I spent a lot of time studying the various Congressional races in my area the past two cycles (NY-26, NY-28, and NY-29) and if there’s one thing that it taught me, it’s that voters don’t care about process. They don’t care about where candidates get their campaign money, they don’t care about how Congressmen get strong-armed into voting for things, they don’t care about the mechanics of how bills are passed. And you can bet they really don’t care about the filibuster or reconciliation or the nookyular option. James Surowiecki:
Set aside the philosophical point that requiring bills to get sixty votes in the Senate before they become law contradicts the logic of majority rule. Even in straight political terms, where is the evidence that ordinary voters remember how laws were passed and reward or punish politicians based on that? On the contrary, voters judge politicians (to the extent that they make rational decisions) based on whether the laws they passed worked or not. In my recent interview with Barney Frank, he made this point with reference to the 2003 expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs. That bill passed the House of Representatives by one vote, and only passed because the Republican leadership kept the vote open for hours so that they could strong-arm members into supporting it. But, as Frank said, voters today aren’t asking for its repeal or complaining about the way the benefit was enacted, because—for all of its flaws, like the infamous “doughnut hole”—on the whole they’re reasonably happy with the way the plan has worked. The reality is that if the Administration passes significant health-care reform that works—that is, it regulates bad behavior by the insurance companies, makes insurance portable, makes it possible for individuals to buy insurance at reasonable rates, and reduces (as a result) the number of the uninsured—American voters will not care that it passed via reconciliation. Political victory on this issue isn’t going to be determined by how the law gets enacted. It’ll be determined by what happens once it is enacted.
Personally, I do care about process and I’m not in favor of doing away with the filibuster as a matter of course. But the health care bill is too important to be subject to Joe Lieberman’s and Ben Nelson’s whims. Ram the goddamn thing through by any means necessary. The health of 50 million uninsured Americans has to take precedence over the egos of six Senators.
If it’s a good bill, it will be a huge political victory for Democrats. If it’s Blue Dogged piece of corporatist garbage, it’s probably a political wash. And if it doesn’t pass at all, it’s a small-scale political disaster for Democrats
No matter how it passes or fails to pass.
4tehlulz
Shush commoner; your betters say otherwise.
/Village’d
Legalize
But but but, the GOPers will get their feeling hurt if the Democrats go all partisan-ish and use their 60% majority to pass what 2/3 of Americans want!
Patrick
If it has to be revenue neutral to make it through reconciliation, I would like to see a tax on financial transactions. Kill two birds with one stone.
vacuumslayer
Let’s ram it down their throats, but can we do it by way of their asses? Honestly.
Sloth
@DougJ
Yup.
vacuumslayer
@Legalize: And bipartisanship is super-duper! Let’s keep caring and sharing in the Senate!
Zam
Why is Yahoo telling me Scarborough is gonna get the 2012 nom?
Cat Lady
This is so obvious, yet here we are stuck with weeks and weeks of Senatorial wanking. Everyone but Obama has shown their cards. Poker player that he is, until it’s obvious to me he’s as compromised and craven as the next politician, I believe he will get what he wants. I’m just worried that his centrist pragmatic instincts will outweigh his Chicago pol instincts.
Zifnab
The reason we have all these procedures and motions and howdy-hoos is to give everyone a voice and make certain the will of the people is upheld.
If Senate gets rid of the Filibuster and a majority wields enough power to enact unpopular policy, the public revolts. If the President has a dictator’s control and antagonizes the population, he risks public revolt. The entire Democratic process is designed to keep the population passive by giving them the ability to elevate or demote officials as their whims dictate.
However, if you have a good set of legislation and a (relatively) popular set of officials, and the only thing between you and the finish line is a bunch of bureaucracy, the system isn’t serving its purpose.
Give the people what they want and you’ll get reelected. Don’t, and you won’t. It’s that simple. The Republicans figured this shit out. Why can’t our guys?
Incertus
I used to be one who supported the filibuster, but not any longer. No doubt there will be times when Republicans are in charge again where legislation that could have been stopped by a filibuster will pass, but the very nature of conservatism versus liberalism means that conservatives will stop more good legislation than liberals will stop bad legislation. Dump the filibuster already.
beltane
A blue dog piece of corporatist garbage with an individual mandate will be far, far worse than a wash. It would be rubbing salt into the wound of economically stressed Americans, and the voters will not respond kindly.
liberal
Uggabugga claims the Gang of Six represent 2.7% of the population, as opposed to 12% if all states had equal pop.
Zam
@Incertus: I wouldn’t dump the filibuster. We just need to start making them actually filibuster. If they had to do this on every single issue they do now, they might actually start picking their battles.
liberal
@Incertus:
Agreed.
Darius
This is what I’ve been saying for a while now. Get a good health-care reform bill passed, by any means necessary. Show the American people that Democrats can get shit done. The fear will subside, especially once Americans discover that they are not, in fact, being subjected to “death panels”.
ricky
Did Lincoln free the slaves by cloture or reconciliation?
You know, if Lincoln had lived he probably would have given the slaves back.
Sorry, channelling my inner Buchanan.
ricky
@Incertus:
Give me an argument in favor of the Senate if the constitution were being written today.
Makewi
It’s funny how quickly opinions change once the party in power changes. I remember great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the threat of the nuke option from the GOP.
Bad news from the CBO regarding increase cost to seniors under the new plan. Guess they should just plan on eating more catfood. Well, when they aren’t under deep sedation as a means to control their costs overall that is.
Trinity
Former Obama campaign staffers, volunteers, and donors are putting together an ad asking him to keep his word to fight like he said he would. Here’s the petition http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5649/t/4951/content.jsp?content_KEY=2793&ta
Darius
Did Lincoln free the slaves by cloture or reconciliation?
Technically, by constitutional amendment.
DougJ
I remember great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the threat of the nuke option from the GOP.
That was the complete abolition of the filibuster. This is a bypass for an individual bill.
Remember the Bush tax cut vote also passed through reconciliation.
You annoy me because you’re not an idiot but you insist on accusing me of saying things I didn’t say.
El Cid
If it’s an actual bad bill which is an insurance company giveaway but which screws the average insurance holder (like lobbyists say they’re hoping to get from Senate Finance Democrats), then Democrats are toast, whether they attempt to explain ‘but it was the moderate solution’ or not.
If it’s a decent bill which improves the situation of the vast majority, and they can actually tell, then Democrats gain.
Makewi
@DougJ:
Yes well, you could make your argument without the overheated rhetoric like “50 million uninsured” when you know it isn’t true. So I guess we all play our little games.
DougJ
So I guess we all play our little games.
So you’re going to continue to lie about what is actually in my posts? What possible purpose could that serve, other than making you look like an asshole?
Seriously, just be honest. People here treat you mostly with respect. Why would you reciprocate with outright lies?
Makewi
Were you aware that the deal that Obama made with the pharmaceutical companies set a cap on prices for existing medication, but has no limits on new drugs. Since companies exist to make profits, do you think that these companies will make the prices of these new drugs even higher in order to recoup those “losses”?
The plan is crap, in part because the people making it are busy buying cheap grace now in trade for razor blades in our breakfast cereal later.
Edward G. Talbot
@Zam has it right. Make them actually filibuster. The whole idea of these agreements that a motion will require 60 votes is bullshit.
The filbuster is a critical check on the tyranny of the majority, but it is NOT supposed to be painless. It is supposed to require you to stand up and speak with conviction for why the bill is so bad.
You can actually trace most of the problems we have with Senate dems back to this problem. And really, the only possible explanation is that the corporate dems want some cover.
liberal
@Zam:
Why not?
Makewi
@DougJ:
I would ask you to do the same. Why is it ok for you to stretch the truth to “make your case”, but it is a grave sin for others to do so?
DougJ
And by the way, Makewi, 50 million. It’s from the Census Bureau — 47 million in 2005 (so it’s almost certainly upwards of 50 million, now).
I don’t why I bother with you.
liberal
@ricky:
He freed the ones in the Confederacy (not the “border states”) by proclamation.
Brain Hertz
if it’s a good bill and requires parliamentary manoevering to get passed, hopefully people will remember that the bill was passed over the strenuous objections of Republicans.
MikeJ
@Edward G. Talbot:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
liberal
@liberal:
Huh…was looking at a response to your post, and didn’t see that yours was only making a good joke.
Jim
You may think you’re kidding, but the diaries Jepaphahosiah Broder contain that very suggestion: “T’would shew Prudence and Fore-Bearing, t’were The President to make such an Offer of Reconsilliatione to our vanquished Foes, with whom We must now live in Bipartisanship.”
On topic, a lot of ‘independents’ pay as much attention to the issues as they do their local sports franchises. They admire winners, disdain losers, and don’t give a fuck how those results are acheived.
Makewi
@DougJ:
Right, only that number isn’t actually 50 million is it DougJ? It’s actually 45.7 million people who are under 65. Of those 21% are not citizens, which brings the actual number of uninsured citizens of the United States to what?
You bother with me because you know these things too. In fact, I suspect you’ve actually had a look at the details too, so you know exactly what I know.
Brachiator
If this were the only aim of health care reform, I’d say screw it.
Fortunately, it’s not. Along with including the uninsured, we’re looking for improvements to the healthcare system at a reasonable cost.
And it’s time that the media, and other reliable sources, and anybody who knows a damn thing about the issue, get into the meat-and-potatoes of the problems with current health care coverage that need to be fixed.
For example, there is this recent LA Times story on the coverage denial rates of the major California providers:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-fi-insure-denials3-2009sep03,0,1423324.story
As an aside, the InterTubes is the latest battleground in the health care wars, with the Obama Administration using its web savvy to fight back against wingnut stoopidity.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-health-internet4-2009sep04,0,824292.story
Of course, some wingnuts cling to teh stoopid as fervently as they cling to guns and religion.
The Grand Panjandrum
Somewhat on topic: Al Franken talks to a group of protesters. It’s very good stuff and worth watching the video. Franken is going to be a very good Senator for Minnesota.
Zifnab
@DougJ: The Census Bureau is a government bureaucracy that we cannot put our faith in. I’d rather put my faith in annoymous board troll Mawai, whose own unspoken and unreferenced number we must conclude is significantly less than 50 million sounds far more believable.
Besides, everyone in America can walk right into an emergency room and receive all the health care they could ever ask for. So we’re all insured. QED.
Lola
Can we please stop feeding makewi?
A lot of us just see humans as humans. Uninsured non-citizens bother me just as much as uninsured Americans. Many of those non-citizens are legal immigrants. When someone like makewi doesn’t think these people count, there is really nothing to say.
Rob Wolfe
Makewi, I am not yet a citizen but I pay my fair share of taxes. Are you saying that I shouldn’t count.
All non-citizens are not illegal immigrants, don’t be so willfully obtuse.
Legalize
It’s good to know that Makewi is perfectly happy to let citizens AND non-citizens alike die in the streets because they don’t have insurance. Oh, right, they might not die because they can go to the emergency room when things get bad enough, or they can line up for days at clinics designed to assist people in third world countries to get their vision checked or a toothache resolved. I know it’s pointless to ask, but where does the 21% of uninsured are non-citizens factoid even come from? I’m dying to see the sourcing on that.
Makewi
@Lola:
I didn’t say they didn’t count.
The Grand Panjandrum
@Rob Wolfe: Thank you! That is a distinction with a real difference. Alas, some of my fellow citizens seem to not want to acknowledge that fact.
DougJ
Right, only that number isn’t actually 50 million is it DougJ? It’s actually 45.7 million people who are under 65.
Are you aware that the population grows year-by-year and that during a time of recession, the number of uninsured Americans goes up? If it was 45.7 million in 2005, it is certainly over 50 million now.
Moreover, have you ever heard of rounding? If you said 46 and the number was really 50, I wouldn’t call you a liar.
But I will say this about you: I think you’re mentally ill. Not dumb, but mentally ill.
Makewi
Here
El Cid
According to 2007 Census data from the Current Population Survey (PDF), approximately 33,269,000 native born citizens ages 18 – 64 have no health insurance, 2,651,000 foreign born citizens have no health insurance, and 9,737,000 non-citizens have no health insurance.
Roughly 21 million Americans earning between $25K and $75K / year are uninsured.
Of those possessing insurance, the Commonwealth Fund in testimony before the Senate HELP Committee (or PDF here)found that 25 million Americans were only periodically insured or “underinsured”, including 45,000,000 who lack health insurance at least part of the year; and 25,000,000 who are underinsured (defined as “defined as insured all year but experienced one of the following: medical expenses equaled 10% or more of income; medical expenses equaled 5% or more of income if low-income… or deductibles equaled 5% or more of income”).
Read through the rest of the Commonwealth testimony to see how this lack of and underinsurance leads to statistical consequences for the lack of seeking care, the abandonment of chronic medication, and a vast increase in ER visits and more.
Makewi
@DougJ:
Fine, your overheated rhetoric and guesstimates are rock solid factuals, but my comparisons of reactions during 2 different administrations is beyond the pale.
Morevoer, I hate poor people and wish the bad things to all that is good and pure in this world.
You all want to argue “fair”, just so long as you get to set the terms of what “fair” is. How nice for you.
El Cid
Pardon the error, the sum of 45M and 25M is more than 25M. I regret the typing error, and as a matter of fact it was 45M in 2003 who possessed insurance only part of the year, in 2007 it’s over 49.5 million. So the total number in 2007 who were either uninsured for a portion of the year or underinsured in the Commonwealth Fund view would be 74.7 million.
Legalize
“I didn’t say they didn’t count.”
Then you knowingly raised a meaningless distinction. Kind of like the difference of 50 million in 2005 and 45.7 million today.
DougJ
You all want to argue “fair”, just so long as you get to set the terms of what “fair” is.
No, you accused me of lying, I gave you the stat, you then came up with idiocy about 46 not being 50 and ignored the obvious fact that the number has certainly increased.
I think I’ve been more than fair with you.
EDIT. So you now cite FactCheck.org saying it was 45.7 million in 2007. All right, as I said earlier 45.7 is very close to 50. Moreover, the number is likely higher in 2008 because the recession began in early 2008.
Sloth
35 million uninsured, 75 million underinsured.
Good stuff. When are we bringing back the work houses?
Brachiator
@Makewi:
Actually, the 45.7 figure is a number of years old. A reasonable guess is that it has increased over time, but no one, and especially you, can claim that you have an accurate number.
You are pulling the 21% non-citizen figure out of your ass. And even here, you couldn’t begin to parse any distinction between legal residents who are non-citizens, and illegal immigrants, who are presumably your intended victims for demonization purposes.
In addition, anybody who knows anything about the health care issue, knows that there is some inherent lack of exactitude over uninsured figures. You get some differences in totals if you look at “uninsured anytime during the year” vs “uninsured for x number of months,” etc.
Any way, you slice it, MakeWind, your faux outrage over DougJ not being honest with his figures is nonsense. Either you know this already, or you are just a stooge.
Now, I live in California, and I note that a significant amount of illegal immigrant employment is in the conservative Republican strongholds of Orange and San Diego Counties. In upscale Laguna, city fathers actually set aside space where immigrant job seekers could congregate (of course, they didn’t want them lounging around their homes).
So you have a huge degree of hypocrisy here: conservativew who want to hire illegal immigrants, but push all the social costs onto someone else.
Now, Obama and the Democrats have to muffle this point, but I would put a hellacious fine, paid into a health care fund, on people who hire illegal workers. And we see that Whirlpool is cutting 1,100 jobs and moving plants to Mexico:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whirlpool-to-cut-1100-jobs-in-plant-closure-2009-08-28
In my little universe, for the next five years, an American company that moves production out of the US would have to pay a surtax, and would lose some credits and tax benefits, such as the net operating loss deduction.
Makewi
@DougJ:
Huh, others on this thread are showing you numbers less than 50 million and yet they are not calling you liars. Fair is what you determine it to be I guess.
You just don’t want to admit that you are more than willing to overheat your rhetoric to sell a point. Which you are doing here.
DougJ
Makewi, because you outright accused me of lying and no one else did. You wrote “Why is it ok for you to stretch the truth to “make your case”…”
No one else accused me of lying for using 50 million as an estimate for something that was 45-47 million a few years ago and likely grew.
There’s something wrong with you, mentally, that you would ask why I say you are calling me a liar and others are not, when in fact you did and no one else did.
Makewi
The funny thing is that I actually agree that health care in this country should undergo reform. No one should be denied due to a pre-existing condition, and no one should have to go broke because they get sick and/or old. I do view humans as humans and I do care that an immigrant, illegal or otherwise should be able to see a doctor if they get sick.
I think we could devise a system (better than current COBRA) that allows people that to carry their health care from one employer to another. I think we could develop a system that doesn’t hide the actual cost of health care from the individual and result in driving up the cost overall. I believe that it is the height of insanity to have the current public plan going broke at the same time it shortchanges doctors and invites massive fraud. I think health care providers shouldn’t have to worry about the massive debt of medical school and the huge burden of medical malpractice.
I understand that our system is the most responsive because it affords the greatest flexibility to the individual. I understand that we are a powerhouse in terms of medical capability and innovation. I acknowledge that our imperfect R & D mechanisms deliver life saving drugs to the world. Our health care providers should make good incomes because what they do is of great value to us as a society and the effort they undertake to be able to do it is enormous. I recognize that these things must be preserved, that we cannot just move to a more equitable solution if all we have done is shift the burden of the suffering to a different or larger pool of people.
I also think the current proposed system is horrible, and that it will make things worse and more expensive.
Makewi
@DougJ:
Oh, so I should just have accused you of being careless then. Sorry, my bad.
If I’m mentally ill, then you are a child who is unable to admit error.
eyepaddle
I am going to stir the pot and just say outright that even illegal immigrants deserve healthcare. Aside from the moral and ethical arguments about how they are still human (which really should be enough to win the day in any case) many illegal immigrants come from countries that are still battling communicable diseases (like TB) and I would much rather monitor and treat them in clinics than have them die in the street AFTER they have spread it to me.
From a public health viewpoint we can’t separate the population neatly into “insured” and “unisnsured” IF there is a pool of around 50 million people who are in poor health it will certainly have an adverse effect on those who are insured.
Makewi
@DougJ:
I’ve thought about it and you are right. I could have handled that better, and so I apologize for calling you a liar. The discourse has gotten worse over the last 10 years, and I don’t need to be a part of making it bad.
I hope you can forgive me.
someguy
@ Ricky:
Because if popular sentiment ruled the day, we would have nuked a couple random Arab countries on 9/12? Because February 2 would have been named National Brett Favre Appreciation Day the day after Favre retired? Because occasionally the other wankers win elections, and could kick our asses if we didn’t have a chamber of 100 senile grafters slowing things down, either on purpose or because they just can’t help themselves?
DougJ
I’ve thought about it and you are right. I could have handled that better, and so I apologize for calling you a liar. The discourse has gotten worse over the last 10 years, and I don’t need to be a part of making it bad.
I hope you can forgive me.
No problem.
Based on this, I’m sorry I called you mentally ill. I guess I was mistaken when I said that.
Rob C.
I would rather see nothing pass at all than something that would not help the millions of uninsured (and under insured which basically covers everyone else) than some window dressing type legislation that, in the end, winds up giving even more money and power to the insurance industry and the pharmaceuticals.
JWW
Dougj,
Where you have it all wrong is what you and others label Blue Dog Democrats. What you call a Blue Dog at one time was the foundation of the democratic party. Now they are boarder outcasts because the democratic party is liberal with a secondary name. It is quite obvious you have no interest or knowlege of the parties or their foundation. You just run your mouth, never back yourself up and are quite frankly stupid in most of what you write.
You should spend a little time reading, and not your own works.
DougJ
the democratic party is liberal with a secondary name.
Don’t you mean “the Democrat party is socialist with a secondary name”?