerwink at this point. Barone wants the GOP to regain the minority, why is anyone at the GOS taking his concern trolling about the health care bill seriously.
The excise tax, the cornhusker kickback and all the other petty disagreements don’t matter. In 10 years, either the dems will have passed a health care bill in 2010, or they won’t have passed a bill. If they did their jobs and passed a bill, it will have changed over those 10 years and no one will care what was in the original bill.
BTD
@DougJ:
Ah, It’s the “anonymous sources” thing again? I take it you folks will be rejecting Jane Mayer out of hand again.
Ridiculous stuff.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
This is the tell, the trademark piece of dishonesty in Barone’s little bit o’ mischief:
Note the implication that the other 65% are all against the bill for the same reasons, and thus form an electorally coherent and numerically dominant voting block, which the hypothetical Democratic House Rep has to bow down in homage to. The electoral math looks a little different if you break it down (as reputable pollsters have done, c.f. what Nate Silver has presented by way of analysis on this subject) to show that half of this opposition to the Senate version of HCR comes from folks on the right who want nothing, and half on the left who want far more (e.g. single payer).
Barone’s reasons for peddling this sort of dishonesty are obvious. I have no idea what is in the water over at the GOS that they wish to go along with him in framing issues this way. Do they really think that this particular trick can’t be adjusted to fit every other issue? All you have to do is present binary polling on an issue and co-opt the numbers of everybody who is left of center to agument the numbers on the right. Imagine how much fun we can have with polling data on support for the war in Afghanistan, using this sleight of hand? 7 out of 10 Americans are against the current admin policy! That means we have to nuke the Taliban! And invade Iran too! Numbers don’t lie!
BTD
@David:
“The excise tax, the cornhusker kickback and all the other petty disagreements donāt matter.”
Don’t matter to you. Hopefully they won’t matter to the Senate either.
But if you actually want the bill passed, they matter.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
To say nothing of the fact that, while something called “the Senate Bill” has 35% support, the actual specifics of the bill are favored by 60% or more
Tonal Crow
I can hardly blame wavering House members for wanting the Senate to pass the reconciliation fixes first, which is what the GOS article advocates.
BTD
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
You do not know why the framing is done? Really? You see no connection to pressuring the Senate to agree to a reconciliation fix?
Really?
freelancer
@BTD:
You’re right, what we’re doing wrong is insufficiently adhering to GOP framing, it’s always worked electorally for liberals in the past.
Could you be more cynical than just to throw optimism in the face of Dennis and the other frontpagers here to make a sectarian point and look not a little smug? How’s your own gun barrel taste? I bet it you think it’s like metallic schadenfreude.
NR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Not true. The individual mandate polls well below 40%.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: The bill expires at the end of this session of Congress, so there is some time to let the Senate get it’s act together. But given the dysfunction of that body, I really don’t think anyone can count on them to fix anything more than change the lightbulbs in the Senate Chamber, and maybe that would be screwed up somehow.
The point is, at some point, the House will need to make a decision of pass the bill, or accept failure that will likely be another long period before the opportunity arises again. And in the meantime people will continue to die because the House chose to nurse their resentment at the Senate for doing what they have done since the republic was formed. Screw over the House.
And using Barone is nuts and this thread appropriately flames the decision for it to be used as support on Dkos. I am fairly certain Cole would agree./
Napoleon
@DougJ:
Yes, although at one time he wasn’t such an obvious wingnut. That said doesn’t mean he isn’t right. I just find the general thrust of what is being said as entirely plausable. Again even before anyone in Congress seems to have foresaw this potential problem on the horizan Pelosi and crew were saying they were done going out on limbs just to have the Senate saw them off.
The biggest issue I see with what Barone says is the hundred votes short thing. I think you have to read that very narrowly as 100 short for just passing the Senate bill and crossing your fingers that the Senate makes good with a fix.
baxie
“It is concerned trolling at its best and it is sad to see the front page of DKos being used to fluff wing-nut talking points as POVs that Democrats should embrace with fear.”
what are you on about?
Whatever your personal stance on the Senate bill, IMHO the post in question does a good job of illuminating the motivations behind the House’s less than passionate embrace of the Senate version of HCR.
It seems to neatly summarize the realities of the House vote.
You may not like that reality or agree with it, but there it is.
Politicians aren’t eager to tie their popularity to a bill voters don’t like.
BTD
@freelancer:
Are you fucking kidding me?
Dennis write one of the most idiotic and insulting posts I have ever seen, and you are scolding me?
Look in the fucking mirror.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
What’s the number among people who know about the subsidies that go with it?
Lee from NC
OMG. McJoan is not advocating a position one way or the other in that post. She may have in others, but in the post you’re referring to, it’s pretty clear to me she’s doing her best to explain WHY it hasn’t passed the House yet, rather than saying that it shouldn’t pass the House.
Who cares if it is some Republican douchebag she’s quoting if it’s a decent analysis of the situation, which I think it is.
Mark S.
@NR:
Amen.
This isn’t just about HCR; this is about having a functioning government. If nothing can be passed by the Senate except tax cuts and defense appropriation bills, we are truly fucked as a country. If we can’t get rid of the filibuster, at least make these assholes stand up there and talk for 49 straight hours. The number of filibusters will drop to single digits.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Sheesh. Do you folks fucking keep up with this story, ir this just all bullshit snark?
Do any of you know that the Obama Administration released a statement that it will post its bill, which will be the result of the House-Senate compromise before the February 25 summit?
Of course, the sourcing on this is an anonymous White House source to Ezra Klein so according the Balloon Juice rules, that does not count.
I repeat this is an idiotic and insulting post and frankly, not even up to speed with what is going on on this story.
It is an embarrassment.
scudbucket
@BTD: You know, I actually should apologize to Tim F. and Cole too. They would not have written this imbecilic post.
This is really over the top. You keep beating drums that House Dems are in danger of losing constituency support if the agree to the excise tax. But the exact same argument applies to the Senate: if they marginalize their base, they won’t get re-elected either. Your continual harping on the Senate only indicates that you like the House bill better, not that there is any underlying political reality that you alone perceive.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Cole would agree with THIS post? how it is written? Then Cole is an idiot too.
kay
@David:
I just don’t think voters are going to care why they didn’t accomplish anything. I don’t think the House bitching about the Senate or the Senate bitching about Obama is an electoral strategy.
I can’t imagine what they’re going to run on. Obama’s hoping the economy improves, and he’s got some breathing room. What are Congressional Democrats planning to run on?
I don’t know :”Washington is broken!”? They’re incumbents.
Sentient Puddle
Question for those who call for reconciliation before the House votes: how do the Democrats go about doing that? And I mean this in a procedural sense…attaching a reconciliation rider to legislation that isn’t actually law is apparently tricky, at best.
Right now, I’m inclined to believe that it’s impossible and the House has to go first, but if a procedure wonk can lay out the process, then it would make sense to me to lean on the Senate instead.
BTD
@scudbucket:
My comment is over the top but this fucking post isn’t?
Are you people nuts? This poster clearly has GOS issues and you think letting him put his personal vendettas in an insulting and idiotic post is just fine?
What the fuck?
General Winfield Stuck
@NR: I said there is more going on here besides resentment. But some high horsed principle of equality isn’t one. We are talking about HCR, that has never gone this far before, and likely won’t for a long time if failed.
The Senate has done it’s job with regard to passing a bill, though far less than ideal, still will save lives and offer important regulatory reforms for an unregulated out of control insurance industry. That is the only principle that matters here IMHO>
I say give the Senate some more time, but if and when they will not step up, then it is on the House. And fuck a bunch of constitutional principles.
All the House has to do is vote on it, simple up or down and it becomes law, and lives can be saved while this country dawdles with ideological shit slinging for how ever long.
We got a bad break in Mass. So now we are just going to drink our purity juice and feel righteous in our petty indignations. Not me. And I don’t think the House will either, with some time to consider the consequences.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@BTD:
That ship has sailed. The House and Senate are playing a game of Chicken which the House Dems can’t win, because all of the House Reps are up for re-election, but only a fraction of the members in the Senate. The Senate has a structural advantage, and if too much pressure is brought to bear on the swing seat Senators, they can easily pull a Bayh and just go cash in their chips at the casino office, and ride off into the sunset as very, very wealthy
political prostitutesfuture lobbyists.In general terms I agree with what NR #31 wrote above, about institutional identity and how we need to support the House as the more small-d democratic of the two branches against the aristocracy and oligarchy of the Senate. But I also know a lost battle when I see one. HCR is done. Time to pull a Dunkirk and get what we can out of the debacle and regroup to focus on banking reform, where the rhetorical terrain is more favorable for progressives.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn’t conclude with: Elkins Act, Hepburn Act.
BTD
@scudbucket:
As or your substance. I may have my preferences, but the analysis has nothing to do with it.
There simply are not the votes for the Senate bill Stand Alone in the House. Not even close.
You want to put your fingers in your ears and “lalalalala” yourself makes no difference to me.
But if it is on the record source that Balloon Juice wants to listen to how about the Speaker of the House who said on the record there was no way in hell she could pass the Senate bill without a fix.
Harry Reid has never said on the record he can’t do a fix.
so how about it? When are you folks going to respect the on the record sources?
I suppose only when it is convenient.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: Well, then why don’t you saddle up with Barone, Norquist, Jane and Mcjoan and go full PUMA and leave us the fuck alone. You are the only idiot in this exchange.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Voting on it does not make it law. Passing it makes it law (after the President signs it.)
By your logic, the Senate should just pass the House bill.
Honestly, is this really that difficult to understand for you folks?
freelancer
@BTD:
I suppose self-reflection is necessary from time to time. HCR is not dead, yet. And fuck having a guy like Barone or any other Right-winger or firebagger argue me out of even trying to support reform. Not liberal enough? Well, perhaps, but the status quo is unsustainable, and will remain the status quo for a long, long time if it were up to many on the left for the sake of wanting the perfect. I voted for liberals to fight for liberal values, and as long as I have a phone line, they will know that.
PTDB is insulting. Sheesh.
When did all the manic-progressives/firebaggers start acting like fucking Spaceballs?
Dood, Iz in ur logical fallasees, stealin ur ad hominims.
thejoz
For whatever you may think of Kos and/or the Kos community, I think she has a point, even if it’s been buried.
Essentially, she appeared – to me anyway – to be asking:
“Is it worth it for a House Dem member to commit to voting for the Senate Bill with zero changes in order to pass a growingly unpopular version of HCR in a bid to save their seat, which will fail to placate the right and alienate the left
…Or do these Dems continue to fight to make the bill better so they can try and save their seats and make reform a bit more “reform” minded?”
…So what if she quoted a right-wing gasbag. Every once in a while, the gasbag spouts something less odious than what they normally spew.
Frankly, if I were a Dem Congressman, I’d be telling the Senate “What have you done for me lately?” before I even thought of maybe passing the current bill as it stands.
…If anything, this entry could be seen as far more “concern trolling” than that one.
Just a thought.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Yes, that is a shockingly intelligent comment.
My gawd.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: We don’t do anonymous sources . I don’t know what is in any compromise, if there is one. And it is dumb as dirt to use Barone for support for any so called progressive. I stand by that and the author of this thread for pointing that out.
NR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Check out this poll, especially this question:
34% said that was acceptable, 60% said unacceptable. Subsidies or no, people do not want the individual mandate.
Mnemosyne
@BTD:
So I’m guessing you missed the entire backstory where Dennis/dengre jumped ship from GOS to join us here at BJ, complete with a long post detailing his reasons?
We know dengre has problems with GOS. That’s why he’s here and not there. Is he supposed to pretend that everything is hunky-dory with them when he left them after he perceived problems like this exact one?
Funny that the exact same people who say they shouldn’t be forced to support Obama just because they’re part of the same party are going ballistic because dengre doesn’t support GOS just because they’re part of the same party. Hypocrite much?
clonecone
@General Winfield Stuck: BTD went full PUMA years ago. He’s just here now to defend his former squeeze. How noble.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: You are defending Dkos for quoting Michael Barone and crying because I pointed it out with snark. You buy the ticket, you take the ride here.
BTD
@freelancer:
This comment does not even make sense.
If you are susceptible to being argued out of your belief by Barone or Cole or anyone, then what does that say about you?
Now, if you believe that by some magic pixie dust you can get the House to pass the Senate bill STAND ALONE, and will believe it no matter what, then what does it matter to you?
Now if you are a serious person who actually wants to discuss how to get the Senate bill passed, then maybe, just maybe, you’ll think about what the analysis means.
Or not.
Actually, the reason I am in this thread is because this is an idiotic and insulting post by Dennis. And I am objecting to it.
I’ve made my view clear. Enjoy the rest of the stupid thread.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@NR:
You have a good point about the rivalry between the House and Senate, and that progressives need to work at enhancing the power of the former rather than the latter, but IMHO we have reached a Dunkirk moment with HCR. This battle is lost. Time to get what we can out of the debacle and regroup to focus on banking reform, where the rhetorical landscape is more favorable for progressives.
I’m not sure why my earlier comment replying to BTD is in moderation, hopefully this one will make it through.
BTD
@clonecone:
Classy fucks you folks have here.
Nice community John.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Perhaps when all is said and done, Anthem will have done us all a favor by clearly showing just how f-in’ big the semi bearing down on us really is. 40% rate hike? Ye Gods…
Now mebbe people who have been ignoring this fight because they didn’t think it mattered to them will start to pay attention. I read the TP article and I hope they’re right about Fox and Anthem too.
I wonder if Anthem has a corporate motto…
Mnemosyne
@NR:
Every workable healthcare reform requires a mandate. Even if we got our pony and implemented a single-payer system, guess what? Everyone would be required (aka mandated) to pay into it. You will not find a single country that has universal coverage without some form of a mandate.
People were pissed off at first that they were required to put money into the Social Security system. Some of them still bitch about it. Does that mean we should switch to making Social Security a voluntary system and not a mandate?
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
By my logic, the Senate is not the House. Different rules entirely for passing shit, and a lot harder. Just wanking that bully for that fact, so why doesn’t the Senate just pass something is bone dumb and is what school children whine about for who gets to go to recess first.
Violet
@NR:
Well, there is this:
clonecone
@BTD: Oh, you’re so cute when you’re in full Puma mode. Have you seen the whitey tape?
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
You write “so why doesnāt the Senate just pass something is bone dumb” It damn sure is.
It’s why I never argue it.
Just as dumb is saying the House should “just pass something.”
That’s my point.
mr. whipple
@kay:
This.
Mnemosyne
@BTD:
Of course, Barone is a known and documented liar, so taking his word on this is quite risky. But, hey, if you prefer to take your information from a known and documented liar because it fits your worldview, be our guest. Just don’t come crying to us when it turns out that, hey, Barone lied to you! Whocouldanode?!?
freelancer
@BTD:
Some might say that being open to others’ opinions makes me something of a rigid ideologue. Others might remark that using one faction of the left to flame another part is something that highlights the inclusive nature inherent in the phrase “Big Tent”.
BTD
@clonecone:
It’s not your lying and your stupidity that offends me, Clonecone. You were always a winner at that.
It’s your inability to not just deal with the issue at hand.
Call me what you want, but what you did was bullshit and you know why.
rootless_e
I think that Michael Barone citing Politico must generate hypersonic waves of bullshit.
NR
@Mnemosyne: Social Security isn’t administered by private, for-profit companies that routinely withhold paying benefits, so the comparison isn’t valid.
Suppose that we privatized Social Security and it started paying only 75% of its benefits. Would that be good enough? And should we implement such a system and then lie to America’s seniors and tell them that we have universal pensions? Because that’s what the Senate bill does with health care.
joes527
@General Winfield Stuck:
This excuse NEVER made sense.
Give Mass back to the dems and we would be EXACTLY where we are today. HCR is never passing another cloture vote in the senate. That was the reality before Mass. That is the reality today.
There was NEVER an opportunity for the House to have input and the result to pass cloture in the senate. Even if all the house did was to correct the misspellings, the senate would have filibustered the exact bill that they passed if they had a chance to do it.
Blaming where we are on Mass is delusional.
The House passed a bill that the senate couldn’t accept. The Senate passed a bill that the house couldn’t accept.
I don’t get how this was _ever_ supposed to work. But if it can’t be done now, then it couldn’t have been done before Mass.
BTD
@Mnemosyne:
Sure. Unfortunately, unless you are calling Nancy Pelosi a liar, I am not sure what your point is.
mcc
Yet somehow we never heard about it, and the “progressive” blogs were pushing for it, until December. And there’s absolutely zero attempt being made to remove the mandate from the bill, and no alternate proposals being put forward for a bill which lacks a mandate and balances out the side effects of the “preexisting conditions” provisions some other way.
The mandate is a distraction. It’s just something that people who oppose the bill for other reasons harp on to scaremonger.
BTD
@freelancer:
Fair enough.
les
BTD, don’t you have a home somewhere where someone agrees with you? It can’t be good for you, hanging around with all of us fools, knaves and idiots.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
No one is saying that. There is only one option for HCR to occur, one only, unless the Senate gets it’s act together and takes on the very tricky reconciliation process. It isn’t “the house should just pass something”. They should pass the ONLY thing that is on the table that can become law. That is it, there is nothing else and not likely to be for a long long time..
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
I am glad no one is saying that.
I wish you could explain to me what you think has merit in this post.
clonecone
@BTD: You and the rest of the purity trolls have bought into rightwing framing of nearly every single issue. That’s the issue at hand. All no votes are equal. When it comes to HCR, granting political cover to Grijalva, Kucinich, and the rest of the bill killers is no different than pimping for Bachmann.
Call me what you want, but what you do every single day is bullshit and you know why.
BTD
@les:
If you think this post is intelligent and respectful, who am I to say no?
rootless_e
@BTD: the mystery is why so many prominent so-called “progressives” think that they can cite arguments from the worst hacks at AEI and be taken seriously.
General Winfield Stuck
@joes527: You are wrong. There was an agreement between the House and Senate to fix certain odious provisions in the Senate bill with the Excise Tax and a few other items. And the changes were approved by all 60 dem caucus senators to invoke cloture and let an up or down vote occur.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Seeing as how my earlier comment got eaten by the mod gods, I’ll just repeat my usual HCR mantra and say “Elkins Act, Hepburn Act”.
Yes, I know I’m just being tiresome. It’s a feature, not a bug.
BTD
@clonecone:
Deflection. I could give a rat’s ass what you call me.
You know what you fucking wrote and you know it was bullshit of you to do so.
Don’t act like you have no fucking idea what I am referring to.
NR
@mcc:
So, according to you, 60% of Americans are liars.
Okay, since you seem to have magical knowledge that the rest of us lack, what’s the real reason that 60% of the country opposes the Senate health care bill?
kay
@mr. whipple:
They’re going to have to come up with something, because going into House elections without anything is just impossible.
The House wanted a job’s bill, badly, but they aren’t making any progress there, either. The complaint (in hindsight, of course) was the WH should have focused on jobs.
They got it. Turns out, they can’t do jobs either.
I literally can’t imagine what a Democrat in Congress runs on.
“I’ll get to that jobs bill, eventually,after failing on health care”?
Their biggest problem is a serious and crippling loss of credibility on their ability to govern. Whatever Obama’s failings, and whatever they think about Obama, if I were one of them I’d get my head out of my ass and get something accomplished, quick, because all of this bullshit sounds like excuses.
Are they really, still, today, pondering the procedural rules on whether the Senate can act first? How long do you think it might take them to answer that question? Several more months?
BTD
@rootless_e:
Seriously by whom? Again, I could not care less if any of you take any of it seriously.
My objection is to the insulting and idiotic nature of this post.
I would like someone to try and defend it on the merits.
I think it is obviously indefensible.
scudbucket
@BTD: so how about it? When are you folks going to respect the on the record sources? I suppose only when it is convenient.
Since everyone who posts or comments here reads, I assume that they’re aware of Pelosi’s statement that she can’t pass the current senate bill. If you think that’s the issue – which I assume you do since you keep sardonically repeating that BJers are ‘reality based’ – then you are indeed a clueless demagogue. Not to speak for Dennis G here, but the reason I found McJoan’s post is so offensive is that it takes the right-wing meme of democratic party ineptness one step further: even Democrats can’t trust Democrats! Do you think that’s a healthy message for a Dem/progressive blog to be pushing? That it was based on unsourced conjecture from right-wing propagandists only adds to the stupidity McJoan engaged in.
mr. whipple
Yup. There was hardly a peep with the mandate until the weak-assed public option was dropped, because all along people on the left(myself included) were hoping it would be an opening towards eventually driving insurance companies out of business. Might have taken 100 years, but hey, I’m all about the hope.
But only once that pony was taken away did so many have a fit about the mandates.
To be consistent, one would have had to argue against them from the start based on some loonietarian principle about Gvt power.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
rootless e pretty much sums it up.
@rootless_e:
It is a mystery indeed. And an unsavory too often occurrence these days. And whatever you want to say about Cole and most all the other accused Obama bots, is that I don’t think you will ever see a Michael Barone statement cited as support for any motherfucking argument on this blog though at times they might utter something sane. If it did, it would be my last day here. There are some reasonable conservatives out there, but Barone and his ilk don’t qualify.
BTD
@scudbucket:
Was that REALLY the point of this post? Bullshit. It was not. It was an insulting potshot by a person grinding axes.
If he wants to write a post that says what you say, I’ll read it with interest and weigh the argument.
That argument was not presented in THIS post.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
So it is the citation to Barone? That is the sum total of the objection?
Let me get this straight – you do not object to the analysis, just the source of the analysis.
Allrighty then.
rootless_e
@BTD: “Insulting” and “idiotic” are exactly the correct terms for treating Barone’s concern trolling as serious commentary. I have not seen you make a merit based critique of Dennis points, but they’re easy to defend. Barone is a right wing hack employed by AEI to spread disinformation. By highlighting his works on the front page of Dkos and taking them as serious and credible, McJoan is making a political argument that is simply wrong. The entire premise of McJoan;s post is that Michael Barone is making a good point which is deserves to be uncritically reposted on the front page of what is supposed to be a rare example of Democratic media. Actually, it’s not even wrong.
mcc
“Just as dumb is saying the House should ājust pass something.ā
“No one is saying that. ”
Fuck it, I’m saying that! If we can improve the bill, absolutely let’s do so. But it doesn’t matter. The shit that will change is trivial and has more to do with assuaging hurt feelings on the left / in the House than it has to do with anything substantial. If you are telling me that I don’t deserve access to insurance because Ben Nelson got some bribe to the state of Nebraska then you are no different than the Republicans, no different from Evan Bayh pointing to some tiny earmark and opposing help for millions of Americans because of it.
The value is pointing out that DailyKos is willing to join with Republicans, give them a mouthpiece, and join in their efforts of obstruction just in order to further some little internal spat they’re having with other Democrats. I think that says something interesting and important about what DailyKos is doing and what they have become.
We need to fix the bill, then pass it. This is not that hard. If someone wants to argue in favor of fixing the bill, okay. But if while doing so you’re going to join with the people who want to just kill it outright, then don’t get all offended if the rest of us point it out.
mr. whipple
Yes. Total agreement.
They were given the ball to govern. They do have some accomplishments that I do not to belittle, but in terms of the large problems that have shown an inability to rise to the occassion.
People are angry and just don’t wanna hear a bunch of bs. Can you imagine what people who phone for the DNC/DHCC/DSCC are hearing when they ask for money?
My congresscritter is one of the most Liberal in the party, but if he’s not part of helping to get s**t done(and he’s usually not because he likes to make stupid protest votes and says that the party is a sellout) why in the heck would I work for him again?
rootless_e
@BTD: Well, we could get to the merits of Barone’s argument which is just the usual right wing bullshit based on citations from the “reporting” of Politico, but at this stage, this seems as ridiculous as trying to seriously discuss the scientific basis of creationism. Any reasonable person should start with the basis that Barone’s writing is reality based analysis in exactly the same way that Jesus-on-dinosaurs is science based.
clonecone
@BTD: You’re here to defend right wing framing. I don’t see you defending right wing framing every day, so the person using the framing is a relevant variable in the equation.
You’ve embraced Barone. Who is next? Does Glenn Beck need a lawyer? Orly Taitz is facing disbarment. Maybe she’ll hire you to take up the birther cause.
mcc
So, according to you, 60% of Americans are liars.
I think nobody considers the mandate the determining factor in whether they support or oppose the bill. I say anyone who claims the mandate is a kill-or-support element, yet wasn’t treating it as such in October, is a liar.
I think the mandate question in the poll doesn’t have much of anything to do with opposition to the health care bill, because the mandate is not being voted on as a standalone proposition, it’s being voted on as part of a package of other reforms.
As far as the majority opposing the health care reform bill itself, I don’t think the people who oppose it are liars, but I think most of them have been lied to. I think most of the opposition to this bill comes from people believing lies they’ve been told about it.
rootless_e
fwiw
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/15/837343/-Why-is-Michael-Barone-on-the-DKOS-front-page
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: i object only to Mcjoan using Barone to support the notion that unless the Senate does a fix or passes another bill then the House should let the senate bill die. That is what I gathered from what little she offered as analysis. If she was leaving the door open for if the senate didn’t act, then the House should go ahead and pass the current sen bill, then I wouldn’t object. Though yes, in using the most wingnutty of wingnuts for support is highly odious to me. And so what if Dengre was doing a little catharsis from his experience at Dkos. And Cole runs this blog and I suspect chose this headliner precisely because he wasn’t afraid to write such prog heresy. I know you don’t like it. And I like that you don’t like it.
scudbucket
@BTD:
Here’s the entirety of Dennis’ comments on the GOS post:
The source of the GOS post was a conservative pundit. It is concern-trolling at its best. McJoan does adopt wing-nut talking points by agreeing with the wing-nut talking points. What’s your problem here?
BTD
@scudbucket:
Both statements are lies.
They are presented to further Tim F.’s agenda as a matter of fact.
The entirety of what you posted from dengre is insulting and idiotic.
It is so stupid that no one can actually defend it on the merits.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
True — the problem with Social Security was that it excluded huge swaths of the workforce so that Southern Democrats wouldn’t vote against it for helping too many negroes (of course, I’m using the politer version of what they would have said).
Of course, you’re pretending that those selfsame healthcare companies aren’t fighting reform tooth and nail because they know full well that once the principle is established that the government can mandate what they have to cover in order to receive those mandated payments, they’re on a slippery slope to non-profit status at best and government takeover at worst, so the comparison is a bit more apt than you’re willing to admit.
Now you’re just being dishonest. You know yourself from looking at those polls that people don’t actually know what’s in the Senate bill and that if you quiz them on the actual provisions of the bill, a majority supports each of those provisions other than the mandate.
Or are you arguing that everyone who says they don’t know what’s in the Senate bill is secretly concealing their deep knowledge of it so they can voice their dissatisfaction with the mandate once they are polled about each of the specifics of the bill?
kay
@mr. whipple:
I don’t think people are going to “blame Obama” either, and I can’t imagine why blaming him (if that’s the Congressional plan, even if it’s justified) helps in any event.
We’ll blame him here, but we follow that stuff. He’s better liked than Congress. Way better.
I cannot imagine what Congressional Democrats are thinking, or why they are letting this debacle continue.
They might have been slightly better off if they had held a press conference and said “we failed on health care, again”. That would have had the benefit of 1. honesty and 2. they could get on with jobs, or whatever they plan on failing at next.
This is like slow, electoral suicide, and Obama’s not up, they are. He’ll take a huge hit, but he’s not losing his seat, they are.
Molly
BTD, upthread you said you were leaving us to this thread you have now contributed 22 posts to (and now, 3 more since I was writing this post, thanks, edit feature)…and really, zero value other than your incessant whinging.
You came onto the thread, according to you, because you had an issue with Dengre’s post. Duly noted. Did you have anything else you wished to add of substance around health care that does not involve insulting people for stupidity and/or using “fuck” in every post?
If not, I hereby release you of your obligations to defend DKos. You have been a true warrior, standing up for the weak against the strong. I salute you. Feel free to go forth now and conquer new realms.
Freemark
This is one of the worst posts I’ve seen on balloon-juice. First you insult basically anyone who posts at or reads DK because one of their front pagers doesn’t agree with you. You came across as a dick even before I went over and read the article.
After I read it I realized that you hadn’t actually read the whole thing. It was a well reasoned explanation as to why House members are leery about just ‘passing the damn bill’. But in no way did the post advocate that the bill not be passed but indicated likelihood of passing is low if Senate doesn’t go first because the House doesn’t trust them.
Talk about being using wing-nut arguments. It is you who is attacking the messenger and not the message just like a good wing-nut.
By the way I agree that the bill should be passed. But because someone disagrees does not make them a ‘concern troll’ or mean that they accept ‘wing-nut framing’.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Not SHOULD, WILL.
It is amazing to me that the inability to deal with reality is applauded by you.
dengre’s insulting and idiotic post is a call for GOP like denial during the Bush years.
cat48
@BTD:
It’s fine with me whatever he writes. The Overlord Cole invited him to post here the way I recall it because the GOS ran him off or something was very unpleasant there and he left. I go there occasionally to read Blackwater Dog and that’s it.
rootless_e
@BTD: The word “lie” does not mean what you think it means.
I often get the sense that our FDL-progressives who spend all their time insulting the only Democratic President we have and now sharing the wisdom of the far right with us are primarily incensed that they, personally, are not being treated as they think they should be. And my comment is that, although I disagree with much of what the Obama administration has done, blowing off the advice of the whine-o-sphere has been an excellent decision.
BTD
@cat48:
Cole has not run me off yet, so I get to write what I think – dengre’s post is idiotic and insulting.
BTD
@Molly:
Kind of comment that makes me want to stick around.
No words in defense of the post?
No defense of the insightful analysis of the political situation regarding the health bills? Do you have something meaningful to add in support of the insight offered by this post?
rootless_e
@BTD: You keep saying that, but aside from showing that you use the word “lie” to mean “I don’t like it”, you have failed to make an argument – except a by implication assumption of privilege.
Mnemosyne
@Freemark:
I have a feeling you don’t actually know who Michael Barone is or how unreliable a source he is.
If that exact same excerpt had been posted with Newt Gingrich as the author, would you still be over here telling us what a great point Newt had and how we should all be listening to his opinion?
BTD
@rootless_e:
Falsehood then.
I think it was a lie. But I’ll accept falsehood if you prefer.
mcc
So I originally came in here wanting to post about the bill, as opposed to how offended BTD is anyone would criticize dailykos’s editorial choices…
I think we are going to be seeing a lot of movement on the health care bill in the next week.
Steve Benen has an interesting post here about the White House’s request that both Democrats and Republicans will come to the health care symposium whatsit with proposals. He quotes Ezra Klein on the details of the plan that the Democrats will be bringing in:
In short: We can expect that by next Sunday the Democrats’ terrifying refusal to come up with a plan forward will be dealt with. Because the paraphrase about the plan is described as a “compromise”, and also because (as noted upthread) Nancy Pelosi has made it quite clear that her caucus is not at this time willing to vote for the Senate bill with zero changes, we can expect that this plan will represent the “fixed” bill, or at least the bill as fixed as it’s ever going to get– a set of modifications to the Senate bill the House could support, which depending on whether or not the health care symposium is able to get at least one Republican vote to stand up and say “I’ll vote for the bill with this change” will get passed either through conference-like proceedings or through budget reconciliation.
Meanwhile, OFA has been scaling up halting, confusing efforts to push to have the bill passed. My impression is they are trying to get a surge of support for bill passage around next sunday. It seems like this could turn into an actual outpouring of support if the Democrats finally propose a specific plan, the leadership endorses it, and there is something concrete to actually push Democrats to pass (and something which the House can support).
I think this is going to get interesting, and we need to think about how best to support the effort.
mr. whipple
Yup. This is excruciating.
SerenityNow
@BTD:
There have been quite a few people in this thread that have been kind enough and patient enough to explain it to you, and they even used small words so that you’d be sure to understand.
You, on the other hand, have not offered up any defense of you’re opinion that this post is “worthless” or whatever, all you’ve done is state it ad nauseum in one way or another as if that makes it fact.
It doesn’t.
You are being both incredibly tedious and ridiculous.
freelancer
How is it insulting? How is it idiotic?
At what point did refuting a progressive’s use of a right-wing concern troll tactic become a slap in the face? Since when is HCR, pimples and all, such an affront to y’all?
Instead of just calling it stupid. Instead of expressing so much fucking butthurt about traitorous dengre and his fiery jihad on GOS, try explaining. Using Logic. And Sound reasoning. Or you could just keep flaming. Upthread, you said that I wasn’t a serious person. Anyone here knows that about me, but I make no claim of seriousness, a priori or otherwise.
What is your goal, Big Tent Democrat?
Because if it is putting a huge spotlight on manic-progressives’ fractious clown shoes, golf clap to you sir.
rootless_e
@BTD: For “falsehood” you have to identify a matter of fact that is incorrect. “I don’t like the way he characterizes it” does not come close.
No wonder you’ve had to ban everyone with dissenting opinions from Jerralyn and you blog – you don’t know the difference.
Mnemosyne
@mr. whipple:
You think it’s excruciating now, but you haven’t stopped to realize that we have another nine months of this before the election actually happens.
NR
@Mnemosyne:
That’s hilarious.
The reason the insurance companies fought against the bill so hard is that by doing so, they were able to strip it of all meaningful reform elements.
The only principle that the Senate bill establishes is that the government can force people to give money to a private, for-profit corporation. That is a tremendous benefit to the insurance companies, not a harm. If you want proof, look at what happened to their stock prices after the Senate bill passed.
People pushing for the Senate bill don’t even seem to understand how ridiculous their argument is. “The insurance companies were too powerful for us to get a good reform bill this time, so let’s make them even more powerful and then try again.” Unreal.
scudbucket
@BTD: Cole has not run me off yet, so I get to write what I think
And so far, you’ve asserted (without argument), that a) the post is further evidence that BJers are living in pony-land, b) that Dengre’s post is an axe-grinding hit job, c) that the purpose of the post is to promote Tim F’s ‘agenda’, d) that it’s idiotic and insulting.
Can you narrow down this list down so we can discuss the actual merits – if any – of you’re criticism?
Tonal Crow
Many people were willing to accept the mandate as long as the public option provided a safety valve. When the public option got killed, many of those people decided that the mandate was unacceptable. This response is not irrational. Corporate malfeasance (including health-insurer malfeasance) is in the news on a regular basis, and many people despair of reducing it to an acceptable level. There is real doubt out there about whether insurers and their lobbyists will, in fact, let pass a bill that really controls costs, that really ends rescission, and that really makes different insurers’ policies comparable (including the fine print).
The public option bypassed those doubts and made the mandate acceptable to many people who otherwise would have bridled (and are now bridling) at it.
Finally, you’re completely ignoring the emotional aspects of this policy debate. People *hate* to be told to do something (e.g., buy health insurance). Democrats in power have done a horrid job of addressing that dislike.
les
@BTD:
Omniscience must be sweet. Combined with your charm, logic and debate skills, I can’t see why the world doesn’t agree with you.
BTD
@scudbucket:
I wrote a merits comment early.
Respond to that if you want.
kay
@mcc:
I was somewhat optimistic about that, but I refuse to believe they’re going to pull it out until they do.
Right now, they seem bent on suicide, particularly if Barone is the new strategist.
I will, of course, help, I’ll make calls, or whatever, because I have been a (small) part of every Democratic failure on health care reform, and I’m nothing if not consistent :)
BTD
@les:
On this, the world does agree with me.
The outlier is dengre and those who agree with him.
BTD
@rootless_e:
It is false that the piece was wingnut spin. You must know the House does not trust the Senate on this.
If you think that is spin, well, then what can I say?
les
@NR:
Ooh, ooh, let me try! Ignorance and misunderstanding, fostered by right wing/conservative lies and bullshit abetted by a ridiculous excuse for news media??? What do I win?
David
@NR: Wow, your idiocy knows no bounds. Your complaints about the Senate bill there would have applied to the compromise the Senate and House had pretty much agreed to before Scott Brown won the special election.
There were going to be minor changes to the Senate bill, but there was never going to be a public option in the final bill. In other words, STFU b/c you have no idea what the adults are talking about.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
So the language that disallows insurance companies from refusing to insure people based on pre-existing conditions has been removed? Community rating has been removed? The language in the bill that establishes the absolute minimum amount of coverage that insurance can provide has been removed? Please provide a link showing that, because I’m pretty sure you’re full of shit.
Ah, yes, the old “if Wall Street believes it, it must be true!” argument. It’s especially effective if you uncouple it from the fall in health insurance stock prices a few days later.
Wall Street also believed that Enron was a viable company and that the housing bubble would never burst. How’d that work out for them?
Freemark
@Mnemosyne:
Yes I would; if he’s correct. You are saying that if Barone wrote 2+2=4 that would be wrong also. All I’m saying is read the entire McJoan post and tell me what you disagree with in the actual argument. And tell me that the Dem house members are not thinking along similar lines. Which was the point of her post.
rootless_e
@BTD: No. The piece did not just argue that the house distrusts the Senate. Did you read it? The piece argued that passing the bill would destroy the electoral hopes of the Democrats. The fact that such an argument coming from Koch family employee Barone does not set off alarm bells in your head is indicative.
rootless_e
@les: There is also the issue that it’s a complex bill and presentation matters.
Oddly enough, and to the eternal mystification of people like BTD, the msm has presented the GOP spin points on the bill exclusively.
BTD
@rootless_e:
Passing it without a fix? Well, that’s a view and not a crazy one.
Here’s the good news. this battle seems over anyway.
Obama is behind a reconciliation fix now.
By tomorrow, dengre will have to find something else to use for his axe grinding.
NR
@David: Which is why I have been saying all along that the Senate bill needs MAJOR changes. So kindly shut the fuck up because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Mnemosyne
@Freemark:
We’ve already demolished Barone’s claim that the bill is unpopular on the merits, and that’s the main basis of his argument.
Is Barone right that the Democrats believe the hype promulgated by Republicans and actually think that the bill itself is unpopular, not the caricature of the bill that’s been created by Republicans? Possibly. But overlooking that Barone helped create that caricature and is now wringing his hands in mock sympathy because the caricature he helped create has turned people against the bill is insane.
You’re turning to the arsonist and asking him how to help you put out the fire he just set in your kitchen.
les
@BTD:
For certain seriously limited definitions of “world.” That does explain much of your otherwise curious sophomoric certainty in your own opinion.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@NR:
That’s a very limited and IMHO blinkered interpretation. Via the subsidies (which Krugman has defended) the Senate bill also establishes the principle that (a) everybody should have health insurance, not just the folks who can afford it, and (b) the govt has an interest in making it affordable. It establishes the basic principle that health care is a right, to which Americans are entitled simply by virtue of being citizens of this country.
Now what the Senate does not do is (a) do a good job of following through on those principles in practice (c.f. the origins of Social Security), and (b) put effective downward pressure on health care costs. That is work still to be done.
But here’s the rub: we can’t fight and win on those issues until we establish that people deserve affordable health insurance and the govt has a fiscal stake in seeing to it that they can get it. We need that beachhead, before we can win the larger battle, because there are multiple issues at stake here – fairness, access, and cost controls. That’s why I keep chanting “Elkins Act, Hepburn Act”. Regarding which, a little tale:
Five score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new regulatory framework, conceived in timidity and cowardice and dedicated to the proposition that even though everybody and his brother could see that the railroads were making too fncking much money and sucking the life out of the rest of the economy, we weren’t going to do squat about it other than fiddle around with the edges of the problem because, well because the Senate was bought and paid for by the railroads and their friends, and with damn good money, too!
Hence the Elkins Act (1903), which didn’t do much except establish that the railroads had to rip-off all of their unfortunate customers equally, rather than giving sweet-heart deals to their BFFs and jacking up rates on everybody else. Which didn’t exactly fix the problem, but at least it made everybody (except the railroads) more or less equally pissed off that the problem was still unsolved.
Then a funny thing happened. It turned out that leveling the playing field on railroad rates was just what was needed to get even the best Senate money could buy to think about actually fixing the real problem. Which (quelle surprise!) they actually did 3 years later – when the Hepburn Act was passed in 1906 regulating how much money the railroads could charge, as a result of which rates came down and the stranglehold the RR’s had over the US economy was permanently broken.
Not that this story should sound familiar or anything…
rootless_e
@BTD: It’s interesting trying to figure out how you think. Dengre makes a political argument: that treating AEI hacks as if they were sources of analytical data instead of Gobelsian propagandists is a really stupid idea. Your reaction is to be very huffy about the insulting tone. In other words, it’s all about you and your feelings: it’s “axe grinding”, not an actual point.
The childishness of this mindset is staggering.
mcc
Hi. What possible “safety valve” function would be provided by the public option which is not provided by the OPM/FEHBP-administered nonprofit option in the Senate bill? In short, if the reason to flip-flop 100% on the mandate based on inclusion or exclusion of the public option is the “safety valve” aspect of allowing people to escape from the private insurance pool, then what for those purposes is the difference between the Senate bill and the same bill with a public option?
Yes, on purpose. People who are making political decisions based on emotion deserve to be ignored, both on the substance of it (which they’ve chosen to ignore in favor of emotion) and on the electoral consequences front (emotions fade. Laws stay).
NR
@Mnemosyne: Yes. There is no meaningful reform in the Senate bill. The Senate bill allows rescissions, it allows cherry-picking of young and healthy customers (they can charge up to four times as much for older customers), and under the Senate bill, the insurers can simply refuse to pay for someone’s treatment if they think it’s too expensive, just like they can now.
Just look at what the National Nurses’ Union says about the bill:
As the NNU has said in its statement on the bill, the loopholes include:
* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
* Permitting insurers to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Allowing insurers to charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.
There is no reform here – only a giant giveaway to the insurance companies. This is exactly what they wanted.
BTD
@rootless_e:
This post is childish and obviously so.
My gawd, it was a dead letter before it was written.
OBAMA is for a sidecar reconciliation fix. All of this will be rolled out before the February 25 summit.
Pass the Bill? for crissakes. The bill is still being written.
How can you possibly defend this post?
Dennis G.
@thejoz:
If that is the point, then make it without using a concern troll like Barone. Folks should be able to make their argument for the House blocking HCR until the Senate fixes everything first, without holding up a factually challenged bit of wing-nut spin as the proof of the case.
My problem is not so much with the argument to block the HCR Bill (which I think is wrong), but with the use of a guy like Barone and a rag like the Washington Examiner to make the case.
It is like quoting Beck or Rush on the front page of Kos because they said something that sorta supports a point you were trying to make.
I think one should be able to make the case for the Senate going first without relying on wing-nut spin. Hence my post.
Cheers
BTD
@Dennis G.:
The point of the post is obvious to anyone willing to not grind their axes.
To wit, even a GOP hack like Barone knows that the Dems have to do a sidecar reconciliation fix to Pass The Damn Bill.
And now Obama says so too.
How could you have missed that?
BTD
@les:
Whatever. You live in some alternate world where Obama is not going to present the DEM bill (Senate bill with reconciliation fixes) before the February 25 summit.
Honestly.
Freemark
@Mnemosyne:
Well, many arsonists also happen to be firemen and have helped put out the fires they have started so it really isn’t that unusual.
But again you haven’t given a counter argument. I read the post and would have to say that many house members are thinking along similar lines. What is it you think they are thinking by not agreeing to the bill ‘as is’.
Mnemosyne
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
And now you’ve given me an opening to go off on my pet peeve, which is the people who are 100 percent convinced that the only reason for our soaring healthcare costs is the insurance companies, and if we just take the insurance companies out of the picture, costs will normalize.
That is, of course, complete horseshit. Provider costs are what’s killing us, not insurance costs. Insurance costs are merely reflecting those increasing provider costs. We could ban all insurance companies by fiat tomorrow and we would still see healthcare costs rise twice as fast as inflation by the end of the year. Because insurance companies are not the root of the problem. They are the canary in the coalmine, albeit a canary that’s throwing the weakest miners down the shaft to try and save themselves.
This is why I don’t really care about throwing insurance companies a bone or two: they are not the source of the problem. Unless we fix the source — and there are a dozen or so pilot programs in the bill to help us pinpoint the source — getting rid of the insurance companies won’t do jack shit.
Rick Taylor
The arguments in the post you linked to seem reasonable to me. They’re along the lines of why it’s unrealistic to expect the house to pass the bill without the senate doing reconciliation first. Rather than using an ad-hominem attack, that because it quotes Barone’s it should never have been quoted, why not address the substance?
Personally, I’d like to see the bill passed. I’d like to see changes made to it in the senate first. Whether or not they should pass it if the senate refuses to cooperate is moot; they’re not going to.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
Wut? You sniffin glue BTD? Liberal bloggers teaming with up batshit crazy wingnuts to straighten out the Obama administration? Teehee., That’s a good one, even for you.
Sorta like Redstate giving Michael Moore posting rights to pin the Bush’s ears back, or something.
Here is a clue. Wingers like Barone don’t like anything liberals stand for, prolly not even our existence on the planet and especially in “their” country. There is no making common cause with these folks for anything holy. You take up with them and when you turn your back, they will carve you up like the political turkey you are for giving them the opportunity. There is no way to defend it, stop trying. It is embarrassing to watch. Really!!
scudbucket
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: we canāt fight and win on those issues until we establish that people deserve affordable health insurance and the govt has a fiscal stake in seeing to it that they can get it. We need that beachhead
Excruciatingly important and undervalued point. Monopolized markets don’t just reform themselves!
mr. whipple
Yes, but we’ll feel soooo much better.
Nationalization Fever: Catch it!
/snark, obviously.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
Yes, I’ve seen that HuffPo link with the NNU article about six times now. It seems to be the only one people can find that supports their claims. Can you maybe find me another source? Because frankly it just looks like scaremongering to me and has the last six times I’ve been pointed to it. It takes good things in the bill like community rating and puts the worst possible complexion on them. (Can older people be charged more than younger people? Yes. But considering that many of those older people can’t get insurance at all right now, even having to pay more than a 20-year-old is an improvement over having nothing at all.)
See what I said at #158 about provider costs being the problem? You know what nurses are? Providers. They’re not the objective observers you seem to think they are.
clonecone
@BTD: You think Dennis’s history and feelings about McJoan and dkos are relevant and are the basis of your criticism of the post. I think your history with McJoan and dkos are relevant and are the basis of my criticism of your criticism. Why are you being such a raging hypocrite?
David
@NR: You are complaining about items that were going to be in the merged House/Senate bills. You’re advocating taking the House bill and making it more liberal, which was never going to happen. It makes no sense.
Anyone who didn’t know the end result of the House/Senate negotiations was going to be closer to the (crappier) Senate bill than the House bill shouldn’t be taken seriously, because they don’t know what’s going on.
mr. whipple
@Mnemosyne:
“See what I said at #158 about provider costs being the problem? You know what nurses are? Providers. Theyāre not the objective observers you seem to think they are.”
My brother, the Dr, hates insurance companies with a white hot passion because they determine his reimbursements for the patients he sees. And if he can’t get his God-given annual increases by virtue of his hard, hard work and up from the bootstrapisms then he just isn’t getting his just due.
He doesn’t see himself as part of the problem at all.
Mnemosyne
@Freemark:
That is the weirdest argument I’ve ever seen. I guess we should be consulting Rafael Perez about gang crime. After all, he framed a couple of hundred people for it, so clearly he’s an expert!
I think they probably are thinking along those lines. My point is that Barone and his colleagues are the ones who fed them those false stories to get them to believe those things in the first place. Your argument seems to be that since Barone’s lies were successful, we should now follow his strategy since, after all, he was the one who put the lies across in the first place. I mean, it’s not like Barone would continue to lie, right? I’m sure he’ll be totally honest with us from now on.
gwangung
@NR: Um, dude. You REALLY aren’t making a very convincing argument. Are you truly arguing that people who are more expensive to take care of should not be charged more for it?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Sorry, I don’t get this at all. Was Barone’s point correct, that the votes to “just pass the damn bill” don’t exist in the House? Does it bother you that Daniel Larison is frequently quoted on Balloon Juice? Is who says stuff more important than whether it is factually correct or not?
rootless_e
@BTD: ah, proof by repetition.
General Winfield Stuck
Just forced myself to read the Barone puke funnel quote, and aside from Dkos using this asshat for support of any argument whatsoever, the substance in his scribbling is like too stoopid to exist. Aside from the anonymous blather about 100 dem no votes on the senate bill, he posits how terribly unpopular the bill is in the country with dubious numbers, and says it is likely more unpopular in these dems districts.
Maybe Barone didn’t get the memo that it is the most liberal members in the House who are objecting. Members with the most libtard constituents in the country though many also with blue collar union types that will need to be convinced, but sure don’t object for anything like the same reasons Barone does. This is the sorry clownish problem with Dkos, or any liberal using excerpts from planet wingnut where themes are not interchangeable.
rootless_e
@Rick Taylor: Like BTD, you seem to miss the point of the post. Dennis was not arguing that McJoan was wrong, he was arguing that citing Barone as a credible source is not a good idea.
Similarly, I do not treat the argument of people who cite the Bell Curve as disagreements on scientific studies, but consider them to be flailing efforts to support racism. Citing Barone as if he were credible is a political argument that is independent of the content of Barone’s material.
Tonal Crow
@mcc:
There were various public option plans proposed, and I have not attempted to compare them with the bill as passed. But some of the PO plans had pretty broad eligibility criteria, and others were more restrictive (e.g., barring participants who could get an employer plan, even if it’s a lousy plan). What’re the Senate bill’s eligibility criteria?
In a purely technical sense, I largely agree. However, in a political sense, I couldn’t disagree more. If you ignore such people, you ignore most of the electorate. And if you ignore most of the electorate, you go directly to lose: don’t pass go, don’t collect $200. If you wanna convince people, you’ve got to play to their emotions.
Comrade Kevin
@BTD: Shouldn’t you be busy banning people from commenting at TalkLeft?
Mnemosyne
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? That’s why we keep pointing out that Barone lacks credibility, especially when he has second-hand information since it was actually a writer at Politico who supposedly spoke to the anonymous staffer and then gave the information to Barone rather than, say, publishing it in Politico. It’s possible that Barone is right because a stopped clock does get it right occasionally, but some of us are a wee bit skeptical that he is right in this case given the shakiness of his information and his track record on truthfulness.
Not at all, because Larison backs up his opinions with facts and on-the-record quotes by actual people, not anonymous “staffers.” Larison is a pundit; Barone is a gossip columnist. I may not agree with Larison’s conclusions, but I rarely question his facts.
Again, this is the question: is what Barone says factually correct? It reflects what some people want to think, but is it actually true? To get at that, one starts to look at his track record of pretty much unmitigated lying and distortion.
That makes me think that what he’s saying is probably not true and is just some more conservative propaganda. Depending on how much you want what he says to be true, YMMV. I would caution you on getting too far out on a limb based on a proven liar’s word, however.
Dennis G.
@BTD:
My apologies for hiding your cheese, insulting your world view and whatever other offence my post has given you. I do appreciate your decision to grace this thread with your wisdom despite my clumsy prose.
Perhaps I should have left off the reference that I recently stopped posting at DKos. I thought it was relevant, it seems you thought it an insult. It was not meant to be.
That you can only see my concern about using wing-nut sources and conservative talking points to make progressive arguments as “ax grinding” is evidence that I wrote this post in a bit of haste and that my point was not clear. I did write this quickly and used some shorthand. I take the critique that it could have been better written. I will work on that in the future, but I am encouraged that many folks did seem to be able to understand my point.
Regardless of the topic, I think it is always wrong to rely on wingnuts and conservative framing to make your case. I think progressives should be able to make a strong case on any issue without using deceptive sources like Barone. I was sadden and disappointed to see somebody I respect embrace a wing-nut like Barone to make a point that could have easily been made without validating him and his talking points as credible.
I gather from your comments, that you think it is OK to build your argument apon a wing-nut foundation if it helps to make a short-term point in a debate. I think that’s your concern with my post, but it is not clear from your comments. Perhaps you could help me understand why it is so useful to use these wing-nut sources and conservative talking points to promote a progressive agenda. I’ve read all your comments and aside from the fact that you think I suck, I’m not clear on why you think that or why you think using folks like Barone as a source is a smart strategy.
Perhaps in a future post we can both be clearer about what we mean. As for this one, it is what it is–both my post and your comments.
Be well and I seriously thank you for the criticism. I will consider it.
Cheers
dengre
Dennis G.
@rootless_e:
Exactly. Thanks.
Mahakali Overdrive
I’m glad my power went out a few minutes after that was posted, because it was such a big WTF. I think my intense psychic angst blew the house circuits along with my own personal fuse on this one. I am so FUCKING tired of anyone on the Left citing Rightwing sources, period.
Did you hear the latest report from Sarah Palin about Barack Obama’s job performance? And I hear that Cheney’s got a really stellar opinion worth deep thoughts about immigration reform; it’s really deep.
Progressive RW gang bangs are so 2000.
Cheers, old chap. Have a quahog, on me. I’ve got them sloshing out of my galoshes these days (requisite to wear just to wade through some of the muck and drivel that passes for “analysis”).
Freemark
@Mnemosyne:
So you agree with McJoan. You just said so. What is it you are arguing then? It seems you don’t like the reality so you won’t accept it. How does that help?
My only argument was that Dengre’s post was ridiculous and insulting. Dengre did not argue against the merits of the post and also mischaracterized it. At the same time saying
which the post most definitely did not do.
I did not make any arguments about strategy or even if McJoan was right or wrong. The argument she made was sound. Dengre’s post wasn’t any different then wingnuts claiming global warming isn’t real because Gore has a large house. No where did he refute the argument he just attacked the messenger and the messengers home.
Mark S.
@Mnemosyne:
They’re the biggest problem, and there is a reason no other industrialized country relies on them for basic coverage. Here’s Krugman:
Krugman’s two main reasons for this are 1) high admin costs of private insurers and 2) lack of bargaining power with drug companies, providers, etc.
This is why I can’t get that excited about the shitty Senate bill.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Well, no, that’s not the question. The question is, if the votes to “just pass the damn bill” existed then why haven’t they? Why round on Barone for saying something that Nancy Pelosi has said?
It’s fine you like Larison, so do I sometimes, but I’m trying to get to the bottom of Dennis’s anger, not yours.
Barone says that some source or other says that the votes aren’t there, which is undoubtedly correct, I’m sure somebody or other has said such a thing. Hell, Nancy Pelosi said it. The rest of Barone’s piece is rather uncontroversial conventional wisdom about why some House Dems don’t like the Senate bill.
Though it’s got a bit of a snide tone, I really don’t see anything particularly controversial in the quote from Barone. So it really all comes down to Dennis not liking the mere fact that he was quoted at all.
mcc
The eligibility criteria for the OPM/FEHBP nonprofit plan in the Senate bill is the same as the eligibility criteria for the public option in the House bill: It is available through the exchange. The exchange is available to anyone buying as an individual; it is also available to anyone working at a small business, if the small business chooses to participate.
The Senate bill also contains a provision not in the House bill, written by Ron Wyden, which makes the exchange available to a (small?) group of people not covered by the two cases above. A Wyden press release describes it like this:
(Note the “use their tax-free employer health subsidy” phrasing; this refers to that, as I understand things– see sec. 1312 (f) of the health care bill— anyone at all is allowed to buy individual insurance from the exchange, but an individual eligible to receive insurance coverage from their employer would obviously always prefer to do that, as there is a federal tax break for employer-provided insurance.)
kay
@Mnemosyne:
No we don’t. Even Democrats aren’t that stupid. They’ll shelve health care, rather than revisit the failure every week for 9 months. If I were them, I’d hold a press conference and announce “health care reform has failed” but that’s probably too risky, or honest, or something. People might find it disarmingly refreshing?
I think they’re screwed without health care. I thought for a while they might be able to do a job’s bill, or student loan reform, or something without health care, but it’s now obvious they can’t.
Which isn’t surprising, really.
They could not group. Expecting them to regroup was silly. They’re so rattled they can’t pass a job’s bill, which has 77% public support.
Obama will do what he can with administrative rule changes and agency actions, and they’ll have made themselves irrelevant.
mcc
I can agree with McJoan on principle and simultaneously believe that she does a horrible, sloppy job of expressing the thing I agree with, potentially so horrible that it does an incidental harm that eclipses whatever buried point it was I agreed with her on.
General Winfield Stuck
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Maybe some time getting to the bottom of your cluelessness would be more in order?
Elise
mcjoan is wrong – as usual. Her “analysis” on health care, if you can call it that, has been completely uninformed and amateur. She loves the cut & paste – because that’s about all she can do.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Brilliant riposte! And thanks for raising the level of discourse!
mcc
@mcc: By the way, a small random follow-up to this post: The Wyden press release I quote there also shows that NR’s comment above, that insurance companies are allowed to charge elderly customers four times as much as young ones, is incorrect; in fact, it’s three times:
And sure enough, if you check sec. 2701 of the bill sets the age rating limit at 3:1. The National Nurses’ Union piece on the Senate bill that NR quotes appears to be describing the older version of the bill, the base version introduced by Harry Reid in November. I’m not sure why; the NNU piece was published Dec. 22, which was after the deal comprising the amendment language containing things like the switch to 3:1 was struck. It’s possible the actual text was not available at the time, or that the NNU author had not had enough time to read it.
Now, given, this doesn’t make a big difference by itself. From the perspective of an elderly person a 3:1 limit is still not as good as a 1:1 limit, and a 4:1 limit is still better than the status quo. But it does sort of highlight the dangers of taking one single months-old opinion piece and accepting its claims uncritically as a substitute for actually learning anything about the bill… or taking seriously anyone who does…
baxie
@rootless_e:
If a statement is accurate, it doesn’t matter who makes it.
Getting all hot under the collar because someone excerpted an accurate assessment from a source that isn’t on the ‘approved’ list is ridiculous.
The OP has every right to grind their axe against Dkos, which they have become disenchanted with.
That doesn’t obligate anyone else to pretend they’re making a valid point instead of digging around for reasons to be upset (and trash Dkos).
Mnemosyne
@Freemark:
Actually, upon re-reading the Barone quote, I don’t actually agree with McJoan. I strongly suspect that Barone is, as usual, lying about what he heard because he knows it will demoralize liberals. I seriously, seriously doubt that we are lacking 100 votes in the House, which is Barone’s claim, a claim that McJoan apparently agrees with. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were lacking 10 or 15 votes, but 100? Do you genuinely believe that half of the House Democrats will not vote for the Senate bill?
Again, Barone didn’t just say that a few votes are lacking. He’s claiming that half of the Democratic House caucus will not vote for the Senate bill, and McJoan apparently agrees with his assessment since she made a point of front-paging it.
So I’m wondering how we got from “the votes aren’t there” to “half of the House Democrats will refuse to vote for the Senate bill.” Those seem like two completely different propositions to me.
scudbucket
@mcc:
What you write here is fascinating. I’ve suggested to many people at FDL, etc. that the PO is very overrated in terms of driving down HC costs, or even driving down costs of premiums, since it, on its own, doesn’t address the regulatory structures which make guarantee issue possible. (I’m inclined to believe they think that a PO will immediately lead to Canadian style HC.) Tho I’ve argued from a different set of premises, what you write here further establishes that the ‘Kill it if no PO’ crowd is very wrong in their thinking. Thanks for commenting on this. But if what you say is correct, why do you think there no clamoring from the Senate liberals that the bill effectively has a PO?
Also, many people at FDL cite the 3:1 premium ration for individuals in the high-risk pool as an argument against the Senate Bill. Does the house bill differ on this?
General Winfield Stuck
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.): Anytime.
Mnemosyne
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
I missed where Pelosi said that 100 House Democrats will not vote for the Senate bill. She said, “The votes aren’t there,” but that could be 10 or 15 votes. Barone is claiming that 100 House Democrats will not vote for the Senate bill.
Do you really not understand the difference between saying that you’re coming up short on votes and claiming that almost half of the Democratic caucus will not vote for the bill?
General Winfield Stuck
@baxie: Barone’s statement wasn’t accurate. He hasn’t made an accurate statement since anyone can remember. He is a GOP propagandist under cover of political expert and prolly is giggling with delight that the biggest liberal blog bought and used his horseshit to make a GOP argument.
Mnemosyne
@Mark S.:
I remember that Krugman article, and they have some good points, but it’s not really germane to the current Senate bill since the article was written in 2006.
Personally, I think Krugman was vastly underestimating provider costs, but those costs really started ramping up in the past decade or so, so they may not have been quite visible when he (co-)wrote the article.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@BTD: “Dennis write one of the most idiotic and insulting posts I have ever seen, and you are scolding me?”
If you want to read some stupid wanker who writes some of the most idiotic posts I have ever had the misfortune to read then take some time to review just about everything that you write.
BTD, you suck. You sucked at Kos, you suck at Talk Left and you suck in your sucking comments here. You are bowling ball through the garden hose level of suckitude.
Thirty-five posts in this thread today? What’s the matter, nobody paying attention to you over at TL so you have headed over here to drum up some attention? Here’s some attention for you:
YOU SUCK!
@rootless_e:
When you lack everything you need you go with what works for you. In his case it’s repeating bullshit over and over. Maybe he was a parrot in a past life, then again maybe he was the paper lining the bottom of its cage.
Dennis, if you have irritated this worthless turd then you know you have written something of substance. You only have to worry if he agrees with you, which thankfully will be a rare event.
Maybe Armando is jealous? He left Kos, became a nobody who turned a little blog into PUMA central and his girl lost the primary. End of story. Dennis ended up over here. The difference is like landing in shit or flowers.
BTD smells like shit. If you printed his missives out on toilet paper and wiped with them you would smell worse afterward.
Dennis G.
@Freemark:
You can not cite a climate change denier to prove climate change and you can not promote a progressive agenda citing a wing-nut like Barone.
This has very little to do with the exact veracity of every parsed line of his drivel. There will be facts in it because that is part of the wing-nut MO. They use facts as jumping off points for their Chariots of the Gods logic.
The point is that progressive can and should make the arguments without giving wing-nuts and their framing of the issues center stage. Are there Democrats in the House who are scared to vote for the Senate Bill? Of course. And some, rightly, do not trust the Senate. This story could be told without buying into Barone’s “you are all doomed” framing. It could have been done using a progressive frame and citing progressive sources (or real reporting from real journalists). Instead, the point was made by giving a wing-nut like Barone validation of the front page of a major progressive blog. That, I think is wrong.
The point of the DKos post was that Democrats should fear passing the Senate Bill. It is selling fear in an attempt to motivate a more progressive outcome and using the musings of a wing-nut like Barone to justify that fear. Somehow, I do not think promoting the idea that House Democrats should fear passing HCR will lead to a more progressive HCR Bill. And I can not see how Barone’s musing will ever be useful to a progressive agenda.
Cheers
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
No, that’s not what it says. Read it again.
“My colleague Mark Tapscott cites an anonymous quote by a House Democratic leader from a Politico story…”āYou canāt twist over 100 arms…” Mark takes that as an indication that House Democrats are short 100 votes of passing the Senate bill….”
I’m wondering too. Where’d you get that latter quote?
Mnemosyne
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
I highlighted the relevant parts for you since you seem to be very confused where Barone claims that the House Democrats are 100 votes short even after quoting him yourself. Or are you saying that because Barone himself doesn’t flat out say “The House Democrats are 100 votes short” and instead says, “Mark Tapscott says the House Democrats are 100 votes short,” that means that Barone isn’t really saying it?
General Winfield Stuck
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
There are about 250 dems in the house. No one I know has done a reliable whip count on how many dems won’t vote for the senate bill as is. You need 218 to pass a bill and with no gop support, that leaves at least 33 dems voting no to come up short of 218. Pelosi just says she doesn’t have enough to reach 218. And like we are going to listen to one of the biggest GOP liars to gauge the number at 100. That is high, I believe, but how high no one knows. And certainly not the republicans. Who wouldn’t give us the correct number if they knew.
And that doesn’t even get into his polling numbers that only 35 percent of voters approve of the senate bill, as there have been no specific polls for the current senate bill that I know of, and Barone claims it is even lower for those dems who oppose the bill, that are constituents of dems in the most liberal districts in the country. And even citing polls is bullshit, because the public is thoroughly confused as to what the dems want to pass, mainly from lies and distortions by people like Barone and his buds. Geesh, this is so embarrassing explaining this to liberals on this blog. Kind of makes mess of claiming we have smart commenters here.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
No, Barone is saying that a colleague interprets a quote that way, and Barone takes it as an approximation. The quote is supposedly, “You canāt twist over 100 arms.” Interpret it any way you want, but the point is that at minimum several dozen Dems are not on board with the Senate Bill.
Mnemosyne
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
And your source for this is a third-hand anonymous quote from Politico as presented by a right-wing hack. That’s your proof that there are at least “several dozen” House Democrats who won’t vote for the Senate bill.
Well, at least I know I don’t have to take you seriously anymore.
General Winfield Stuck
And I would add that of those at least half are blue dogs who weren’t going to vote for any bill, so that leaves maybe at least 16 liberal members to sway, maybe more, but 100. Not likely imo.
Molly
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
Exactly. You’re an insightful and appreciated voice, Dennis.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
It’s really very simple intellectual honesty. Read the material yourself, the primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are right in front of you.
The source supposedly said, “you can twist arms if youāve got a handful of them to twist. You canāt twist over 100 arms.” Interpret it any way that pleases you, Barone’s interpretation isn’t unreasonable, is it? Do you argue that he shouldn’t believe a source in a Politico story? Do you have any information for us on how many House Dems are willing to vote for the Senate Bill?
All of this is a minor point and a silly misdirection, of course. Dennis is upset that a prog blogger quotes a conservative blogger. Is it unreasonable to conclude that Pelosi doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill (the opposite would be unreasonable, of course)? Is it unreasonable to interpret the anonymous quote as indicating the Dems are far short of the votes they need? Seriously, is that just “wingnut spin” or is it the unfortunate truth?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
No, my source is (1) they haven’t passed the fucking thing, and (2) Nancy Pelosi. Your problems with math and honesty are not my problem.
indubitably
@BTD:
Please, go away.
:D Yep.
rootless_e
what happens if Barone is, like many republicans, not too skilled in math or in realistic understanding of what democrats are like, so he’s thinking, 4 demoncrats, each with 666 arms, means 100 arms to twist? Don’t dismiss that possibility.
indubitably
@Dennis G.:
You do know the real issue is that you dared criticize his girlfriend. Rather sad, really.
Dennis G.
@indubitably:
That would explain some things if true. I completely missed the connection of BTD with so many past iterations of the ongoing drama cycles as they played out on Dkos, Talk Left, the primary wars and so on.
The source of his angst may be as you say. It could also easily be something else. Pie perhaps? One thing for sure is that this is a person whose goat is easily gotten.
I guess I’ve made his list. So it goes.
Cheers
Mnemosyne
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Really. Barone’s interpretation that 100 House Democrats are going to refuse to vote for the bill is completely reasonable to you.
I guess when you’ve bought into right-wing frames, it would sound reasonable. For those of us who realize that right-wingers are full of shit and will do anything to defeat healthcare — including spreading disinformation to try and make Democrats give up — it doesn’t sound very reasonable at all to declare that half of the Democratic caucus is not going to vote for the Senate bill.
Again, please point to where Nancy Pelosi said she was lacking the 100 votes that Barone claims she’s lacking. I’ll wait here while you find the link.
Someone here has a problem with math and honesty, but it’s not me.
mcc
@scudbucket:
Because the OPM plan is not a public option, and is massively inferior to a public option. The federal government would not have the level of control over the operation of any of the providers in the FEHBP-style plan that it would have over the public option. The OPM plan would not give the Federal government the kind of direct ability to influence the insurance market the public option did, and would not offer any of the opportunities for future expansion (like future changes linking rates to medicare, or providing a path to single payer) which the public option did.
But let’s say the specific problem we’re concerned about is the “safety valve” problem, that the reason we care about the public option is that it gives you an “out” from the commercial insurance system, that insurance companies are about to start acting all crazy and you need some kind of shelter from them now that the beloved right to go without health insurance while making income above the poverty line is going away. If this is what we care about, then why is the OPM subcontracting to a nonprofit to provide insurance (as in the Senate bill) different from the federal government providing insurance directly (as in the House bill)? If the problem with things like health care costs actually is the for-profit insurance companies, then the OPM plan in the exchange seems to suffice perfectly fine for providing an escape from them.
I really don’t know, but you can check the text of the house bill yourself here.
rootless_e
@<a [email protected]BTD:
“It is false that the piece was wingnut spin. You must know the House does not trust the Senate on this.
If you think that is spin, well, then what can I say?”
Well, I think that’s the nub of it. You want to defend Michael Barone as a credible source, and I consider him to be an AEI propagandist. In other words, you’re breathtakingly, stupendously, pathetically, naive. No wonder you are so often dead wrong.
Joy
God, this is why I love this blog. The commenters are the best.
Cybrestrike
@Mnemosyne
Link:
Doesn’t say 100, and it’s a quote from a few weeks ago, but it’s quite obvious that Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have the votes for the Senate Bill. Hence the alleged compromise…
Cybrestrike
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/pelosi-there-arent-enough-votes-to-pass-the-senate-bill.php
Here’s the link that I forgot to slip in there.
Mnemosyne
@Cybrestrike:
So what you’re saying is that if Pelosi said that the votes aren’t there “at this time” two weeks ago, that means that Barone is correct today when he says that 100 House Democrats will refuse to vote for the bill.
Do you at least see how silly that is, and why we keep pointing out that taking the word of someone who has a vested interest in killing healthcare reform might be a bad idea?
All I can say is, you guys who are defending Barone had better not come back here later complaining about how we can never seem to move the Overton window to the left, or I’m gonna punch you in the throat. The fact that progressives are constantly buying into right-wing frames and insist that right-wing hacks have a point when they exaggerate their claims is the reason that window keeps moving to the right.
itsbenj
Wow. Just would like to thank Big Tent Dem for smacking down the mentally challenged rubes here, somebody had to do it. Damn, such a short amount of time ago it was, I loved reading this blog. Now it’s been taken over by willfully ignorant tools. Just idiotic dialogue going on here. You used to see regular displays of humor and critical thinking here. No more, apparently, it’s a bunch of intellectual midgets amplifying their own projections and tiny little issues in a massively disproportionate wank-fest.
Too bad, because there is some good writing, occasionally, still here. But most of the people here seem to have just lost it right around the time that sub 4-th grade terminology such as ‘firebaggers’ and ‘manic progressives’ came into being. Have fun with your gigantic boatload of dumb, y’all.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
List your sources for how many votes the House has for the Senate bill right here:
List them. Obviously you have some solid source of information, right? List it here:
Please argue honestly or don’t waste our time.
Do you really think you can get away with a flagrant lie such as this?
Here is what I said:
“at minimum several dozen Dems are not on board with the Senate Bill.”
Dishonest or a failure at third grade arithmetic? It isn’t even an arguable point that at least several dozen Dems are not on board with the Senate bill. How many more beyond that? We’ll be happy to read your sources right here:
So how many is it?
And it would be nice if you apologized for your flagrant dishonesty.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Looks like the attributions got messed up. Mnemosyne said, “Again, please point to where Nancy Pelosi said she was lacking the 100 votes”. The rest is my response.