Oggnogg! OG, my brother from another mother.

Good to see you man. I agree with you in general on the HCR bill. IMO, As flawed as it is, it’s the end of the beginning, the first step on the last leg of the race. Not a very popular sentiment around Progressive circles at the moment, but whatever, we all have our opinions.

I’m gonna get back to reading my leather bound copy of Atlas Shrugged now, so Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year to you and yours.

Grassroots organizing wasn’t invented in 2008. But it has to reach people who have not gone to college, who read with difficulty, and who cannot write a complete sentence without extreme effort. It has to reach people who don’t own computers or know how to use the ones they do have access to.

It means getting out in the snow and wet where the unregistered voters are.

And it means learning and internalizing the Barack Obama mantra: it’s never easy.

I don’t believe that the HCR bill is as bad as progressives make it out to be. But, having said that, I agree 100% with your prescription: if you think that the bill is that bad (or worse), then IMHO yours is the attitude to have.

On a side note, it’s quite interesting watching the “leftbaggers” (oh, how I wish I could take credit for that term!) careen from talking point to talking point. A few months ago, they griped that a mandate was unconstitutional so long as private insurance was involved. It fell to others to explain — ever so gently — that the constitutional infirmity or otherwise of a mandate does not depend on what you are mandated to buy. If a mandate is unconstitutional, it matters not one whit whether it is private insurance or a public option providing the mandated product. Oops, and that was the end of that argument.

The current libertarian fascination suffers from a similar infirmity. If we all are all pseudo-Ayn Rands now, and object to being mandated to buy something we don’t want, our objections to the bill shouldn’t stop there. Rather, we should all be indignant that the bill mandates that insurers cease to decline coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Any libertarian worth his or her salt would argue that the government has no business telling the insurers what to cover: if others will not, the libertarian would go, that just provides a market opportunity for the intrepid insurer willing to provide coverage irrespective of market conditions.

I’ve perused all the faux-libertarian commentary I can find to see if this argument is made anywhere. Alas, it is not — the constitutional and philosophical reasoning is extremely selective in its application. To wit: a mandate is unconstitutional, but not if the mandate is to buy a government-provided insurance plan. Then it’s okay. Or this: a mandate is an affront to classic American libertarian values, but not if the mandate forces insurers to abandon claims practices that progressives object to. Then it’s okay.

I suspect the libertarian argument will suffer the same fate as the constitutional one. Once they understand that the logical extension of their argument is to strike down the pre-existing conditions section of the bill, the newly-minted Reason Magazine afficionados will slink away in abject disgrace.

Happy Holidays!!

——————–

Yeah, I know what the Progressive movement did to help elect Obama and others, it was phenomenal and pretty damn inspiring (I’m here aren’t I?) — I’m talking about once the elected were in position and the Healthcare debate was revving up, well what happened then? I may not live and breathe politics like some, but it was ridiculously obvious there was no serious grassroots organization or cohesion (maybe that’s the S.O.P. for the Democratic Party) you tell me.

What I’m hoping to see is less ‘if only XYZ woulda-coulda-shoulda’ attitudes, and more ‘What should we make Obama do’. I’m bellyaching because I’m listening to wingnut talk radio, and I’m hearing grand plans from organizing activists across the state, to countrywide rallies, and even deadly serious calls to abolish the government…and while they’re working furiously to halt the left by hook or crook, we’re sitting about like a gang of Eeyore’s tut-tutting over who was the first to realize Obama was never a Progressive…really?

Bottom line as I see it, if the left doesn’t get it’s act together pronto, organize, and then fight like hell…well, I’m sure you’re way more savvy than me on that matter, so what do you think?

P.S. – I was stating my position on the bill killing, not accusing you of saying it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/anntelnaes/?hpid=opinionsbox1

This is what I’m hearing from just about everyone. Thanks for chiming in.

Thanks to all the emails, too. But also consider de-lurking to post comments.

I’d say “kill the bill as it currently exists,” keep working to push the non-liberal-but-sometimes-sort-of-progressives to do better. That would definitely mean removing the very hard and yet another slap in the face to women, and given the blatant and unapologetic sell-out this is, I’d say is quite as bad as a kick in the nads.

What can we do but keep pushing now, and continue after it’s passed? That can and probably must be done from both within and without the Democratic Party. But there is no doubt, in 2010 and 2012, Obama and Dem majority own this fiasco. If they can spin that to “now trust us to finish the job,” then maybe I’ll give up political activism after all these years.

Jane, your comments regarding Medicare fit my experience, and I think it very likely that you are correct in saying you “don’t see the same type of future” with this “health care reform.”

Congrats – You made best of the blogs again on Real Clear Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=noad

I have to disagree with you on your statement. At this point in time I don’t know what Obama is or stands for. Please tell me one thing that he has done in the past that is radical except give pretty speeches. Give me one example where he has bucked the status quo and fought for what he believes in. I’m a radical and I’ve fought as a radical.

The purpose of this bill is clear. It will completely blow up and sweep away the current system of private insurance within 3 years. Premium increases will be so massive, so many employers will drop coverage, and the mandates so unpopular, that the Demoncrats will be able to run in 2012 on a platform of “completing the job of health reform”. They will propose an outright conversion to either a Canadian or a British style socialized system. And they could very well be successful on this in 2012 even if they get hammered in the 2010 midterms.

And Obama never was a “liberal”. He is and always was a RADICAL. Saul Alinsky’s book is not rules for liberals. It is titled “Rules For Radicals”. There is a difference.

I haven’t posted on Hamsher’s “kill the bill” 10, because I’m not saying “kill the bill.” I’m just saying the current bill SUCKS. Period.

Ezra Klein has responded:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_kil.html

So has Jonathan Kohn:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-reform-means-families-reponse-firedoglake-others

The rest is up to you to decide.

Movement progressives helped put Obama and the Democratic majority in power, Sandman. If you’re talking about organizing, I think you’re being willfully blind not to acknowledge what they did and continue to do.

No one is blaming just Feingold either. It’s the entire Democratic majority.

When we elect people who say they’ll not only support but work for a public option we expect them to do just that. If they don’t, people like me, write what they’re not doing.

It’s Obama & the Democratic majority who have decided they need 60 votes, not us. Organizing includes writing and pressuring them, which most people around here are doing, if my emails are to be believed (they are).

So, I don’t know what you’re bellyaching about.

Also, I never said “kill the bill” in this post, because I’ve always thought Congress would pass a bill.

Kanzeon says:
21 December 2009 at 9:06 pm

I know all about the Voting Rights Act and how it was passed. Sen. Robert Byrd talked for over 14 hours against the bill. Did anyone in the Senate majority stand that long for the public option, or Medicare buy-in, or any number of other alternatives, including a trigger, which I hate but is a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got now? It wouldn’t have passed without Johnson railing for it. I honestly didn’t think I’d have to actually post this, but…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

The Voting Rights Act is one line amidst a litany. It’s about the tenacity to do what’s needed, go all the way to do what’s right, which neither Obama nor the Democratic majority have done. Obama’s leadership has been appallingly absent.

This bill, granted, is a slap in the face to women, labor, and some of the hardest working people in the grass roots.

This statement is just stunning. Oh, but give up the fight! Don’t worry about trying to push Democrats to do something better in conference! Give in! (Please note: Even though the whole negotiation was absurd to do in the first place, I came out in support of what Boxer did with the Senate bill on abortion. That’s not my main complaint with the Senate bill, which is better than the House at least, though we’ll see if this was just smoke & mirrors in conference.)

Folks, passing the Senate bill, even with many believing this is the end of the discussion because they’re going to ram it through Congress, isn’t the end yet. Some of you seem to want to just give in and let Dems off the hook now. Shame on you. You either don’t get it and are confused that we still have to fight and put pressure on Dems to do something in conference, though again, it may be a foregone conclusion that Pelosi is going to rubber stamp the Senate bill, but as a political analyst, I’m telling you that people who care about making this better, if only in increments, should keep putting pressure on Dems. If Dean hadn’t stood up we wouldn’t have gotten the yearly caps removed. If the pressure hadn’t been horrific, we wouldn’t have the White House saying they’re going to try to do something about drug importation (we’ll see if that’s just another promise).

Steve High says:
22 December 2009 at 12:20 am

Oh, puh-leaze. The Republicans like it less, so don’t keep pushing to make it better? What rubbish. As I’ve already said, the only thing good about this bill is that at least Dems aren’t acting like Republicans. That doesn’t excuse them from not using their power to get a really good bill that won’t come back to bite us.

I never doubted that the Senate would pass this bill. But pressure should continue so conference isn’t just kabuki.

Finally, I have no intention of writing in support of legislation that forces the middle class into a situation where they have no choices, get a tax hike, plus no benefits for years, while handing people over to a monopoly system that gives them insurance but still is short on health *care*. That many people won’t be able to afford what’s being forced on them is stunning, even as I am fully aware that a Dem failure to pass healthcare would be humiliating, which is why we’re getting this disaster in the end. Coupled with the fact that Obama and the Dem majority don’t have the spine of Republicans, who would pass the *exact* bill they wanted using Reconciliation if they had to. As Harkin said on Ed’s show recently, they have over 51 voted for the public option. However, Obama & Dems don’t have the spine for that action. That says it all.

UPDATED: Oh, and by the way, NONE of this and none of you can defend the sheer idiocy of not front loading the goodies from the get go, instead of waiting years out. Do we not need some serious help for 2010 or not? Not to do so may be the worst part of this “leadership” fiasco.

This post has been updated.

So my hope is that final version gets rid of the most ridiculous aspects of the senate bill for example reinstating the anti-trust provisions to start with. Also I am really appalled by the Republican party’s cynicism. They stood for nothing in the debate on health care except for obstruction and did not propose anything. If they considered that the bill is bad (and it is not great) what was their alternative, the status quo? I think that should be a counter-attack for dems – where were you and what did you bring to the debate?

In all this mess though, Obama is the big loser. I agree with those who consider that the senate bill is actually the one he wanted all along. I can’t remember when Taylor but you had a post on his approach to “health insurance” reform and incrementalism as his favored approach. With hindsight I think that it was spot on. It looks like he looked at the mess that is health care and decided that the best way was a step by step approach, starting with health insurance.

He was not going to push for the public option, probably because of the cost. He may well have been right about the process and even more right about the huge cost of the public option, especially at a time of ballooning public deficit (an aspect often overlooked by progressives). If that was the case he should have come out at the beginning of the process and said so unambiguously “I am not going to fight for a public option at this stage”, and defended his position. It would have pissed off a lot of people, but it would have been a clear and courageous stand, allowing him to focus his energy on actually reforming the way the health industry functions which would have been a significant gain by itself.

Instead he allowed the process to fall into chaos, misleading progressives on his intentions, putting himself in a position where he is defending one thing in his speeches and pushing for another in private meetings and needlessly creating a PR mess for himself. He really has to stop trying to have it both ways, and seeking a mythical compromised middle ground on all possible issues. I am nowhere near the disillusion and anger towards him that many of you feel, mostly because I think that his intention is not to screw us, but there are many ways in which we could end up screwed, and lack of leadership in these difficult times is clearly one of them. I hope he will change the way he approaches difficult issues because looking like an ineffectual leader to his supporters cannot be a good thing for him heading to 2012.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-reform-means-families-reponse-firedoglake-others

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1db42944-ed8e-11de-ba12-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Quote from Clive Crook at the FT
“Be that as it may, the healthcare bill in its current form is a mess – and an unpopular mess to boot. Popular fears that the bill will drive up insurance premiums and add to public borrowing are probably justified. The measure is timid about changing incentives to promote efficiency: it proposes lots of experiments, but little compulsion.

Adverse selection is likely to be a bigger problem than the reformers say: new rules would stop insurance companies denying coverage to the sick, and the quid pro quo of mandatory insurance may be insufficient to offset this. If the insurers’ risk pools deteriorate, premiums will rise. Deep cuts in Medicare, the public insurance programme for the elderly, are needed to balance the books, but are unlikely to materialise in full. Higher taxes as well as higher premiums are the likely result of this reform.

Would it therefore be better to abandon the effort altogether and start again? One can think of simpler, better blueprints, but the politics that led the country here would still be the same – and so would the economic constraints. It is delusional to suppose that you can significantly widen access to healthcare at no net public cost. You cannot both transform a system and leave its basic structure unaltered. Trying to squirm around these unavoidable realities has brought the effort to its current pass. Why expect things to be different next time?

In the end, I think, everything depends on the weight one attaches to achieving security of coverage as quickly as possible. In my view, this is the overriding consideration. Abandoning the effort now might postpone that goal for another decade or more. The country should regard this as unacceptable. Once the reform is law, though, the real work begins. Getting a grip on costs will be even more urgent than it is already – especially when you recall the broader fiscal calamity that awaits the country during the next decade.

The honest case for reform along the lines of the Senate bill is not that it fixes US healthcare; still less that, as the White House blithely maintains, it alleviates the country’s fiscal distress. The truth is, it will create more problems than it solves. But the one big thing it gets right – the assurance of affordable health insurance for all Americans – is of surpassing importance.

Enacting this reform is not the end of the healthcare argument, but the beginning. If it does pass, it may well be looked back on as a mistake once its financial implications sink in. Yet the principle of universal coverage will have been accepted, and with luck there will be no going back. The price will be high, but is worth it.”

And a comment to the FT article that I found quite helpful
Quote
“Partisans are mixing their messages and that is to be expected. It would be nice if analysis focused on the whether the biggest costs in healthcare are moving toward being fixed or at least less broken.

Cost 1: People who are uninsured using the ER.
Cost 2: Insurance companies using premium dollars for things no related to paying healthcare claims.

While fraud and litigation are also costs, the two issues above account for about half of healthcare costs in the U.S. It appears to me, with a cursory reading of what is so far available that the focus of the plan does in fact reduce ER usage and limit insurance companies using premium dollars for things (advertising and excess compensation) other that paying for care. That should in and of itself lower healthcare spending in America.

If your memory reaches back that far, then you know you that the 60s civil rights laws only protected women half-assed and gays not at all.

The Health Care is the first loud restatement of FDR’s assertion that civil rights are also economic rights, and I find it hard to believe that you’d be so loud in your disapproval if you had either diabetes or a $30,000-a-year job.

Have you ever been sick without insurance at all? And no way to get it?

As Sandman says, it’s very tempting to stay on the web virtually full-time. It’s wet and cold out there where the unregistered voters are.

The congress members like campaign contributions but they like votes more, and they are just about as liberal as their constituents.

Taylor, you’ve got a great blog and I’m with you more than 90% of the time. But I think you need to take a deep breath and a step back. This bill, granted, is a slap in the face to women, labor, and some of the hardest working people in the grass roots.

But it’s not a knife in the back or a kick in the nads, which is what I’ve grown used to since I cast my first vote in 1968.

I know you don’t like the bill for all the reasons you’ve stated. But the GOP likes it even less. They got crushed here, and that’s the way it should be.

http://www.democratz.org

http://bit.ly/public_option

OT: Here’s one of my personal favs, It’s a classic:

http://tinyurl.com/yk89o93

Tom & Jerry

Things You’ll Need:

* Punchbowl
* Mugs, 6 ounce
* 6 lbs. sugar (modern recipes call for 1 to 2 pounds)
* 12 eggs
* 2 ounces of Jamaican rum (Dark)
* 1 1/2 teaspoon of ground cinnamon
* 1/2 teaspoon of cloves
* 1/2 teaspoon of allspice
* 1 tbsp. brandy
* Boiling water or hot milk
* Grated nutmeg

#1
Beat the egg whites until they are stiff.

#2
Beat the egg yolks until they are thin and watery and pour them into the punchbowl.

#3
Add the egg whites to the yolks in the punchbowl and mix them together.

#4
Mix in the rum, cinnamon, cloves and allspice.

#5
Add the sugar until the mixture is thick and has the consistency of a thin batter.

#6
Serve by warming a 6 ounce mug, adding one tablespoon of the batter, one tablespoon of brandy and filling the rest of the mug with either boiling water or hot milk. Add grated nutmeg to the top. (I suggest milk).

You can google ‘Tom & Jerry Christmas drink’ for variations and portions, but this drink is all about Christmas…delicious.

After the final bill pans out one way or the other, we will have a very good idea of what we should be focused on…hopefully our slog through the school of hard-knocks will pay dividends.

Regardless, I cannot back killing the bill. No way.

secularhumanizinevoluter says:
21 December 2009 at 8:21 pm

Yeah, after years of rubber-stamping everything for ‘The Decider’, Congress has gotten lazy and forgotten how to do their jobs. Maybe this Healthcare bill was just what was needed to remind them (silver lining and all).

You make some good points. I don’t know, Dems have never been able to unite and organize and stay on message quite like the Repubs. On the other hand, is it not asking so much for the Congress and President to do what the public wants and voted for last Fall? I guess I know the answer to that – the corporate interests (money) speak louder. So how is this democracy exactly?

P.S. Know any good strong drink recipes?

The failure to pass a more liberal bills is DIRECTLY caused by the fact that there aren’t more liberals in Congress!!!!!! It might actually be linked to the fact that the President isn’t much of a liberal!!!! I can’t see why you haven’t hit the big time, like Cokie Roberts!

The Voting Rights Act was passed as a bi-partisan effort, btw, with the Republicans voting for it in greater numbers than the Democrats. The comparison is ludicrous.

I am not in disagreement in general. I just want to fight that I fight with the accurate information. Not misleading, not lying, accurate and truthful. Not like a Republican generally.

Regarding the rise in insurance company stock prices – one explanation for their rise in price is that this legislation creates much less uncertainty for them, which is very important for investors.