Nice to see Reid and the Administration have found the same playbook.

Not so nice to see they are playing against us.

Really evil to see they are playing to kill: us.

We get Harry Reid barebacking the Nation then jetting off to a fundraiser where you can be sure that the insurance companies bought a lot of those $1000 plates of rubber chicken.

This is really bad.

Remind me why we didn’t just copy Switzerland’s system instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Classic “Not Invented Here” bureaucratic thinking.

Right Jane, and notice the phrase “arbitrarily drop” coverage.

Doesn’t mean they can’t rescind. There will just be some nominal and easily passed test for recission.

Does anyone here really expect the WH, the House, and the Senate to do the right thing?

I gave up that expectation around, oh, 1965.

Disgusting.

Just let us know when it’s time to try to kill the whole damned thing. I am ready now but trying to be wise and restrained. Not very successfully.

Are you now willing to kill this crap Jane?

Just for fun
Cost Of Living 1965

How Much things cost in 1965
Yearly Inflation Rate USA 1.59%
Yearly Inflation Rate UK 5.0%
Year End Close Dow Jones Industrial Average 969
Average Cost of new house $13,600.00
Average Income per year $6,450.00
Gas per Gallon 31 cents
Average Cost of a new car $2,650.00
Loaf of bread 21 cents
Average Rent per month $118,00
Below are some Prices for UK guides in Pounds Stirling

Average House Price 3,660
Gallon of Petrol 5 shillings or 26 new pence
E-type Jaguar 1867

The cheapening of the dollar wasn’t so bad when real wages were rising and unemployment was low.

Our economy never has recovered from the Vietnam war.

where does Jane draw the line for those here who are still willing to have the bloodied carcass of their fondest dreams, hopes and ideals ever more deeply eviscerated?

Oh boy. Time to get a rally in front of the Capitol and the WH.

Wonder if Keith could get it on like he did the did the free clinics.

I mean, this is getting ridiculous how bad we are getting screwed.

Maybe your economy hasn’t, but if you look at the economy according to Wall Street, you’re just experiencing the lagging indicator.

This isn’t a surprise at all. Harry wouldn’t have put it in on his own. Baucus, Admin or both. It would be interesting to ask Dodd if this is something that came up in the Merger process, and how it was handled.

Also: what potential Senators who are voting *for* healthcare wanted this in as a cost of getting their vote? Ben-Ben? Lying Lieb? Blanche? President Snowe? Senator Wellpoint?

Since it wasn’t in the two bills being mergered, shouldn’t this be handled by an Amendment and need 60 votes to pass?

Seriously… this needs more stink raised not just about the annual limit itself, but also the process being skipped. This is an item that didn’t even pass one of the two committees.

John

“Funny that nobody thought to tell the public.”

Heh, you should have known by the Administration’s SecHHS picks that something like this was going to happen. ;)

Jane’s gonna make ‘em pay. Think about this carefully:

The actual bill and the actual votes by the actual representatives determine how you make the actual jerks pay.

She already announced the recruiting of Single Payer candidates.

It’s just timing driving things right now, and that timing is driven by how the completely factual, historical picture unwinds.

Headline:

Bankrupt State Of California Starts Selling Office Buildings, CB Richard Ellis Markets Largest Office Portfolio In America.

Up next, public – utilities, – parks, – resources, and the piece de resistance: Public Education.

Also, these things are usually leaked because they want to see “reaction” from out there. Jane has been very vocal about opposing the specific items that have been leaked, while awaiting to oppose the bill itself until she verifies it has these itmes in it or not. I don’t see anything at all wrong with how she’s handling this.

Even though I disagree. If you’ve read my comments the last few weeks, I’ve been saying kill it for some time. That’s because we do have a real bill in the House bill, and IMO that one isn’t good either. And past history and the makeup of the Senate tells me the Senate bill will certainly be no better, and most likely worse. So, I’m ready to call for killing the bill, but totally understand and respect that Jane is taking it one issue at a time until she has an actual bill to see and to oppose (or support).

YMMV, but I find my respect for her and her abilities grows with time, not lessens.

Way back when the healthcare “reform” debate was first garnering headlines, I posted a prediction at The New Republic website—before they “blocked” my posts for exposing them as part and parcel of the mainstream media obstructionist agenda.

To wit:

“Based on my assumptions about the role crony capitalism [Wall Street money] plays in ‘getting things done’ in Washington, there is no way in hell the healthcare industrial complex will allow legislation that is not in their own best interest to pass.”

Bingo. Same with finance “reform”, energy and environmental legislation, the war in Afghanistan etc. When there is a multi-billion dollar stake riding on the shape of any Congressional leguislation or White House policy, advantage Wall Street.

Out of all this there is [possibly] a silver lining. Never again will most liberals/progressives ever be suckered into believing the Democrats are not part of the ruling class in America. Wall Street makes absolutely no distinction between them at all when the campaign coffers are being filled. And the 2010 cylce is no different.

The real solution:

1] elect democrats independent of “the system”
2] organize at the grassroots level to pressure all politicians

so, what’s left is merely a strategy of making them pay that is presently just waiting for the final casualty report. Is that the current landscape?

The current plan being: Just wait y’all will yet be made to pay?

You’re spot on, and that would be sufficiently satisfying were it not for the fucking real ‘Fierce urgency of Now’ attendant to HCR, and even more critically: Climate Change!

The only bad part of this is that when the New Dems lose in 2010 and 2012, the health care industry will add a few hundred new lobbyists and partners. This may be their ultimate idea.
Reward the corrupt.

I’m ready to give up my US citizenship, turn myself into an automobile, and pay the $250 deductible for doctor repair claims (as long as he’s willing to call my knees fenders, and so on).

We’re trying to be fair. Trying to stop legislation that could provide care to people who really need it is not something to be done lightly or casually.

Since there is no bill yet, we’re not responding to something that isn’t there. But rest assured that if this clause makes it into a final bill, we will work hard to defeat it.

Are you in it to win, or in it to whine?

Look, isn’t it clear that Jane is using pressure to dialog with the political powers that be? It’s a funky kind of negotiation, and I say it’s been working. Otherwise, why would BLanche Lincoln and Anna Eshoo resond as they have to past shots over the bow?

And in a pressure tactic negotiation, you don’t walk away from your pressure tactic. Jane has laid out the SP Candidate Recruitment Program, and it was already broadcast on Ed Schulz.

Right now it’s playing out; the progressive caucus is thinking, “do I really want to be primaried, ’cause Hamsher can do it. Dammit!”

That tactic has to succeed or fail before you can do the next manuever.

Balls are in vices, being squeezed.

I don’t know why this is so difficult for people to understand, much less support.

Well put, Jane. Keep it up!

I remain in awe of your intelligence, energy, and strategic wisdom.

Let me repeat my comment under Jon’s initial post on this loophole. (Reid’s CBO-driven “justification” and HHS’s being in on the game don’t begin to address my concern. They only add to it, which sums up in the observation that this is not our government in any recognizable sense.)

Something is rotten here, but what is it? I noticed these words previously, in rummaging through the Senate bill, and paused over them. Let me include them here:

unreasonable annual limits (within the meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.

“What could this be about?” I asked. “How could a tax provision create a loophole for Sicko-type shenanigans?” But I got lazy, or maybe it was that this was just page 16 of a 2000 page bill and I have only one life to give to my country. At any rate I moved on.

Now that it’s gotten some attention I looked at IRC section 223. Nerds can find a .pdf version here. For the rest of you, section 223 is about health savings accounts.

Maybe it’s been amended, but the version I have does not use the phrase “unreasonable annual limits” or come anywhere near the concept. It sets various dollar limits, but that’s not the same thing. To add to it, there is no mention of “participants” in IRC section 223.

The Senate health care bill often refers to IRC 223, so it’s likely the section number is intended. My guess is that there’s an industry concept of “unreasonable annual limits” out there that the Senate bill alluded to without tracking words in the way legislation should. That’s how such glitches often arise. You and I of course have no way to know for sure.

If this were a private contract, a contract lawyer would call section 2711 a busted clause. But the party who hadn’t written it would be protected under the rule of contra proferendum: construe words against the drafting party.

To whose favor would the error redound in this public case? Do I have to spell it out? Its implementation — in a Sicko-type situation — would be up to whatever regulators were in charge. For guidance they’d go to some staffer who wrote the words at the behest of — guess who? — someone in the industry. So there’d be frantic calls and an attempt to create a cleaner record in anticipation of litigation. Meanwhile the victim would die.

What’s worse here, that there’s a backdoor loophole or that we can’t even tell what it is? Laws are being enacted in our name by servile incompetents. That’s scary, and surely more of this is waiting to come to light.

Kelly,

Jane’s commitment, resourcefulness, doggedness, etc. take my breath away! I have been in emergency rooms and have witnessed a refusal of young interns to stop massaging the heart long after the sad uninterrupted sound of ‘flat line’ took over the room.

Practiced professional politicians: take Billy Tauzin, – that object lesson in conformity is what’s being dangled before their greedy little beady eyes.

Balls in vices?

Color me skeptical.

Jane, for me two things are abundantly clear and fortunately they serve to support one another.

One is the task of assuring that as the legislation is being crafted that all influence is brought to bear to assure that it is not dessimated one piece at time.

The other is that we need to act with the same urgency in our efforts to unseat Reid, since that is a necessity in itself but also that looming threat will serve to influence his management of the pending HCR as it progresses. It is clear that only that threat will have any impact.

What is the status of the effort in Nevada to find a viable challenger to Reid whom we can begin to financially support? I think that it has long been abundantly clear that he needs replacing.

The same can be said about the challenger to Lincoln.

My wife is a NICU nurse. She has seen parents with very sick babies on her unit for a long time burn through life time limits pretty easily. Much less the folks who will have huge bills for things like biologic drugs that Jane talked about in an earlier post. So what else has been hidden in this bill? But maybe I should ignore the details and just push for reform whatever that means. And just send my Senators Christmas cards like OFA recommends:

From OFA:
This year, when you are writing holiday cards to your friends and loved ones, there are two more people who need to hear from you: Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne Feinstein.

With the Senate deep in final negotiations — and a compromise just introduced that increases choice and drives costs down — your senators need to understand how urgent reform really is.

So we have come up with a unique way for you to get the message across — by sending your senators a card with your holiday wish for the season.

Right. But it isn’t only Jane (whose strength is breathtaking) who’s applying pressure. I don’t think these senators and their staffs have been so anxiety-ridden and confused in their lifetimes. I think they have realized that they’ve become answerable to too many masters. Their greatest anxiety, and a real one, is that they know even greater anxiety is just around the corner. They’re all probably wishing and praying for gridlock. In one week, they’ve been twisted so many ways that they don’t even remember what ‘partisanship’ means, or a political party.

I know! I don’t think the right thing is going to happen with the Congress, much less the President.

This is no level playing field by any stretch of the imagination, and to have achieved what Jane has achieved so far (with our help, when we actually help, you know like making phone calls and stuff, BTW have you signed up for the OneVoiceOneChoice thing yet?) is nothing short of miraculous.

This shit would be sewn up already.

I’m just saying I’m playing Jane’s way, because the effectiveness proof to date is undeniable.

hey Jane, if you ever need some levity to brighten up the moment, think ‘Citizen Fuckno’, – it even works for me!

Agree.

NITPICK – for those who referring to senators having “their balls in a vice,” I think you mean to use the word “vise” – a clamp.

Vice should be reserved for those legislators finding their weewees stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time, a malady suffered by both parties it seems.

Based on that list of reports at HHS, this must be the health program that Obama’s Handlers aka. CAP related think tanks are pushing.

Is that true, if this didn’t come out of some committee as an amendment and voted on, then it shouldn’t be in there?

Am I the only one to think that before people get so worked up they declare themselves an automobile or a pet or slave of the Chinese or a victim of the billionaires or Rahm Emmanuel or whatever, we should find out exactly what the annual limits are? What percentage of the population will the annual limit hit, if there’s an amount or a formula in the language? If there’s not an exact formula, what’s the language and what can we expect from the actualization of that language? And how can we influence that expectation?

Am I the only one to be wondering where are the hundreds and thousands of people saying, yes, I am ready to sign up to work with you, Jane. We need to work both within and without the Democratic party, to improve the Democratic Party.

In my opinion, we need to be making an issue of the sick media/political culture that has infected America’s information and our government, we need to be saying “about 80% of incumbent Democrats at all levels need to be replaced, because they are soul-less players of a sick PR game promoting themselves and their families and their leash-holders the lobbyists.” If I was better at this tech stuff I would already have a website promoting my ideas for constitutional amendments, for example to allow taxation of advertising and PR spending (at various rates depending on what is being promoted, and an exemption on the first $100 – 200 grand worth by any one business, to allow small businesses and self-promoters to compete while making sure subisdiaries and headquarters and think-tanks representing corporate headquarters are seen as one entity.)

Or how about forbidding nepotism in public office, with a strict list of nine or twelve relations in 3 generations who may not hold the office their relative held … ever. They can have a public career if they’re so darn smart and qualified, they just have to hold different offices than their father or husband or ex-husband or uncle previously held.

Am I the only one who sees that we have to keep working, working, working every day, calling up these Congress-critters, writing letters to newspapers & positive comments to blogs, talking to those improbable neighbors and co-workers and people in the grocery line, figuring out the work we need to be continually doing for the next ten years to make a difference. I’ve been into it, on and off to be sure but never abandoning the search for my own truth, since the John Kennedy administration, another ten or twenty years or the rest of my life isn’t going to be any different.

You can’t win unless you try, you can’t win unless you play. We knew what Obama was (and to paraphrase the famous football coach rant, ‘we let him get away with it.’) Yet I believe that he has had to shape his images and his policies with regard to his leftward critics. If he hasn’t had to do it more to our liking, it is because we (the leftward ones) are yet to become a disciplined and self-sustaining force, constantly looking for ways to become more effective against the idiot media/political culture and the corporations that sustain it.

“Am I the only one to think that before people get so worked up they declare themselves an automobile or a pet or slave of the Chinese or a victim of the billionaires or Rahm Emmanuel or whatever, we should find out exactly what the annual limits are? ”

Funny sentence, but . . . like in the financial crisis, the health reform odyssey has proven the skeptics and pessimists accurate over and over again. I remember being told to “chill the fuck out” about 8 betrayals ago.

Still, I admire your fortitude and staying power. Of course the struggle must go on, but trust me: NOTHING will change until things get much, much worse. I suspect “they” are too crafty to let that happen.