bravo to Obama for health-coverage breakthrough
March 22, 2010 - 8:31am
Another thread here loads the dice for negative comments; here, it's bravo Obama ! He deserves it.
I think the compromise voted yesterday is quite good - in the circumstances - and do not want to wait another 37 years for a similar chance ( the period since the failed Ted Kennedy compromise in 1973)
A good assessment of its historic importance by E.J. Dionne:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032102642.html
You're welcome to disagree in the other thread.
And I'm going to disagree in this one.
It wasn't a compromise - it was a complete capitulation. If the Republicans had gone about creating a health care bill, they couldn't have come up with one better than this one for their corporate buddies.
by the logic of the nay-sayers, they would have voted against the Social Security Act... it did not cover everyone, completely or immediately!
In truth, FDR, in setting the age of retirement at 65 excluded 60 PER CENT OF THE POPULATION; people did not live that long! In time, it was adjusted to the demographics and health care -- Medicare -- was added.from Dionne:
It is also worth remembering that when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935, he was properly modest. FDR insisted that "we can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life."
He knew that his bill was more a beginning than an end. The Social Security Act, Roosevelt said, "represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete."
My cousin's son in Florida will now be able to get the healthcare insurance that was denied him because of insurance companies not wanting to take him on for less that $1200 per month. And another 30,000,000 people (Canada's population) will be covered.
Strange how the empathy for those folks is swamped by invective about "corporations". Not the corporations in which one's life savings are invested, though. Other corporations. What meaningless, so-20th-Century "analysis".
quote:
He knew that his bill was more a beginning than an end. The Social Security Act, Roosevelt said, "represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete." And Bush nearly destroyed this, proposing the individual social security fund recipient be turned into an investor. Perhaps it will take more than a year to claw their way back from the madness of King George.
I don't think duplicate threads should be allowed because people don't like the tilt of the opening post.
Nothing has been said here that couldn't be said in the original said. Some of it is duplication, and there will be more.
I vote for shutting this one down.
And on the 7th day, he rested.
it's like commenting, on a thread titled: " People who eat pizza should be drawn and quartered! "
that , uh, by the way , every Friday you like to head down to Dominos for a slice of pepperoni:
off with your head!!
-- Not much of a discussion, eh?
It's beneath God to vote. He would have just issued an edict.
And what became of God anyway? I stumbled across some of his postings. Maybe he still does in those many kind of threads I avoid. [Speaking of which, I should have stuck to staying away form ones where Obama figures.]
Rush predictably concludes the opposite of the no-sayers here,
that Obama IS aiming to move steadily towards a public system:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031910/content/01125111.gues...
DaveW - one thread at a time please. Michelle beat you to the punch, so she gets to name the thread. Sorry.
Closing this. I'll likely re-open it when the other thread is full.
Open for business.
It's beneath God to vote. He would have just issued an edict.
And what became of God anyway? I stumbled across some of his postings. Maybe he still does in those many kind of threads I avoid. [Speaking of which, I should have stuck to staying away form ones where Obama figures.]
Someone was looking for some sort of input on this? Despite the frequency with which they try to draw me into things down there, I stay away from American governmental issues. They don't trust government, so they created one that doesn't work. Free will and all you know.
Besides, Washington creeps me out. Try talking to The Devil. He's there all the time, and also posts here.
Now, we have some real work to do if we really want to say we have universal health care. The sharks who run the insurance companies have every intention of turning this lemon into some very profitable lemonade.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
P.S. Someday, the Hyde Amendment is going to have to go. No Democratic president should ever agree to anything that discriminates against women.
David Frum considers it a Republican health care plan: "Those of us who said there was a deal to be done, that there are a lot of parts of this bill that look familiar, that look like Mitt Romney's plan, that look like plans Republicans proposed in 1993 and 1994, they look like things that were drafted at the Heritage foundation in 1990 and 1991."
Who are the 11 million Americans left out? Does anybody really care?
This bill is not about fiscal responsibility or the common good. The bill is about increasing corporate profit at taxpayer expense. It is the health care industry’s version of the Wall Street bailout. It lavishes hundreds of billions in government subsidies on insurance and drug companies. The some 3,000 health care lobbyists in Washington, whose dirty little hands are all over the bill, have once more betrayed the American people for money. The bill is another example of why change will never come from within the Democratic Party. The party is owned and managed by corporations. The five largest private health insurers and their trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, spent more than $6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. Pfizer, the world’s biggest drug maker, spent more than $9 million during the last quarter of 2008 and the first three months of 2009. The Washington Post reported that up to 30 members of Congress from both parties who hold key committee memberships have major investments in health care companies totaling between $11 million and $27 million. President Barack Obama’s director of health care policy, who will not discuss single payer as an option, has served on the boards of several health care corporations. And as salaries for most Americans have stagnated or declined during the past decade, health insurance profits have risen by 480 percent.
Chris Hedges
In America, a liberal can sell out the gays, women,and the public , but they must always protect the rights of corporations to earn profits.
Chris Hedges: The Health Care Hindenburg Has Landed
http://mammonmessiah.blogspot.com/2010/03/chris-hedges-health-care-hinde...
"The mendacity of the Democratic leadership is staggering. Chalk them up as yet another victory for our feudal overlords and a defeat for the serfs.."
doublepost omitted
a realistic assessment:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/truman-johnson-obama
On Tuesday, President Obama will sign the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. And the same spirit will be in the air.
The compromises that went into this legislation are, by now, well-known. It won't be fully effective for several years and, even then, several million people will likely lack health insurance. People won't have the option of enrolling in a new public plan; the private plans many carry will still have substantial deductibles. Government accounts predict the plan will reduce the rate of growth in medical spending only modestly. The full realization of Harry Truman's dream, of affordable health insurance for every American, will remain elusive.
But, like Medicare, this bill represents a monumental step forward. The numbers are impossible to ignore. More than 30 million additional people will have insurance; even those with sizable deductibles will have protection from the kind of ruinous financial liabilities they face now. There is no public plan--for now!--but there is extensive regulation, including requirements that insurers spend more money on actual patient care. What we spend on medical care isn't going to plummet. But it won't rise as fast as it might otherwise. And, over the long run, that can save a lot of money--particularly if we are smart enough to learn and adapt as we go.
And, as with Medicare, this bill is every bit as important for the statement it makes. Medicare affirms the principle that the elderly have a right to affordable medical care, even if it requires government help. Medicaid does the same for the poor. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act extends the promise of affordable care to the rest of the country--a promise that will be fulfilled, one way or another, by the government.
David Frum considers it a Republican health care plan: "Those of us who said there was a deal to be done, that there are a lot of parts of this bill that look familiar, that look like Mitt Romney's plan, that look like plans Republicans proposed in 1993 and 1994, they look like things that were drafted at the Heritage foundation in 1990 and 1991."
Who are the 11 million Americans left out? Does anybody really care?
And from another part of the much-edited Frum "Waterloo" essay:
"I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters - but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say - but what is equally true - is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed - if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office - Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours."
Follow David Frum on Twitter: @davidfrum
The usual snippy comment was made in the other thread about "the Obama worshippers". That would have to be me, wage zombie, maybe someone else. What is really meant by "Obama worshippers" is those who don't vilify Obama as is the norm around here. So the comment doesn't really merit any note at all.
Nonetheless, for what its worth, I thought I would describe the nature of my "worship".
I didn't expect much concrete of Obama's election. I hoped and thought there was a chance he might accomplish something of note to me, but didn't expect it. He is after all the President of the United States- which at a minimum means imperial adventures. Said adventures could hardly fail to be less crazy than what the Bushies did, but that counts nothing for 'expectations'. And as to what else he might do- maybe, but the man has some obvious flaws, on top of the 'issues' of what you can expect from the institution.
I was VERY pleased at his election, and again at the inauguration. But thats a largely symbolic thing. Obamas election is symbolic of what is possible. One reason that doesn't mean a lot to people around here is because everything is already 'possible'.
Another reason his election meant a lot to me, is because I'm still connected to the nation of my birth. And that nations history of racism is something that particularly impacts me on a personal visceral level. The understanding of that around here was so shallow as to be almost painful. You all just did not seem to be able to grasp that people can know absolutely that the election of Obama as President is no solution, yet many of us can at the same time feel immensely proud.
So thats a catalogue of what Obama's election meant to me, and what I expected [not] when he was elected. You'll find that is pretty typical of OS progressives. Many many of them also sincerely expected great things of the man. What else is new? If its not one distraction its another.
Even with those low expectations, Obama managed to dissapoint me. Leaving aside the imperial adventures and other reactionary stuff that was totally predicted, he just seemd to bumble along and stand back. Oh well. Nothing lost. [In that case I think we have the ex-pat speaking... most even of the realistic progressives probably dont find it so easy to be philosophical about it.]
And Obama's failures around health care in the Senate, and just standing by while the Massuchsetts seat slipped away, were certainly part of that dissapointment.
But when he belatedly rallied to the battle and this bill got through, I'll take that. And warts and all: not grudgingly in the end. While I've not been observing the US blogosphere at all- I think its a safe bet thats very representative of the feeling of US progressives... that even with all the nasty limits, we did achieve something... and a wedge to get even more [knowing full well the right also has a wedge to unwind it all].
The notion that its worth than nothing is but for a very few exceptions one that is only going to occur to Canadians, or to those for whom anything less than a step towards revolutionary transformation is worse than nothing.
In short- yep, its a breakthrough. And no apologies for saying that.
I haven't seen or heard all of Frum's comments. But I know the realism that lies behind them.
It goes roughly like this. Its all well and good to have the whole Republican party speaking for the shock troops. But when it comes to actually fighting ObamaCare and having a ballot question for November.... there are millions and millions of people out there who appreciate that they will finally have some health care security, and many more millions of their familly and friends who will be releived from having to worry less about them, and we the conservatives are going to be the spear carriers for the insurance industry to repeal the forcing of the companies to cover people. That is going to go over really well.
And conversely- the fact the Republicans are setting themselves up for failure, will enhance the opportunity for Democrats to press forward.
The Republicans can gain seats in Congress this year and still go backwards in the battle. Because the more people see that health care works- which will be apparent even when people know their coverage is still just in the works- that will block out the hysterical lies propogated over the last year. And as general support for universal health care builds, the number of blue dog Democrats who don't feel the heat will also diminish.
[Some of them by the way who voted against the health care bill will face serious primary challenges, whcih will not be deterred by the realism that challenging them may well result in the seat going Republican. Which will in turn, increase the heat under the rmainder of them.]
So in order to think about this clearly, I've been trying to put myself into the place of one of those people who are uninsured, knowing it could have been me had I not had the lucky break I did in geography when I was born.
I'm trying to imagine myself suddenly being faced with being forced to spend ten percent of my income on a shitty insurance plan from a private company that will jerk me around every time I try to claim anything. (I can't even imagine shelling out 10 percent of my income NOW, and my budget was a lot tighter then than it is now.)
I know an American with a "Cadillac" plan - and even those ones involved a bunch of red tape and wrangling to get them to pay out. I can only imagine what the poverty plans will be like.
Its not likely to surprise you to hear there is more to it than that.
There is no plan except for Midicare for the over 65s- existing or proposed- in the US that does not have substantial monthly premiums. [And even Medicare and Medicaid can and does claw back from you all your assets, often including your home, to pay for your care.] This would be true even if there had been a public option.
So under ANY plan, poor people would face the same choice they do now. Under most conditions you can pay out of pocket your medical expenses for a lot less than insurance premiums. In practice, when you need to go to the doctor you may not. But its not like you are better able to pay the premiums. So its a rational choice for people to do without. Everyone knows that if you need some really expensive care you will get it. [Exceptions of course, but those exist for people on plans too.] Throw yourself on the system and you aren't turned away.
And that cruel choice is also made by a LOT of people who are not forced into it by poverty. My brother is a typical case. His company health care is elective, and even with the employer co-pay he doesn't want it. Can't make him feel guilty for the social irresponsibility or even that his siblings will end up having to take care of him financially. And hes in his 50s- so you can imagine how common this would be for 20 and 30 somethings who are not surrounded by peers with medical issues and emergencies.
But back to the poor people. If you are somewhere in relation to the poverty line, you will get free or subsidized coverage. I don't know where the line is but its safe to say that many of the kind of 'working poor' you are talking about will be getting no such assistance.
So the bill won't be doing much for them. It will probably make the coverage more worth paying for [with less excluded], but it isn't going to make it any easier to pay for until the US starts to wrestle directly with health care costs, and they are a long way from that.
But the bill will make a huge difference for the availability of health care, AND its quality/coverage level to the masses of working class people who are not on the edge of poverty.
Because if you own a home, or you would be traumatized by throwing yourself on the mercy of the system, or you have children that you don't want to be worrying about whether you 'need' to take to the doctor this time [and the next and the next], then you have a great deal to lose by having no health care available... and its a huge source of stress.
Corrolary: because the vast majority of Black and Hispanic people are either in this social position themselves, or if they are middle class unlikely to be far removed from friends and family or church members who are in it, ObamaCare will be massively popular among them. And they do act pretty cohesively. Even though they already are not voting Republican, the Republicans have a lot to fear in riling them. Palin and the tea partiers are oblivious of course, but David Frum and company are well aware if the peril.
by the logic of the nay-sayers, they would have voted against the Social Security Act... it did not cover everyone, completely or immediately!
Ugh. This again. Social Security was, and is, a public plan. There is no public plan created by this legislation.
This reasoning by faulty analogy permeated the entire discussion among Democrats and progressives regarding this bill. It just shows you how bad the bill is that those in favor had to rely on this myth.
no actually, the Republicans blogs are saying this most frequently: once you make a big move like this towards universality ... how do you ever stop it?
exactly!
That's because Republicans are dumb.
That's exactly right - if there were a public option to this plan, then the social security analogy would work. There is no public option. In order for that analogy to work, Social Security would have had to be a plan where everyone is forced to pay private stockbrokers to invest money for their retirement plans.
Universality, which this bill does not accomplish, by private insurance is not my idea of universality. Nor was it the idea of the Democratic party from Harry Truman through the most of Ted Kennedy's time in the senate.
Just tell the uninsured that they have to buy private insurance? How could we have been so blind?
Yeah, geez, you could've done that all along. Easy peasy!
I don't think we know better than US progressives what's best for them. But I also don't think that US progressives are in lockstep on this one. And the arguments of the progressives who are critical make more sense to me.
Here's another take:
Black Agenda Report
Of course US progressives aren't in lockstep about this. But I don't think they are as divided as you seem to think. The report you quote is a case in point of what I said above: "The notion [the bill] worth than nothing is but for a very few exceptions one that is only going to occur to Canadians, or to those for whom anything less than a step towards revolutionary transformation is worse than nothing."
Its also worth noting that they referr to Kuchinich as backup, while Kuchinich himself feels the bill is worth backing, and that its defeat would have probably set the debate back for another political generation.
Similar to you quoting Michael Moore's displeasure with the what the bill does not have, while Moore does not share your overall assessment that the bill is worthless.
no actually, the Republicans blogs are saying this most frequently: once you make a big move like this towards universality ... how do you ever stop it?
exactly!
Universality, which this bill does not accomplish...
Did someone say universality was accomplished?
No.
Excuse me, KenS, but I never tried to portray Moore as unsupportive of the bill. In fact, in that post of mine, I quoted both his criticism AND his praise of the bill.
Establishing a principle of universality with tangible steps in that direction was a minimum need.
Establishing regulation to keep insurers from denying care was another minimum need.
Those have been achieved.
Even those minimum needs are anything but secure, and have be protected before they can be expanded on.
And the ultimate need for a public system has got nowhere. Plus a bunch of reactionary stuff was accepted to get the bill passed.
Sounds to me like politics and the struggle continues.
What does "vast majority of US progressives, not counting liberals" mean?
Excuse me, KenS, but I never tried to portray Moore as unsupportive of the bill. In fact, in that post of mine, I quoted both his criticism AND his praise of the bill.
I think my read is legitimate. Your selection of what you qoted was of aspects of the bill that were good and bad. You did not quote anything where he gave his overall understanding- and the quote did close on Moore's congratulation of allowing the thieves to continue their robbery. So whatever your intention may have been, its legitimate for me to read it as intending to support your overall position.
Overwrought? Well, that's better than some of the ad hominem attacks that have been leveled against progressive opponents of the bill.
If it's not universal, what principle of universality has been established? There is nothing in the bill that guarantees that the subsidies for the uninsured may not be subject to budget cuts at some time in the future.
What does "vast majority of US progressives, not counting liberals" mean?
Like I already said, with some few exceptions that of course always exist, everyone except those for whom anything less than steps to revoltionary transformation is nothing or worse.
[Taking self described liberals out is because if they are included as progressives then it becomes very easy to say 'the vast majority of US progressives don't agree with you'. IE, keep the bar high and your opinion is still in a small minority.]
Caveat required, like a lot of people my age I don't talk much to friends of 20-40 years ago. And I don't read the web for opinions in the US. But I have a good grasp on the perspective people of all persuasions work from, and barring someone producing broad evidence to the contrary, I feel safe enough in that assessment. Not to mention that taking cues from Kuchinich and Moore are pretty strong indications.
Well, of course I posted it to support my position, but I was also honest and said that Michael Moore had good things to say about it as well. And I linked to the article, so it's not like I was hiding anything - all it takes is one quick click for anyone to read his letter for themselves. That's what people do on babble. They quote the relevant portion for their point and link to the rest.
Anyhow. I'm bored with this nitpicking now.
Oh, I see. So basically you're saying, "The vast majority of everyone who agrees with me agrees with me."
Okay. Well, you're absolutely right about that - can't argue with you there!
Have there been any ad hominem attacks on oppenents of the bill here? Let alone something like calling people "Obama worshippers"?
No, I was referring more to certain US political websites.
Anyhow. I'm bored with this nitpicking now.
Agreed thats pretty pointless.
Back to the substance.
Post 32. Obviously and understandably you don't like the ending that even if not directly calls your overall position overwrought.
I'll go edit that out. What about the rest of the summary? IE- when all is said and done...
I responded to that in the other thread. I'm tired now. And I have work to do. :) I'll leave it to others to respond.
Who are the 5% who aren't covered?
While this bill is certainly an advance, a breakthrough even, the lack of even a public option is depressing? Are individual states able to set up their own public options?
Just to show how not left-wing the bill is the National Post is now promoting it as a model for Canada.
Wankers
That should tell you something.
The bill does not permit states to set up their own public options, but I imagine they're free to do so.
Exactly, and it's a struggle progresives should support.
Having work to do is understandable Michelle.
But if you made a summary statement before, its lost in the flow now.
Same thing for me. Which is why I pulled it all together into less than a hundred words.
For what its worth, one reason I have said little about the lack of public option is because it just wasn't in the cards for this round.
I don't like that Obama just stayed away from the Senate debate, and having the debate about public care is worth something in itself even if there was no chance it could be achieved now [and for siscal feaability reasons, not just the political obstacles such as the Senate supermajority that people always talk about].
What the US has in front of it right now- in terms of a bill that goes into law- it is unlikely we would have any different result had Obama done everything people hoped [at the earlier stages].
And people ARE attacking it on the grounds not just of what it is but also what they perceive was attainable.
I would be more concerned that the chance was lost to at least have the debate about public option. But having seen how absolutely insane the discussion of the existing bill became- the depth of the lies that are suprising even comeing from who they do.... and having seen how they present opening may indeed work as well as could be hoped... with all that in mind, its really questionable whwther anything was lost in not having the public option out there more explicitly.
There is obviously a whole lot of shit and insanity that has to be got out of the way first just to have the semblance of a reasonable public discussion. That was known, but I don't think many guessed how really bad it was going to be.
Having something concrete to point to- that it IS possible to deliver coverage to people who just could not get it... that may sound so little to all of us where we sit. But its something tangible, and thats going to help in overcoming the Limbaughs and the tea parties.
Someone in the Post today called it a "Republican bill without Republican votes" and David Frum pointed out that many of its key ideas came from the plan put foward by the conservative Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s as an alternative to the Clinton health bill.
The depressing thing is that with this rather modest bill alone, Obama has accomplished more domestically in 14 months than Carter managed in 4 years or Clinton in 8 years. Just shows us how little progress the US has made in the past 40 years.
These are undocumented immigrants, and the most common estimate I've heard is 15 million.
There are a lot of good arguments for providing them with coverage. On top of the moral arguments, there is the fiscal argument that it would be less expensive to give them real health care with preventative options rather than treating them in the emergency room (I'm not sure I really buy that argument but it's used a lot).
While I think everyone should have health care coverage, I don't really see how it could've flown politically to include undocumented immigrants. This bill was about health care, not immigration. Hopefully may of these people will gain coverage when immigration reform gets addressed--but given how things have gone with this administration I wouldn't bet on it.
So, yeah it sucks. Anyone here think they as president could've gotten these 15 million people access to a public health plan?
Someone in the Post today called it a "Republican bill without Republican votes" and David Frum pointed out that many of its key ideas came from the plan put foward by the conservative Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s as an alternative to the Clinton health bill.
It is a moderate Republican bill from the past. There are no moderate Republicans left, only crazy right-wing nutjobs. The Democrats have taken the place of the moderate Republicans. At least on this issue.
Correct. And if the Dems in congress were able to restore the tax structure the USA had under Reagan, it would be a HUGE victory for the left.
Sure it's sad. When your movement doesn't accomplish anything in 4 decades, expectations get lowered somewhat.
I'm skeptical of David Frum's characterization. We don't have the old Heritage Foundation proposal to look at.
This is the sort of thing that people ake a general claim to put a spin on defeat. In particular, I'm VERY skeptical that the Heritage Foundation would propose forcing the insurance companies to cover people.
Big deal if it has some structural similarities. Thats going to be an obvious concequence of a bill that deals entirely within the limits of private provision of health care.
Here is where the true beauty of the two-party capitalist political system kicks in.
(It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a description of how things work.)
"Bush's search for market-oriented reform began with a proposal pushed by the conservative Heritage Foundation that would require everyone to buy insurance. It would provide tax credits to individuals whose medical bills are high relative to their income, while phasing out tax breaks to employees with company-sponsored benefits. The idea: inject cost-consciousness into health care by forcing consumers to comparison-shop."
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1992/b325025.arc.htm
US healthcare bill leaves illegal immigrants excluded
Excluding illegal immigrants was a price Barack Obama paid for bringing conservative Democrats on board, particularly in states such as Texas, which has the highest rate of uninsured people in the country. One in three adults of working age in Texas - about 6m people - do not have health insurance. Children and the elderly are covered by state programmes.
The Centre for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, the Texan capital, says the bulk of those not covered are on low wages in jobs without health insurance and cannot afford the high premiums. "Part of the assumption is that there are still some who will chose to remain uninsured," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the centre. "Then there are undocumented immigrants. They have been historically excluded from health insurance and they will continue to be excluded."
Can't remember who said it was a Republican bill without Republican votes, it wasn't Frum though what he said was pretty close, but it was somewhere in today's Post.
David Frum
It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November - by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama's Waterloo - just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
And if the Dems in congress were able to restore the tax structure the USA had under Reagan, it would be a HUGE victory for the left.
Do you mean before Reagan? Because the tax structure now is more progressive than when Reagan left office. And will be even more progressive when Bush II's tax cuts expire next year.
And if the Dems in congress were able to restore the tax structure the USA had under Reagan, it would be a HUGE victory for the left.
Do you mean before Reagan? Because the tax structure now is more progressive than when Reagan left office. And will be even more progressive when Bush II's tax cuts expire next year.
I think Zombie means pre-1986.
The CBC's Susan Bonner just reported that the Democratic majority in the US Senate is working on a "Fix-it Bill" to address some of the shortcomings in this health care Bill. No specifics given.
And if the Dems in congress were able to restore the tax structure the USA had under Reagan, it would be a HUGE victory for the left.
Do you mean before Reagan? Because the tax structure now is more progressive than when Reagan left office. And will be even more progressive when Bush II's tax cuts expire next year.
I meant during Reagan. For the bulk of his term, top marginal tax rate was 50% (hasn't been that high since) on income over ~$170,000. When Clinton left office (ie before Bush's tax cuts), top marginal tax rate was 40% on income over $290,000.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
ETA: Thanks Mycroft for clarifying
someone above says, horrors, it resembles the Massachusetts health plan! -- because of a substantive shortcoming??? -- uh no, because Gov. Romney participated, along with the Democratic state assembly... so what?
anyways, a good assessment below of Obama plan significance, and yes, private German, Swiss or French health coverage, as long as it is universal and carries minimums, is fine with me: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/22/health_reform_makes_us_more_like_europe_-_thank_goodness_104864.html
Mitch McConnell is right. The Republican Senate leader, a man whose vision is to deny others theirs, told The New York Times that President Obama's health care proposal was part of an attempt to "turn us into a Western European country," which, the good Lord willing, is what will now happen. I, for one, could use a dash of Germany, where there are something like 200 private health insurance plans and where everyone is covered and no one goes broke on account of bad health. It's great to be healthy in America, but for too many Americans, it's better to be sick somewhere else.
I would also take France or Switzerland, but mostly I'd like Japan, which I move to Western Europe for the sake of argument, and where medical care is as good (or better) than it is here and much less expensive. What all these countries have in common is the recognition that health care is, like food or education, a universal right. The United States, to McConnell's evident chagrin, is now moving this way.
U.S. President Barack Obama signed a landmark health-care reform bill Tuesday in a White House ceremony.
House and Senate Democrats who supported the bill joined Obama as he delivered remarks about the health-care overhaul in the White House's East Room
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/23/obama-health-care-bill.html#ixzz0j1DQMwdW
it's the law:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/policy/24health.html?ref=global...
The CBC's Susan Bonner just reported that the Democratic majority in the US Senate is working on a "Fix-it Bill" to address some of the shortcomings in this health care Bill. No specifics given.
It's gone into a reconcilation process. I don't completely understand the process but it's explained here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29
As far as I understand it because the House and the Senate bills weren't exactly the same then the two have to be reconciled with each other. In this case additions from the house bill have to be added to the senate bill.
Here's a link which lays out what is being reconciled.
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/03/19/a-short-summary-of-the-health-...
The fix-it bill only has relatively minor fixes. Won't help those 15 million who are still going to be left out and won't bring back a public option.
Those are both in the nature of longer term projects. And they'll only be gotten to if there is success on consolidating what is on the table now.
The public option is not dependent on this bill. It's like two trains running on different tracks.
If David Frum is correct in his assessment of the tea-partiers' effect, shouldn't the Dems be sending provocateurs out into the hills to foment for Sarah? Hold up the racist screwballs to the light of day? Cause Republican Congressional aspirants to hunker down and blush (in some states, anyway) , as they approach November?
If David Frum is correct in his assessment of the tea-partiers' effect, shouldn't the Dems be sending provocateurs out into the hills to foment for Sarah? Hold up the racist screwballs to the light of day? Cause Republican Congressional aspirants to hunker down and blush (in some states, anyway) , as they approach November?
They wouldn't really need to. The peeps including Republican Congressional characters both elected and aspiring are doing a fine enough job themselves. All then Dems really need to do is keep track of it. I'm sure they have very full files right now.
If you think these two trains dont depend on a common underlying political process, you need to go back to junior train enginner school.
As to the tea parties effects- the best you can possibly is that this knife does have cutting edges on both sides.
And Republican candidates blush- you must be kidding. The ones who didn't go down in 2008 can be reasonably certain they wont go down this time. And the few that are in swing districts and might prefer that Palin and the screwballs go away.... they don't waste any time on those wishes because they know who butters their bread.
Whats a Republican or anyone else for that matter gonna do when these sorts of numbers and thinking are at play in the political arena? Mostly a rhetorical question but I think it's indicative that the political discourse and worldview in US politics right now is really half off in la la land, especially on the righter side of the equation.
Harris poll (this isn't the first poll to recently come out that shows similar numbers)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-...
* 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist)
* 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
* 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
* 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
* Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
SNIP
The full results of the poll, which will be released in greater detail tomorrow, are even more frightening: including news that high percentages of Republicans-and Americans overall-believe that President Obama is "racist," "anti-American" "wants the terrorists to win" and "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government." The "Hatriot" belief that Obama is a "domestic enemy" as set forth in the Constitution is also widely held-a sign of trouble yet to come
That's because Republicans are dumb.
That's exactly right - if there were a public option to this plan, then the social security analogy would work. There is no public option. In order for that analogy to work, Social Security would have had to be a plan where everyone is forced to pay private stockbrokers to invest money for their retirement plans.
Michelle, you do realize you are describing the current CPP.
What worries me about praising this as some sort of progressive breakthrough is the propaganda that will be starting up about how this new progressive American system is superior to ours and that if we allow the insurance companies in to our market we will get better results because competition always brings better results. Coming to you soon in corporate messaging.
Well, no, I'm not really describing the CPP. The CPP is a public program, a public plan. In fact, the Canadian Labour Council is spearheading a campaign right now to double CPP benefits, because it's the only pension plan that is completely portable across jobs, it costs way less in administration fees than private plans (there's some huge percentage point difference between the admin fees on private plans, and the admin costs for the CPP).
It's probably true that they're starting to gamble the money away in the stock market. But the point is that it's a publicly administered and universal pension plan.
Now, the Conservative government would probably love it if they could do away with the CPP and force everyone to invest in private retirement plans through private brokers. That way their corporate buddies get all the fees, even though it's much more efficient to do it collectively through a public program. This is why there are so many moves lately to tax-free savings accounts and that sort of thing.
The Harpocons would positively drool at the ObamaCare model for not only our health care system but also for our Canada Pension Plan (forcing everyone to buy individual private pension plans from private brokers).
Closing Time: An Historic Confirmation of Corporate Power
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1947-...
"And when this plan fails--as it will, as it will-thenyou rig up another boondoggle, another 'great debate' full of sound and fury, signifying zilch, to keep the rubes at bay."
Whats a Republican or anyone else for that matter gonna do when these sorts of numbers and thinking are at play in the political arena?
You're right that these numbers demonstrate that there is a whole other reality at play in the USA. Unionist and others would be right when they say, "Obama's going to be called a communist, hitler, antichrist, etc. no matter what he does, so might as well at least fight for real change." I think both of these realities are important. A lot more work, both in terms of incremental policy work as well as mobilizing the left and building the infrastratucture to match that of the right needs to be done before Obama is going to be able to sign in single payer for illegal immigrants. BUT, the worse Dems in congress are quite willing to use those numbers (the crazy beliefs of the most vocal quarter of the population) to reward their insruance compay benefactors, and those people need to be removed from congress.
What worries me about praising this as some sort of progressive breakthrough is the propaganda that will be starting up about how this new progressive American system is superior to ours
That would be a terrible thing indeed but I feel like it's clear enough here that while their breakthrough is something for them to celebrate it's a long way away from a real health care system such as what we have. A lot of the changes that they are celebrating (eg. can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions) don't really apply to the kind of single payer system we have.
The public option is not dependent on this bill. It's like two trains running on different tracks.
Agree somewhat. Passing this bill has promoted a lot of conversation about health care policy in general and that's necessary to move further on single payer. IMO a simple public option bill would be easier to pass now than it would've been a year ago.
I think the word public option though is poor framing, and I think talking about it as a "Medicare Buy In" is much more effective.
ETA:
"And when this plan fails--as it will, as it will-thenyou rig up another boondoggle, another 'great debate' full of sound and fury, signifying zilch, to keep the rubes at bay."
It sounds like a pretty hopeless situation then. I'm not really sure what can be done about it.
Yes it is a public plan that now holds investments of over 100 billion dollars in stock holdings. Whether I like it or not my money is being used to buy stocks. I don't directly send the money to Bay or Howe Streets the federal government does. I don't believe for a minute that the brokers and bankers are not milking our pension plans for fees and commissions. Universality is different. You can have universality without a single payer system and that is my worry.
I did not mean that the Obama plan was anything similar or as good as our system but I worry that the truth has never got in the way of a good propaganda campaign with Canada's health care being the prize for the insurance corporations.
Yeah, it sucks about the stocks, but the point is that it's still publicly administered and a public, government-run program, so that means there is way less in administration costs.
Huh?
You do realize that the Canadian universal health care system leaves illegal immigrants excluded... just as it leaves other non-Canadians visiting excluded, unless they have travel insurance.
Yeah, I wondered about that too.
I'm all for "don't ask don't tell" policies at hospitals and other service agencies, and No One Is Illegal is working to bring that into place here in Toronto (and I'm sure in other places too), but the fact is, our system is also only for citizens and residents of Canada.
The solution to that problem is to stop declaring people "illegal". Privatized health care is another issue entirely.
... agree with both points, if they are here they are here, and this has nothing to do with private for profit health care, unless it means that the declared "illegal" are free to purchase private services, but not access public...
If you think these two trains dont depend on a common underlying political process, you need to go back to junior train enginner school.
As to the tea parties effects- the best you can possibly is that this knife does have cutting edges on both sides.
And Republican candidates blush- you must be kidding. The ones who didn't go down in 2008 can be reasonably certain they wont go down this time. And the few that are in swing districts and might prefer that Palin and the screwballs go away.... they don't waste any time on those wishes because they know who butters their bread.
So Frum has it all wrong? Jeez, Ken, who knew?
Wow, did Moore ever say the words to Blitzer on CNN last night! I agree with Moore. What they need to work on is true universal health care for Americans, and to basically scrap the whole economic setup they have down there. It's corrupt - it's broken - and it's not going to get any better.
Yes it is a public plan that now holds investments of over 100 billion dollars in stock holdings. Whether I like it or not my money is being used to buy stocks. I don't directly send the money to Bay or Howe Streets the federal government does. I don't believe for a minute that the brokers and bankers are not milking our pension plans for fees and commissions. Universality is different. You can have universality without a single payer system and that is my worry.
I did not mean that the Obama plan was anything similar or as good as our system but I worry that the truth has never got in the way of a good propaganda campaign with Canada's health care being the prize for the insurance corporations.
That's about the asset value of the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, one of the very best administered (loses less than others) to be found. And boy oh boy, the investments they are into. But the teachers don't try to interfere with pronouncements about ethical investing. You don[t look at a gift horse's molars...
The secret will be to someday recover control of pension plans and give them social purpose...as well as more safety. It may mean not going to the Carib every winter, but, heck, a litttle belt tightening for the revolutionary cause...and planet Earth.
Huh?
You do realize that the Canadian universal health care system leaves illegal immigrants excluded... just as it leaves other non-Canadians visiting excluded, unless they have travel insurance.
I was wondering who the other 5% were. Evidently 1/3 are illegal immigrants and 2/3 will be people who end up not buying insurance. Wasn't clear to me whether these would just be people who can't be bothered becuase they don't think they need it or people who still won't be able to afford it.
U.S. President Barack Obama's newly enacted health-care overhaul will have to go back to the House for final congressional approval, after Senate Republicans found minor glitches in the bill.
An exhausted Senate laboured past 2 a.m. ET on a stack of Republican amendments.
Jim Manley, spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said Republicans consulting with the chamber's parliamentarian had found "two minor provisions" that violate Congress's budget rules.
The provisions deal with Pell grants for low-income students.
Republicans have been hunting for such violations in hopes of bringing down the legislation
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/25/obama-healthcare-snag.html#ixzz0jCBf7cnz
Wow, did Moore ever say the words to Blitzer on CNN last night! I agree with Moore. What they need to work on is true universal health care for Americans, and to basically scrap the whole economic setup they have down there. It's corrupt - it's broken - and it's not going to get any better.
Not just Michael Moore. Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke out against this bill for months because he felt it didn't go far enough; he wanted to hold out for single payer health care. But when it obviously wasn't going to happen, he switched to favour the bill because he felt that defeating the bill would result in no health care dialogue for another generation, like when Bill Clinton's attempted reforms crashed and burned. I heard him interviewed; he said, in no way is this bill even a baby step towards a single payer system. But to defeat it and maintain the status quo was not helping Americans; that the process of talking about and reforming health care was keeping the dialogue open, getting Americans to think about it, keeping the issue uppermost. So basically it prepares the ground for single-payer health care to even be considered.
I go to an American healthcare site, and at the risk of overstating the obvious, there's a vast cultural divide that blocks Americans from taking this step. Many Americans think that single-payer healthcare can't be implemented because it's unconstitutional. So you can't even get to the point of arguing for its merits when folks think it betrays the "principles" of the founding fathers (if I'm in the mood to push a few buttons, I point out a modern culture needs to look elsewhere than to 18th century slaveowners for moral guidance - guaranteed outrage-inducer in some quarters).
And then there are the objectivists, who feel that single-payer healthcare is morally wrong because it enslaves healthcare providers (not going to link to it but if you google Leonard Piekoff and healthcare you'll find a fairly articulate but spittle-soaked rant of tin foil hattery that appeals to some impressionable young medical students, smart kids who've spent a lot of time in school and not done much of anything else). These folks are mercifully in the minority, but they enable less fanatical Americans who have a vague sense that single-payer healthcare is unAmerican; that handing control of healthcare to the government is a slippery slope to socialism, a bad, bad word in America.
On most other issues, they've taken the place of the regular Republicans. And on a special few, (wars, abortion, torture, extrajudicial assassinations, nuclear weapons) they've out-righted the far right.
Now that Obama has historically achieved history by this this (what was it again?) Historic Piece of Legislation, he can turn his attention to other urgent progressive matters, like bombing Iran, bombing Venezuela, bombing Somalia, bombing Yemen, bombing Pakistan, bombing Iraq, bombing Afghanistan, funneling billions of tax dollars to nuclear power (and shhhhhhh! weapons!), deploying drones along the border to hunt economic refugees, bombing Afghanistan again, funneling billions of dollars to Israel to help it slaughter Palestinians, re-criminalizing abortion, prayer breakfasts, and maybe another Wall Street bailout or two. And then he can bomb Afghanistan again.
Thank god the Democrats are in power.
You think Obama's going to recriminalize abortion? And you think that Democrats have outrighted the far right on some issues?
I just don't see that.
I don't understand why you diminish your valid criticisms of Obama's military policies by including such ridiculous claims.
Looks like David Frum's "Waterloo" article wasn't well-received by his employers at the American Enterprise Institute.
Health Care & the Lost Art of Compromise
A brief episode from Tea Partier television, as they imagine it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T989zKIFSd4&feature=player_embedded
This is how they do things in the US?
Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case
excerpt:
The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama's healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.
I guess an outright bribe would have been too objectionable.
excerpt:
The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama's healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.
I guess an outright bribe would have been too objectionable.
Are they bilingual?
Don't know - but Scalia is from New Jersey and Thomas is from Georgia, both of which are guaranteed seats on the court every 89.714 years on average, so I think we're ok.
I've been all over Joisey and Georgia - both states are unbelievably lax with ragards to gun acquisition, or at least they used to be, back in the day. I guess the worst city I've ever been in as far as paranoia is concerned would be Detroit. But in the border states with Mexico, I saw more guns than anywhere else - every pickup had a rifle rack inside the rear window.
ETA: Just saw on the news that Herman Cain made a sexist remark about Anita Hill. That poor woman - first she got it from Clarence Thomas - and his wife - now she's getting it from someone running for President.
I wonder how she feels being dragged through the mud again.
I've been all over Joisey and Georgia - both states are unbelievably lax with ragards to gun acquisition, or at least they used to be, back in the day. I guess the worst city I've ever been in as far as paranoia is concerned would be Detroit. But in the border states with Mexico, I saw more guns than anywhere else - every pickup had a rifle rack inside the rear window.
I lived in the East Kootenay for a number of years. The local outfitters claim that the area has more types of big game than anywhere else in the world. My pickup was one of the few that did not have a gun rack. I still liked my neighbours and unbelievably they almost all owned and used rifles for fun and food. While I don't hunt I have never turned down an offer of elk sausage.
New Jersey and Georgia have drastically different gun laws.
As for the case taken by the Supreme Court, several issues are presented, including one which could result in no substantive decision:
"The range of issues the court agreed to address amounted to a menu of possible resolutions: the justices could uphold the law, strike down just its most controversial provision or some or all of the rest of it, or duck a definitive decision entirely as premature."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-hear-case-challeng...