None are safe from the long knives.

I like the idea of making the insurance companies roll back their premiums to (4.00 / 1)

the level they were at in 1995, so that they, too, have to start over again; because starting all over again (read: scrapping the whole effort) with healthcare reform at this point would probably mean enduring another ten or fifteen years of escalating premiums and reduced coverage before there is the political will to tackle healthcare again.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 20:33:21 PM UTC

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Any chance is better than no chance, and this start, flawed as it is, is infinitely better than no start at all.
Ideal policy?
No. Pass it and fix it.
Can't fix it if you don't pass it.
As to the politics?
I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together gets the POLIITICAL implications, and the worst case outcome with that factored into the equation means that EVERYTHING moves in 100% the opposite direction that most of us want to see it go in for the foreseeable future.

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 20:57:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with you, but... (0.00 / 0)

...I think the rhetoric over this issue needs to be taken down a notch.  I don't consider FDL to be an ally, but the reference to the "Long Knives" sounds a little too much to me like comparing them to a Nazi purge.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 21:57:22 PM UTC

Hmmm (4.00 / 1)

The problem, I think, comes in expecting a corporate Party to behave against the interest of corporations.  

See, in all these nice European countries we like to make health system examples of, the "far right" Party is a la our U.S. Dems and "leftist" Parties are a la, well, not really anything we're able to talk about without showing up on a terrorist watch list (our "Republican Party" shows up on their radar somewhere between fascism and "lets just ignore those crazy fuckers").  The "middle ground" that gets forged in between ("centralism" to those crazy Europeans) is something akin to VT's Progressive Party/ the Green Party.

The problem for Bernie, Dennis, and all those elected U.S. Reps who have a well-intended conscious is something like being the guy with the college degree in a room full of elementary school kids- yr degree is worthless; and what's worse, they don't give a fuck about your opinion, no matter where it came from.

"GMD's once proud libertarian-socialist"

---

by: wdh3 @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:32:11 AM UTC

Pass it and fix it? (4.00 / 1)

Yeah ... that's good for a laugh. The only thing the Dems have done since the Carter years is roll over and show their soft underbelly to big corporations and the radical right wing Republicans.

The full intent here is to pass it, call it reform and then say "that's all folks". If the Democratic DC surrender monkeys weren't willing to go out on a limb now (a limb ... hell of a way to describe doing what a clear majority wants done), when do you think they will be?

And it really will be so much easier to make real progressive change to our health care system after we've started force funneling billions of our tax dollars into the glutted corporate "we now have free speech rights the Democratic DC surrender monkey Dems will never try to take away from us" insurance industry. Won't it?

The only thing being passed is insurance company ensurance. We're making it a fact that investment schemes that have outlived their usefulness will continue to skim the top so a few well placed individuals can be filthy rich. Long live the buggy whip makers.

I've been waiting since the '70s for the Dems to "fix" things. They have no intention of doing so. Pragmatism demands folks walk away from them.


It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:34:35 AM UTC

Steve Benen puts it in perspective (4.00 / 2)

Leave it to "Sir" Steve Benen to put this into meaningful perspective. Here's what he wrote recently at The Washington Monthly.

Now, the president really has told progressive lawmakers that Congress can return to the public option later, and incorporate the idea into this reform framework. The notion that improvements like the public option are gone forever if they don't pass immediately is foolish.

But just as importantly, it's a belief that's belied by history. Kucinich's entire approach has repeatedly been proven false.

On all of the major progressive breakthroughs from recent generations, it's not even a close call.

When Medicaid passed, for example, it did very little for low-income adults, which is now seen as the point of the program. There were no doubt progressive advocates who, at the time of its passage, feared that it wasn't ambitious enough, and that if they didn't get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn't happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect.

When Medicare passed, it all but ignored people with disabilities, didn't cover prescription drugs, and made no allowances for home health services. It was, at best, a limited program at its inception. There may have been liberal Dems who thought that if they didn't get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn't happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect.

When Social Security passed, the benefits were negligible, and the program excluded agricultural workers, domestic workers, the self-employed, railroad employees, government employees, clergy, and those who worked for non-profits. The original Social Security bill offered no benefits for dependents or survivors, and included no cost-of-living increases. There were plenty of liberals at the time who thought Dems had watered down the plan to the point where its value had all but disappeared, and that if they didn't get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn't happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect.

Even the Civil Rights Act, in order to secure passage, needed to drop its voting rights provision. It wasn't there up front, but it happened soon after.

Notice a pattern here? FDR and LBJ had huge electoral mandates and gigantic Democratic majorities in Congress (bigger than the congressional majorities Obama currently enjoys), but they still couldn't get everything they wanted.

There were likely liberal champions of the day who perceived the New Deal, the Great Society, FDR, LBJ, and their congressional Democratic majorities as disappointing and incompetent sell-outs who failed to take advantage of the opportunities before them, producing legislation worthy of rejection. Had Kucinich been there, he likely would have sided with conservatives then, too.

But the programs passed, and once they were in place, they improved, expanded, and became integral to the American experience. It took years and perseverance, but progress happened after the initial programs became law. We now consider their policy achievements bedrocks of American society.

"If you don't get it in the bill up front, it's not going to happen." It's hard to overstate how terribly misguided this is.

---

by: Christian Avard @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:41:55 AM UTC

From my perspective ... (4.00 / 1)

this is a step backward ... not forward.

And that's the rub.

You want to call this a step forward? Eliminate the mandate. It's that simple. You want to keep the mandate we all buy in? Then make it publicly owned operation (single payer or Medicare for Everyone). Otherwise this is just a tax to fund the glutted insurance industry.

Every little thing our tax dollars (whether called a tax or government forced premium) goes to pay for will also have to pay for the lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous executives and investor class.

And when the cost to provide proper coverage through the glutted insurance industry goes through the roof, we'll be hearing how we have to reduce benefits to get things under control ... while we keep paying for the lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous executives and investor class.

That is the real pattern to be cognizant of. That is what recent political and economic history illustrates for us.

This is no different then passing a Medicare bill that tells Medicare it cannot negotiate prices with big pharma.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:52:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's what I think... (4.00 / 3)

I have some friends, who are NOT Obama fans, that worked their tails off on the health care issue. The one that they'll be voting on is not the one they envisioned nor is it the one they'd like to see. But we can't just throw it away for nothing. Like Benen said, it's a foot in the door. It's got to start somewhere. To pull the rug from under the carpet of all those who work their tails off just to get something is, IMHO, not fair to them. I know if I worked my tail off on this issue and I was satisfied with the progress and someone came in and just ruined "the deck of cards" for a lack of a better metaphor, because it wasn't the design they hoped for would really upset me. Wouldn't it for you?

Legislation is a process. I trust future administrations and future legislators will move it forward. It just goes at a speed we don't have any control over. Plus there are many obstacles in the way (i.e. the health care industry). I think Steve Benen was right in all of this.  

---

by: Christian Avard @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:58:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Benen's mistake (3.50 / 2)

Benen has been for this bill from the moment it emerged, and he's rationalizing here by making a fundamental mistake that he would see if he could step back.

His thesis is:

But the programs passed, and once they were in place, they improved, expanded, and became integral to the American experience.

And that's true, but "Health Care Reform" is not a "program" - the public option is. He's speaking as though this package of policy changes is a "program" that can be built on, and that's just not true. The public option as a "program" can not - and will not - be "improved, expanded" if it is not passed. It's hard to overstate how terribly misguided that is.

The only hope for a public option in the future would be a variation on what Benen describes - the expansion of an existing program, such as medicare or medicaid. Unfortunately, any such expansion will be analyzed for its budgetary impact as a stand alone bill - which means it will cost a lot. Put into the context of overall HCR, it can be contectualized as a way to control cost, but it won't have that context in future debates, which likely means it won't see the time of day for a long, long time.

---

by: ug @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:39:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm with Steve... I commend those who continue the fight for a public option n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Christian Avard @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:05:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"I commend those who continue the fight for a public option" (0.00 / 0)

Do you mean you commend them as long as they hold off on fighting right now, or do you also commend the folks who won't give up, even in the face of the current bill? That's really the rub/conundrum for progressives. A hair's breadth separates those two groups, yet in the current inflamed atmosphere (as exemplified by this diary) the difference is being cast as even wider than the difference between conservatives and liberals.

---

by: ug @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:58:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wasting our time (4.00 / 1)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair)

The salaries of our (?) representatives depend upon getting elected, which in turn depends upon thousand-dollar donations from the millionaires who own and run these industries. Senator Max Baucus, Chair of the Finance Committee, was assigned to lead the writing of the Senate version of the bill. He took $1.5 million from the health insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical industries over the last five years. His story is the norm. Sanders and Kucinich are the outliers.

Get. The. Big. Money. Out. Of. Politics.

Then we can address issues like health care, the environment, finance, and so on. Not before. Run any legislation through the gauntlet of money-filtered politicos and we'll get the watered down corporate giveaways we are used to.

It will take a new civil rights movement, one for the 99.9% of us who can't write those big checks. Either that, or get used to failure.

Sorry for being Johnny-one-note, but these debates are irrelevant in the face of corporate campaign finance.

Minor Heretic
"Damned for 25% of eternity"

---

by: Minor Heretic @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 14:51:51 PM UTC

The difference between today and the past is ... (4.00 / 1)

That the right is trying to shrink government by bankrupting the country, and is very close to success.  

If we don't have absolute control over cost, the for-profit health care side will continue, with the help of right wing courts, to take us for every nickel we have, and then, when we are bankrupt, will announce victory.  

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 00:28:20 AM UTC