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.
[url=http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/flanders230310.html]Here is where the true beauty of the two-party capitalist political system kicks in.[/url]
(It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a description of how things work.)
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.
"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."
US healthcare bill leaves illegal immigrants excluded
The Congressional budget office estimates that five years after the law comes into effect there will still be 23m people in the US without insurance. One-third of these will be illegal immigrants - many have lived in the US for years and their children are Americans. Others are likely to be young people who will choose to defy the requirement for compulsory insurance and pay the relatively small fine.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.
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.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
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
US healthcare bill leaves illegal immigrants excluded
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.
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.
US healthcare bill leaves illegal immigrants excluded
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.
The Democrats have taken the place of the moderate Republicans. At least on this issue.
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.
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.
This is how they do things in the US?
Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes caseexcerpt:
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...
