« The IG Report - Hot Off The Presses | Main | The IG Report »

August 24, 2009

Comments

I think one makes of it that the senator is lying through his teeth.

The media would go absolutely nuts -- David Broder would attain nirvana. Reform would have new momentum, and new pressure would ricochet back to the moderate Republicans. If Kent Conrad is behind it, why aren't you?

I'm skeptical. I suspect the media would react by portraying Dems as a united fascist force -- after all, if even the conservative Dems agree, then that just proves that Obama got to them, perhaps by threatening to eat their families. The complete collapse of Dem opposition would be cast as the natural result of Obama's fascist moves.

I could be totally wrong. My only points here are that (1) the media is more than capable of making up narratives out of whole cloth and (2) media reactions to particular circumstances are often not what rational people might expect. I'm particularly suspicious of your explanation here because you seem to be taking Broder and his pals at face value.

what i really don't get is the selfishness of the Blue Dorks.

they are seriously wounding the party and the President - which hurts their own prospects the next time an election comes around, especially if it puts them back in the minority ; but they're also bucking what seemed like a pretty clear signal from the voters in November: Enact Meaningful Health Care Reform.

what do they think they're getting away with ?

Lie-berman is basically saying that one of the biggest cost-cutting measures in the bill should be cut out because the startup fees are too much.

Here's the thing: we already pay for the uninsured. It's called "indigent care," and to get it you have to use an Emergency Room.

ERs are way more expensive than doctors' office visits. If the currently-uninsured were able to see their MD when they get sick, it would save tens of billions each year.

But as usual, the Blue Dogs are trying to prove their deficit-hawk credentials by talking about the size of the bill instead of the size of the bill all of us are already paying.

PS Publius, check this out.

NO CO-OP'S! A Little History Lesson

Young People. America needs your help.

More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% republicans). Basically everyone.

Our last great economic catastrophe was called the Great Depression. Then as now it was caused by a reckless, and corrupt Republican administration and republican congress. FDR a Democrat, was then elected to save the nation and the American people from the unbridled GREED and profiteering, of the unregulated predatory self-interest of the banking industry and Wallstreet. Just like now.

FDR proposed a Government-run health insurance plan to go with Social Security. To assure all Americans high quality, easily accessible, affordable, National Healthcare security. Regardless of where you lived, worked, or your ability to pay. But the AMA riled against it. Using all manor of scare tactics, like Calling it SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! :-0

So FDR established thousands of co-op's around the country in rural America. And all of them failed. The biggest of these co-op organizations would become the grandfather of the predatory monster that all of you know today as the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry. And the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry.

This former co-op would grow so powerful that it would corrupt every aspect of healthcare delivery in America. Even corrupting the Government of the United States.

This former co-op's name is BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD.

Do you see now why even the suggestion of co-op's is ridiculous. It makes me so ANGRY! Co-op's are not a substitute for a government-run public option.

They are trying to pull the wool over our eye's again. Senators, if you don't have the votes now, GET THEM! Or turn them over to us. WE WILL! DEAL WITH THEM. Why do you think we gave your party Control of the House, Control of the Senate, Control of the Whitehouse. The only option on the table that has any chance of fixing our healthcare crisis is a STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION.

An insurance mandate and subsidies without a strong government-run public option choice available on day one, would be worse than the healthcare catastrophe we have now. The insurance, and healthcare industry have been very successful at exploiting the good hearts of the American people. But Congress and the president must not let that happen this time. House Progressives and members of the Tri-caucus must continue to hold firm on their demand for a strong Government-run public option.

A healthcare reform bill with mandates and subsidies but without a STRONG government-run public option choice on day one, would be much worse than NO healthcare reform at all. So you must be strong and KILL IT! if you have too. And let the chips fall where they may. You can do insurance reform without mandates, subsidies, or taxpayer expense.

Actually, no tax payer funds should be use to subsidize any private for profit insurance plans. So, NO TAX PAYER SUBSIDIZES TO PRIVATE FOR PROFIT PLANS. Tax payer funds should only be used to subsidize the public plans. Healthcare reform should be 100% for the American people. Not another taxpayer bailout of the private for profit insurance industry, disguised as healthcare reform for the people.

God Bless You

Jacksmith — Working Class

Twitter search #welovetheNHS #NHS Check it out

(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)

Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o) CYBER WARRIORS!! - TAKE THIS VIRAL

Cleanup on aisle five!

the opportunity to do great, historic things just by choosing differently. I mean, this is why they're Democrats, right?

No. No it isn't.

Well, these aren't "whims," they are paid policy positions. To say that there are, at this point in time, pivotal voting positions that are held by quisling blue dog dems is not to make an ideological "great men" historical argument. Its just to observe the facts--we have a tight, rule bound, game going on which has a few "choke points." Its true that Lieberman, Baucus, and Conrad are fucking us over. But given the tight balance of the senate and the over valuation of each senatorial vote if it weren't them it would be someone else.

Also, of course, Broder will *never* approve of any progressive act. It could have the full support of every dem and a sixty dem majority and he would simply switch his fantasy baseball style of writing to focus on some imaginary Republican bipartisan figure. If Lieberman, Conrad, and Baucus went over to the dark side tomorrow we'd instantly see a column by Broder explaining that Mavericky Maverick President John McCain's imprimatur is necessary before the plan can be considered a go.

aimai

I think this controversy illustrates pretty well the most important lesson you can take from the Canadian experience. Love or hate (or both) that Canadian system, we have a genuinely federal system in Canada. Canadians would not tolerate* a federal government that tried to dictate details such as end of life consultations for us.

Canadian federal medicare legislation, the Canada Health Act, defines five principles: public administration, universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness and portability. Ottawa leaves all the details up to the provincial legislatures. If they implement a program that reflects these principles, the province gets a cheque from Ottawa.

If President Obabma sent congress a bill that said the American government would cut a cheque to each state that implemented a portable, universal, comprehensive (within limits) plan, open to innovation, the states could work out the details, and town hall meeting attendees could rest assured that state legislatures, which they have much more power to influence, would manage the details of their health insurance systems.

*Quebec and Alberta would compete to see who could seceede first

Individual vs. Marxist (not that there's anything wrong with that) historical explanations are are like Nature vs. Nuture, it's both, not one or the other. Aside: isn't it weird that scientists in the Nature/Nurture case say it's roughly 50%/50%? What are the chances of that?

And if you wanted, you could just as easily stay economic structuralist and figure out the underlying reasons centrist Democrats are against health insurance reform. It's not that hard.

And I would prefer that method than to start swinging with statements like an "active 'centrist' bloc really could shift the narrative." That's awfully close to pure babble.

If you are the near the median vote in the Senate on any given issue, you always have the opportunity to decide an issue. It's just that it's not usually great and historic.

Finally, I'm beginning to doubt your commitment to materialism when you say "KC and MR feel that it is their god-given duty..." What about insurance company donations? There really is much more than a few people's whims here.

I hope this comes off as constructive, I do like your writing, you're just a bit off track here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad