Tweet
The only congressional body that was mildly responsive to populist pressure is now irrelevant. Evidently you can forget about any efforts to influence your member of Congress, because corporatist Senators who write all our laws say the House no longer exists:
Democratic centrists have informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they will accept few changes in the final healthcare bill negotiated between the House and Senate.
Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have made clear there is little room to deviate from the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.
They have also threatened to vote against the bill if it includes a government-run health insurance program, a proposal that liberal Democrats in Congress acknowledge has little chance of winning inclusion in the final bill.
Darren Hutchinson notes remarkably inconsistent language coming out of the White House when it comes to Senate intractability:
Although centrists have continually dug their heels in the sand and threatened to kill the reform process unless their demands were met, the White House has not described their muscularity as “insane” or “irrational.” Instead, these labels seemingly apply only to liberals who demand a tough posture during negotiations.
Someone reminded me yesterday of a post I wrote in early October called “Countdown to Lieberman,” where I said it was only a matter of time before Lieberman stepped forward to tell us all that he and his “centrist” pals would do us the honor of writing the bill for us.
But I got it wrong when I said they wouldn’t explicitly threaten to join a GOP filibuster. That turned out to be the way that they sold this piece of glaring corporatism as “centrist.” By triangulating against the “liberals,” they made it “sensible” by definition in the knee-jerk left/right continuum of our elite media.
As David Sirota reminds us, this can only happen if members of the House consent, according to simple math.
And if they don’t take a stand?
Well, it’s Joe Lieberman’s world now, you’re just living in it.
244 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Sorry Jane but we’re not residing in Joe Lieberman’s, in the end he’s just another guy in the loop. It’s Obama’s world and WE gave it to him. Obama is the one who said we MUST have 60 votes, not Joe Lieberman and certainly not Harry Reid. Happy New Year!
If there was any hope that this could have been fixed in conference, much less afterwards, then reconciliation wouldn’t have been rejected out of hand as an option even though it’s eminently applicable here:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/16/the-great-big-myth-that-reconciliation-would-not-work-for-health-care-reform/
http://jwalkerreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/bernie-sanders-does-not-buy-myth-that.html
If the White House was really ready to tell the Blue Dogs (in the House) and the ConservaDems (in the Senate) to pound salt, they would have told Harry Reid to go ahead with reconciliation and used Biden as the 51st vote if necessary, just like Bush did to get his own must-pass legislation through Congress. Instead, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson will get their way, as always.
Same difference at this point.
More aptly I probably should’ve said “Joe’s the guy who gets to take the blame for all the corporatist stuff Obama wants to deliver on but doesn’t want to own.”
If Joe’s got the power, Obama is giving it to him. No question.
The problem I fear is we elected “Clarence” Obama, the kid who’d sell his soul to be one of the “true” power elites (albeit a smarter, smoother version), not “Barack” Obama, who preached from his heart what he knew to be “true”.
The question is, where do we go from here? It seems like a reasonable extension of the recent parlor game that if the Senate Dems caved so quickly & totally to PHARMA, they will act the sorry puppy dog to the Financial forces waiting their turn. (These guys walk with wheelbarrows in front of them! What reasoned person could imagine a few Businessmen would refuse to travel 200 miles to meet with the President a year after being given $2.1 trillion?)
Have Progressives been so marginalized we lack the wherewithal to stop House Dems from assuring their own demise in ’10? I notice Conservatives (not Chauncey’s whackos) testing arguments appealing to voters who have had enough. My guess is, they’ll make a poster boy of William Voegeli.
The only way to deal with bullies is to fight or face them down.
Let’s help the house progrrrresives not buckle. Time for another telethon? How do we get the tea baggers to help? (grrrrowl intended)
So what, even if Bayh votes with his wife instead of his constituents, that’s only four. Substitution of Medicare for All is a nonzero budget item thus subject to reconciliation. It’s not like the House is going to agree with everything, so why not pick the option that saves the most lives and money?
If congressional Democrats don’t do that, they will much more likely go back to the minority in 2010.
Well it is time to wake up and few are starting to. I know more than few the bought change you can believe in and now maybe they won’t be so support of it what ever it was. 2012 could be the turning point if an R is elected because for sure it would be 1 term if not shorter. The 60s were full ideas and every one thought that they had won the battle but the only thing that happened was the right went to lick their wounds and start again mostly out the sun light. It was funny one day talking with my late father an r, his comment was very telling in that he said they’ll be becoming after you again only this time it’ll be different and I watched them slowly take away my rights until king g did it for sure. Here’s a little something you might fun to read as may be people are just mad enough to check on whats really happening around them and come out the long sleep. Is any one up for pitchforks in the streets, the French have it down pat.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12252009.html
You are giving President Obama more credit than I would Jane.
Obama thanked Lieberman for his obstructionism and also made it very clear that this was the bill that he wanted.The pressure to kill the drug re-importation bill, which really spit in our faces, came from the White House. It all ties together to backroom deals that were made.
All LIEberman did was conveniently play the villain, giving Rahmbahma the opportunity to pretend that they really did want a more progressive bill, but just couldn’t get it done.
No pressure was exerted…thanks were given…progressives were villified.
I think it’s pretty clear what went down here. Joe will continue to be rewarded for his loyalty.
And that should tell anybody all they need to know.
The answer is simple: throw. them. out. The corporations may own them, but YOU keep putting them office. You actually do have power, just use it.
Would the House ping-ponging the bill negate the necessity of a final vote in the Senate?
If not, I can still imagine that while unlikely, some member of the Dem Coalition of the Shilling might renege and vote the other way.
Jane, you are insane. Teaming up with Grover Norquist to destroy the presidency? Have you lost your mind?
If we still had the public option, we would have no health care reform. None. Do you really think the Senator of Connecticut Health Insurance would ever vote to stop a filibuster on the public option?
Are you simply being spiteful because you didn’t get everything you and a handful of your loyalists wanted?
Wake up and grow up! You live in America with the American Senate, for crying out loud. The Senate says they can filibuster anything the Democrats propose, and they will.
Jane, where do you propose to get votes No. 59 and 60 without compromising?
Unbelievable….
The progressive faction in the House should change the conference to suit their tastes. If the Centrist Democrats don’t like it, they can vote against it. It is time for the Progressive faction in the House to face down these corporate hacks.
Unless the Dems hold 60 Senate seats in 2011, they will HAVE to change the filibuster rule at the outset, unless they want the Goopers to have a veto on EVERYTHING. So, will they reset the bar at the precise number of seats they “control,” or will they allow some wiggle room to make the Liebermans mostly irrelevant?
Rahm has not changed at all.
Did not learn from his mistakes last time too.
Well for his corporate masters, they were not mistakes.
Just business as usual.
And when the pure Progressive faction of the House faces down the corporate hacks, then no policies get enacted. Not a one. The Republicans will rejoice, the bue dogs will rejoice, the Pure-Progressives rejoice because they got to display their purity, and the Democrats accomplish exactly nothing. Brilliant strategy, Verberne. It’s a common mistake by any pure party position, left or right, and I would think that Jane Hamsher would know this but evidently she’s as much an extremist as any right-wing extremist could ever be.
Jane, if a well-balanced person is residing at “noon” on the clock-face, and that persons goes to the extreme right, you end up at 6 pm. If ones goes to extreme left, you end up at 6 pm. “Jane, meet Grover. Grover, meet Jane. You two should really get together and destroy everything because neither of you is getting your pure policies enacted!”
Unbelievable. Grover and the Right are laughing at having just neutralized the Progressive voice of Jane Hamsher.
Unbelievable.
I have been saying this for years, the way to clean up congress is
TERM LIMITS
and then get reasonable rules for election finance.
Of course everyone here was so worried about “institutional memory”…
hahahhaahhaahhahahahahaha
Having difficulty following your incoherent analogy.
Is that an analog or digital clock?
“The answer is simple: throw. them. out. The corporations may own them, but YOU keep putting them office. You actually do have power, just use it.”
You are correct.
Work2fish, You’re WAY off base, but very predictable. Why do you start by accepting the premise that the Senate NEEDS 60 votes, not 51. Is it because you heard it on Rush, did a friend tell you that? That’s Obama’s decision, not Harry Ried’s, not Jane’s; it’s certainly not written in the Constitution.
Spiteful is someone who spews venom without consideration, check your mirror, buddy.
Obama has walked back every single promise he made.
Obama was a trojan horse for the bankers, MIC, Pharma, Media corps, Telcoms, Energy Corps, Insurance corps, and all their lobbyists and of corpse WALL street to come in and continue their agenda.
I really don’t need to be saying I told you so, but I have been screaming the immediate cure is TERM LIMITS and this was always dismissed as “undemocratic” as if what we have IS democratic.
The present system has been rigged to work for special interests and it gets worse and worse each year.
Let me make sure I understand you — Obama campaigned on “putting an end to partisan bickering” and being “bipartisan,” but we’re only allowed to do so if both left and right agree with the President. If we agree with each other and NOT the President, we are “insane” and “spiteful.”
If it’s Rick Warren we’re talking about, Obama has to be the President of all the people. But if he wants to shovel trillions of dollars into an unregulated slush fund for the banks, agreeing with Republicans that this is wrong means they’re trying to “destroy his Presidency.”
Do you realize what a teeny, weeny little minority of the population you represent with this idea?
What are the odds that of the 57-64 reps who have taken the “no public option, no bill” pledge, we will lose 40?
Are people that pessimistic that two out of three won’t keep their word?
And if the current versions don’t pass after ping ponging, what are the odds that we can regroup and use reconciliation to get something thru the senate that has a PO or better yet, Medicare Buy?
We are asked to give money to a few progressives who have no power in this system and then cave or be crushed and set aside of nut jobs.
The system is broken. We can’t work with a broken system, a corrupt system, a system which does not respond EVER to the people, but ALWAYS to special interests.
WAKE the F up and see it for what it is.
right on!
According to the decider cabal in the senate, they won’t allow it. So there ya go.
We don’t NEED a senate… it’s undemocratic to boot.
We’re being “pure progressives” but we agree with the Republicans that these bailouts must end.
That falls a bit short of making sense.
Obama is destroying his own presidency very well. His poll numbers are tanking and will continue to as he alienates more and more who backed him.
He’ll be left with the beltway insiders and the wall street money guys who rode in with him.
You do realize that 34% is a minority, right? That most of the country doesn’t want this bill to pass?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/december_2009/just_34_say_passing_health_care_bill_is_better_than_passing_nothing
Re-connect with the Borg and come back with another talking point, this one’s a bit old.
The question is, where do we go from here?
Sorry to sound like a broken record but the question is better put: Where don’t we go from here? Health care reform is a lost cause. And it will NOT be revisited. For the same (political) reason that he won’t call for a second stimulus.
It is exceedingly important that Obama and his crooked crew not be able to call this a grand success — and, hence, the model for the future.
What is going on here is a deliberate confusion between two things that are logically distinct: first, ass-kissing wonks arguing that we should hold our noses and call for passage of the bill; and, second, calling this a great achievement. There is NO necessary connection between the two.
My friends who argue for passage are not necessarily undermining me or the progressive movement. But my friends who argue that this is a great achievement ARE undermining me and the movement. By hailing it as a great achievement, they are implicitly saying that this is the model for future legislative action — on entitlements, for example. They are giving Obama the validation and cover that he needs.
We can’t let this slip by. We can’t let Ezra and his ilk argue BOTH that the bill should pass AND that it is a grand achievement. This is definitely NOT the model for moving forward.
I’m sure that other folks on FDL have made this point already — and better than I have. But the point must be hammered home with no letting up that this approach would be catastrophic if applied to future legislative efforts.
Enough damage has been done by this clown.
What he said…
We have systemic failure.
WE NEED TO ADDRESS A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM NOT USE IT TO TURN OUT RUBBISH.
My guess is most dont know what is in the bill. As more people come out in favor of passing it and working to improve it (ie: Wendell Potter)the numbers will change.
Remember many folks dont listen to Rush or Beck or any whose drumbeat has been ruin Obama.
Joe not Harry is the Senate Leader and he seems to be the guy in charge of WH policy. Go tells Rahm what to do and Obama then gets told what to do when they bother to inform him at all about whats going on.
I think this stage of American history will be called the Puppet Presidents.
You cannot mandate people to make any commercial transaction under penalty of law.
The bill is unconstitutional to boot.
The centrists at the Washington Monthly that think Jane has gone off the deep end think this legislation is the most progressive legislation in our nations history; better than Social Security, better than the Civil Rights act, and better than Medicare. Before you slap yourself on the back, first pass the piece of crap you call ‘progressive legislation’. Pass the greatest act ever then wait 5-10 years after it takes effect before you judge the merits of the legislation. Mandating that the middle class that doesn’t have much spare change for extra costs anyway to pony up a grand or two that they may not have, is not a tremendously “progressive” thing to do.
Your embrace of reactionary populism is a huge mistake that you will deeply regret.
That someone might have been me; I’ve been quoting that Oct. 5 post of yours a lot.
In any case, this post is an excellent but disappointing battle assessment.
Obama – Lieberman are in reality one team. They serve the same interests. Except that Lieberman is to the far right-corporatism (fascism), while Obama is “softer” version.
Jane can read minds now. She knows the secret intentions and desires of powerful men who gather together and conspire against us. You’re a conspiracy theorist now.
This legislation really is the final needed proof that the Democrats are completely corrupt, and will not, with any and all opportunities, serve as an agent of true reform. The US is probably ungovernable at this point from the standpoint of government in principle existing to serve the broad majority of the public in a positive way.
Progress is now defined as sticking with failed methodologies in the interest of unity?
I used to think it was only conservatives who were afraid of change.
It’s not about being upset about some little compromises. It’s about both parties selling out to health insurance companies and other corporations. A mandate without a public option is corporate welfare for the health insurance companies. Also, Jane working with Grover had nothing to do with the healthcare bill in the first place.
most of them already didn’t keep their word when they voted for the house bill.
not making any predictions about what they will do with their next vote. just wanted to offer that bit of history.
It’s up to the House Democrats to convince the Senate to abandon the 60 vote rule. But those Democrats need to be willing to kill the Senate bill.
what an obsurd post, it was BRILLIANT teaming with grover, not only brilliant but obviously brilliant so your entire post fror that point forward is suspect
now on to the only real point you tried to make;
again, obsurd, of course we could have passed a public option, we could have easily passed a buy in to medicare at above cost also which is win win for everyone but the health insurance industry
in addition, we could have simply went through reconciliation
the problem, the ONLY problem is that obama actually think the progressives are fringe when in fact the progressive programs and agenda represent what the majority of this country wan
of course we could have had a public option, but obama is proving to be more the corporatist then bush himself
No, none of us here has lost our mind, we just decided that we voted for reform, not the degenerate corruption we are seeing instead. You can keep voting for and funding and cheerleading for candidates who do not represent you. A lot of us are tired of that and are quitting doing that.
Here’s a question: What lesson do you take from the HCR travesty?
If your answer is, we lost this round, we must fight harder next time, you fail the quiz.
Reason: You will always lose when going up against corporate America. Always. No matter which party controls the WH, Senate or House.
The correct answer is: If we want a better outcome, we must have a better system of government.
It’s not just House R.I.P. It’s Articles I, II, and III R.I.P.
There are some outstanding comments on this thread.
Copy that.
And, if you’re up for getting really depressed, listen to this reading by Chris Hedges (mp3).
Do the Reps see themselves as a subordinate house of Congress? There’s the problem right there. There really needs to be a revolt in the House of Representatives against the Senate. Shut the whole thing down loudly and publicly until the “centrists” cry uncle.
Jane’s theory which she mentioned in that Oct 5 posting cited above but for which she had given timelines weeks earlier, namely the theory that the White House had cut a deal with the insurers to kill any public option, has been very close to what we’ve seen play out.
I would like to see all the evidence behind that theory other than its predictive power.
To be human is to resist change.
it doesn’t take anything more then average intelligence to draw the conclusions Jane has drawn, however I see some of the posters here don’t have the average intelligence to have come to the very same conclusion themselves
“What lesson do you take from the HCR travesty?”
___
Regulatory Capture by the Corporate state.
The best that can be hoped for in final health care bill:
• Subsidies: $574 billion
• Medicaid at 150%
• National exchange
• Repeal anti-trust exemption
• Employer mandate
• Enhance MEDPAC’s power
• Expand Wyden amendment
• Revisit drug re-importation
This is worth fighting for!
A PR outfit referring to an enormous gift to the health insurance and pharmaceutical cartels, at great cost to the public, as the greatest bill in the history of mankind still doesn’t make it anything other than sold-out, corrupt bullshit. They can call the legislation a rose and its still a bullshit gift of the biggest sort to the cartels at cost to everyone else.
the thing is, the reform we are demanding are mathe only reasons obama was elected, he could have easily gotten the reforms the very vast majority of this country wanted passed
but he is the trojan horse, the judas sheep, he is a corporatist disguising himself as a democrat
and there are those on this very thread that can see this corporatism and yet they still support the man
they are the very same types who defended bush even in the face of abandoning the very principles they once held dear
“The only person who enjoys change is a baby with a wet diaper.”
“the White House had cut a deal with the insurers to kill any public option”
That is mind reading. The supposition that one can know the secret intent of powerful people is the heart of conspiracy thinking. It is a fallacy.
You do not know what you claim to know.
I hope that someone does challenge this mess on Constitutional grounds if it passes. Without a public option, this amounts to seizure by the government of private property for the benefit of another private actor. The fairly odious Kelo decision greatly expanded the government’s power to do such things, but even there you had to argue for some rational government purpose. The Senate bill will actually cost millions of people the insurance they already have, while premiums will rise by a thousand bucks a year. In no sane world would this be considered sufficient reason for handing over taxation authority to Cigna.
Maybe Grover should team up with the ACLU on that one. As Jane’s noted, they’ve done work together in the past, after all.
the trolls here are not only tiresome, they are pedestrian and I have a long drive, I leave the “concern trolls” for someone else
have good weekend all
and of course progressives
If babies enjoyed change we wouldn’t have so many kossacks storming the gates.
If we can’t get 50 or 51 US Senators to support a robust, day one, open to all Public Option and a Medicare-buy-in, there is something rotten in Danmark…
How do you know it’s a tiny part of the population? Sean Hannity has polls too. Ambiguity is killing us. Eliminating ambiguity must be our first order of business.
again, drawing obvious conclusions with the information at hand takes average inteligence, not mind reading
ok, got to go all, again have a good weekend
Is Norquist against HCR because “mandates” are in reality a tax increase?
Rhetorical Q.
And a good weekend to you, perris.
“it doesn’t take anything more then average intelligence to”
Perris – it isn’t intelligence you lack. Those who succumb to paranoia and believe they see conspiracies everywhere around them are not stupid people. The error is of judgment, not intellect.
“and of course progressives”
You are not progressives. In Europe you are called by your true name:
Conservative.
Obama’s conceit that he got 95% of what he wanted tells us all we need to know. He is — perhaps unwittingly and egotistically — signaling that he was, and still is, satisfied with letting the likes of Conrad, Nelson, Snowe, Collins, and Lieberman decide what happens to major legislation and social programs at the margin — like Social Security. (Hey, I don’t trust this guy to rule out privatization.)
We need to be telling folks like Ezra, MY, and Drum that their argument ex post that we got all we could have gotten effectively rules out an ex ante argument to do it all again.
the public plan was dead as a viable option when the tri-committee house bill was written (back in june?). if indeed the administration is against any public option, they can easily kill it (if it is anything like the one in the house bill) via weak regulation. the legislative outcome re the public plan will only matter if there are people in the obama administration who have the power to make something out of almost nothing. do you really think that is the case when mr. larry “no regulation” summers is in charge of the administration’s economic policy?
not “conclusions”, “inferences”.
Otherwise I agree.
History is replete with conspiracies. So, statistically speaking a significant fraction of conspiracy theories are bound to be true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with conspiracy theories per se.
Jane’s particular theory has for several weeks now had very good predictive power. On the other hand, and she has provide a time line of the relevant meetings between the White House and the various corporate groups. But I’ve not studied it enough to recall where she got her information or if she really said.
the mandate in MA has already been challenged (lost the first time around, don’t know about the appeal but will look for it if you are interested).
I bet he would be.
I’d argue it’s far worse than a tax increase. If you’re raising taxes, or even giving people the choice to give their money like a tax, to the government or a private insurer, ok. Clearly, it’s constitutional to tax.
But is it Constitutional to take huge sums of money just to hand them to another person, who may or may not, at their discretion, do anything at all for you?
Is it Constitutional to pass such a law with no idea of how much the private actor will be charging, where they set the rate, and therefore, effectively, set the tax, without Congressional approval?
I sure to Eris hope not. Otherwise we might as well abolish Congress and get it over with.
Right, because only blind devotion to the existing power structure can be considered “progressive.”
Lots of luck! What do you propose to do? Invent a new language?
“drawing obvious conclusions with the information at hand”
Well then I draw the obvious conclusion that Jane is only doing this for the page hits and the money she derives from them.
Does not enhance anyone’s argument to go there. Suggest you edit while time is available.
Was that under MA law or federal law, though?
I’d really like to see this appealed to the Supremes at least.
God it’ll be depressing if this passes both our pathetic Congress and our court without a decent fight.
Have a safe drive.
It is widely known that the administration traded away the public option to the health insurance industry and any re importation legislation to big Pharma months ago to keep negative ads off of teevee and contributions away from republicans.
Disgusting and shameful.
“the White House had cut a deal with the insurers to kill any public option” That is mind reading.
A conservative estimate of the number of folks who voted for Obama who are now “reading his mind” in this way is 20 million. And about 19.9999 million of them don’t know who the fuck Jane Hamsher is.
Again, you do not know what you claim to know. Your reasoning is based on circumstantial evidence and your own paranoia.
Year End Wrap-Up Book Salon up at the Mothership. Hosted by Bev.
I have fought for 5 years. I am not quitting but I must admit the last few months have taken its toll on my stamina.
I greatly admire those who continue to battle against a very broken and corrupt US legislative process that goes way beyond just the healthcare reform issue
see my blog-Critical Condition- below which I began in 2005.
Be Well,
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
So it turns out that YOU can read minds?
(cough) hypocrite
Hi demi.
Nice to see you here. There are some very arrogant and ignorant trolls here today. Been kinda poluted around the place lately.
If you do so in exchange for a favor to yourself or others, you have taken a bribe, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 201 : US Code – Section 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201
If Jane’s conspiracy theory has sufficient evidence behind it, I expect that prosecutable crimes have been committed.
Sorta like you say what you do to get responses?
Have been laughin at this fool for a few days now. It does projection very well.
“It is widely known that the administration traded away the public option to the health insurance industry”
It is widely known that shots were fired from the grassy knoll.
It is widely known that 9-11 was an inside job.
It is widely known that the Bilderburgers plot against us.
It is widely known that alien experiment with our DNA.
It is widely known that the Reptilians are here to enslave humanity.
The reimportation deal seems to be pretty well acknowledge. What it the evidence available regarding the deal (with AHIP?) regarding the public option?
Note I’m not challenging you but rather trying to arm myself.
I read noen’s mind. It was just a pamphlet.
No hun, that’s called satire. I would have thought someone with your vast intelligence would be able to detect that. I guess I was wrong.
For a fuller analysis of the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party, as represented by the Clintons’ and, increasingly it seems, by Obama, see the Huffington Post article “The Democrats’ Authoritarian Health ‘Reform’ Bill and the Ascendency of Corporatism in the Democratic Party”
wow this site is really running headlong into oblivion. “Obama is a the black man no one ( the left) wants to call an uncle tom. He’s a sell out just the way Condi Rice is.”
Seriously? that’s your “progressive” contribution to the debate?
you may vigorously disagree with the man’s policies, but that is a sick, stupid comment that looks like it comes directly from a freeper. the racist invective, and often unsubstantied comments about Obama’s thoughts or mental state in this thread are horrendous. Grover would be proud.
Some proverb about the speck in a neighbor’s eye comes to mind.
You have the best approach, they can’t be swayed by reason so better to laugh at ‘em.
I will grant that you are humorous. Probably not in the way you intend.
Good
I believe in our President and think that he has gotten the best that can be gotten under the circumstances in the Senate.
I like that Wendall Potter supports the bill
I dont mind being a troll and supporting Obama
The key here is this:
“If Jane’s conspiracy theory has sufficient evidence behind it”
She will be unable to prove this and therefore will fail and take everyone who joins her down with her.
Obama is a trojan horse and I believe he has used his race as cover to shill for corporate america.
The administration undoubtedly appreciates your unwitting obeisance.
Please read what I wrote.
now you know everything i know.
Why do the politicians and media never mention the 15-20 million people that will still be uninsured or the hundred plus thousand that will die before this bill takes effect in 2014? In obama’s and the blue dogs america I guess this is ok.
As far as Jane and Grover joining forces go; if it would get rid of the slimy little rahm, I’d jump in bed with the devil himself.
Also read in the paper the admin. is negotiating another 8 nation free trade agreement. Yet another promise broken by Mr. Hope & Tansparency.
Jane, if you are reading down here-
I know Yves is on this, but have you talked to Calculated Risk, Tyler Durden, Mish, Ilargi, and Barry Ritholtz, among others?
The econ blogs covering Big Shitpile have a natural affinity for your argument. Their readers are smart and pissed. They have long realized that DC is a fixed game run for the benefit of the corporatocracy, that the two parties are now but two faces of the same Wall St behemoth.
Nice to see Mike Whitney posting here.
Cheers, and thank you!
thank you for the link and all your previous comments (btw, i listened to the talks you referenced awhile ago from tba 2008 – they were very helpful, although also depressing. thanks)
9/11 was not done by Al Qaeda… that is fairly easy to demonstrate…
Who did it?
And you’re prescient TOO!
Look everybody, a deity in our midst. Ain’t we lucky?
So, now you are claiming powers of prescience?
That happens at times like this. When you open a door to the Right it leaks over to you and infects your own thinking.
People are scared, they have good reason to be. People are angry, they have a right to be. But this is not the way.
The best kind of term limit: don’t re-elect them if they can’t do their jobs.
My google skillz really suck. But IIRC Rahm did some industrial strength arm twisting with the health insurance industry. Even meeting with Republicans would be considered an act of hostility. Boehner took to the house floor and decried such actions. Also, the health insurance industry agreed to run positive ads in certain blue dog areas. Why on earth would they have done this? What leverage did Rahm hold over the captains of health insurance? It would be irresponsible not to speculate and connect the dots that the Federal Government pledge a no compete clause in the deal. Perhaps there is more concrete evidence to this deal, and if so, maybe one of the other pups can provide you a link.
It is fundamental to understanding this whole mess.
Check out Michael Ruppert, The Automatic Earth and stop drinking the koolaid of the enablers of the present corporatocracy.
[Edited by Mod. Play nice]
Got anything to prove that, beside your own imagination?
In actual fact none of this matters as we are seeing the collapse of neo liberalism before our very eyes.
In a few years you won’t be able to recognize the world.
“So, now you are claiming powers of prescience?”
Jane knows as well as I do how difficult it is to prove intent. The odds are against it by a large amount.
Capital won and the killed the goose that laid the golden egg…
Let’s see what rises from the ashes…
Supposes facts not in evidence. All the leaking to date has come the pee-pants faction of which you are a part.
wigwam – I did. I am not disputing that Obama cut a deal with big pharma. Of course he did. What I reject is your belief that you know why, that you can read his mind and know his motives simply through isolated facts.
You can’t, that why there are rules in the law about doing just what you and Jane are doing. She knows this.
I agree that the theory of a White House deal with AHIP to block all public options, including single payer and medicare buy-in would explain most of what we’ve seen for the past six months on that front. That theory had excellent predictive power and has excellent explanatory power. But what do we have of timelines, documents, and witnesses?
I’m asking because I think those bastards should be investigated and prosecuted.
Too bad Christy isn’t here these days. She was a prosecutor and can tell you how its done. Basically you start with the people at the bottom and offer the best deals to the ones that come forward first.
This has been most pleasant but I must take my leave.
Best wishes to the rational people and to the trolls as well.
This was a bill that hasnt been able to be passed for decades. Why have we gotten this far?
Obama made a promise to Kennedy who was a master of compromise.
Maybe this was the only way it could get done.
from sara robinson (ian master’s interview from 9/22/09 – my rough transcription):
I would settle for torture prosecutions of the prior administration. I don’t think an alliance of the shilling is illegal. The art of politics is telling the people to go to hell, and make them look forward to the trip. We’ll see what happens on the next election.
Can I catch republican if use the same drinking fountain? Can republicans catch lefty from me?
Very worrying.
Tried and found guilty of “insufferable pretentious self-centeredness”
and a complete absence of a sense of humor, poor dear: http://science.blogdig.net/archives/articles/June2008/04/Judge_Myers_presiding.htmlI don’t recall claiming to know why Obama would have done this, but I can think of some likely reasons and I know what has been claimed by others.
I’m not sure what rules you have in mind. Are you going to accuse me of slandering The Great One? In any deal there is a quid pro quo. In political corruption in the U.S. its usually campaign contributions either direct or indirect. But who knows, perhaps the Great One cut a deal out of love of corporatocracy.
Why hasnt health reform passed for decades? What did you think would get it through?
Can republicans catch lefty from a public restroom?
Very worrying.
Clean up on Aisle 3:
“A leader who shares my vision of an open government that calls all citizens – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – to a common purpose.” — Barack Obama
“We see people across the spectrum – doctors and patients, unions and businesses, Democrats and Republicans – coming together around this issue, because at a time when rising costs have put too many families and businesses on a collision course with financial ruin and left too many without coverage at all, they know that bandaids and half-measures just won’t do. ” — Barack Obama
“And today, thanks to the hard work of Democrats and Republicans, it looks like we have a rescue plan that includes these taxpayer protections.” — Barack Obama
“In the same bipartisan spirit that is being shown with regard to the crisis on Wall Street, I ask Senator McCain, President Bush, Republicans and Democrats to join me in supporting an emergency economic plan for working families – a plan that would help folks cope with rising gas and food prices, spark job creation through repair of our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, help homeowners stay in their homes, and provide retooling assistance for America’s auto industry.” — Barack Obama
”
“Understand, if we want get through this crisis, we need to get beyond the old ideological debates and divides between left and right” — Barack Obama
“He knows that the challenges we face are not about left versus right or Democrat versus Republican – they are about the past versus the future. And Mark Warner has followed a simple formula to deliver real change – he brings people together around a common purpose, and common sense solutions” — Barack Obama
“I believed that Democrats and Republicans and Americans of every political stripe were hungry for new ideas, new leadership, and a new kind of politics – one that favors common sense over ideology; one that focuses on those values and ideals we hold in common as Americans.” — Barack Obama
“And at each and every moment, we have risen to meet these challenges – not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans.” — Barack Obama
Hi Selise. Thanks. That bit of eyewitness testimony is an excellent start. And it show that Jane isn’t just making shit up or claiming to read minds in this case.
If an investigator dug into this, I suspect criminality would be found.
There are some progressives, myself included, who believe the word “compromise” should not be used in relation to the health care bill. Compromise means give and take from both sides–a meeting in the middle if you will. We “compromised” on single-payer. We “compromised” on the public option. We “compromised” on the medicare buy-in. We “compromised” on no coverage for not male parts. What did we get for our trouble? Mandates to buy shitty overpriced private health insurance and taxes if your employer provides a good plan for you.
Sorry, this is not a “compromise.” It is getting bent over without the benefit of a reacharound.
Dear Jane, I agree with every word in this article. What I’m seeing is the entire American government as being obsolete. The government is like a car. It’s not the car that is good or bad, it’s the person driving the car. You can drive a car over to someone’s house to deliver a casserole or a bullet between the eyes.
Further, the people that we voted for are not really in control of the car, they are just chauffeurs for the Elite that say where the car is going and have the chauffeur run in and deliver the message, the casserole or the bullet as the case may be.
The excuses they give for their actions are mixed, illogical, and just a bunch of smooth sounding meaningless important sounding gibberish. I have long decided that most of the people in government are not very smart people and most of the rest are just trying to protect themselves from the ruthless elite dictating where the car goes. The handful left are the Elite’s “number one’s” and they make no pretense at trying to be logical or lawful because, being the Elite, they don’t have to. Why, because they are running the whole show and if they don’t want to defend themselves and their illegal and unconstitutional behavior they don’t have to. Who’s gonna stop them, the chauffeur?
We all believed Obama was going to step up and start driving the car where the people thought it should go, but he isn’t and I don’t see that changing. If Obama had run Emanuel as his VP he wouldn’t have won. But he ran Joe Biden whose role has been nothing more than a Fred McMann type of character.
If the people don’t start waking up to the seriousness of our lack of government by the people things are going to get even worse and these Elite who control the government will continue putting taxpayer money into their own pockets. The obvious next step is they will be putting every cent in and just start teaching people to accept death by poverty as the just desserts of those they don’t find useful. We’re pretty much there already.
The question is, ‘What the hell can we do?” I hope you are able to get Emanuel investigated, but I don’t see anyone having authority over him because he is one of the Elite that does not answer to the government because he is well within that group dictating the course of the car. I think Obama actually answers to him and those that Lieberman flunky’s for, as well.
I think it is time for a whole new paradigm for fighting this group that is parasiting itself on the populace. Fighting is not the answer because the people will just be executed in the streets by the government controlled law enforcement that is run by the Elite.
I think the entire country is going to have to do something together. We tried electing Obama together but he lied to us and told us what we wanted to hear, only to do as the Elite told him.
We must all get together and put all that effort into a plan that will affect the Elite and their death grip on us. We must all change the way we think and we must all refuse to partake in a system that doesn’t work for us but against us. I see a huge exodus of professionals from the US in the next few decades. This will just make it worse for those that remain. We are surrounded on all sides and we need a new and novel strategy. Whatever the answer is , I don’t think fighting through the laws of the land or trying to vote in better people is the answer.
Thanks, nice find.
Maybe the things he campaigned on?
Just a thought.
Bailey, you need a Senate civics lesson
60 votes: needed to stop filibustering a bill and let it come to vote.
51 votes: need to pass the bill.
Read that again several times. Study it. Draw pictures and try to explain it to your loved ones.
It will eventually sink it.
It’s why Lieberman has more power that Rahm or Obama when it comes to stopping a filibuster and forcing compromises to a good bill.
So nothing is what will work for you?
Tell that to my friends who will be able to be insured finally or to the children who cant get insurance because of preexisting conditions.
Except for the Clinton years, the Republicans have been in charge for the past three decades. And the Clintons tried to strike a deal with the healthcare industrial complex and got double crossed — at least that’s what Krugman says.
ROFLMAO!
Try another one: RE-CON-CIL-I-A-TION
completely agree. imo there is no better working hypothesis.
Tell that to the people who will be required to buy junk insurance they can’t afford.
Let me put it another way, for many people being uninsured or having insurance with a $3,000 deductible is essentially the same thing.
except for having to pay for the insurance they can’t use. money that could have been used for the occasional visit to the docs. which means some people will be getting LESS healthcare with this bill.
recommend marcy’s post to anyone who hasn’t already seen it: 21% of People in MA Still Forgo Necessary Medical Care
I feel sorry for people who thought Obama could work miracles.
He will sign a bill that the House and the Senate write. Your representatives write the bill, with a lot of help from lobbysists, lawyers and corporations. If 41 Senators find a problem with the bill, for example it hurts corporations a little bit, they will filibuster it, for years if necessary. It will not pass through the Senate.
That’s your American Senate at work. It’s how you let the American Senate set up it’s own rules. 40 Republicans will automatically filibuster anything significant, and all we in the Corporate world need to do is find one independent or unenlightened Democrat to join the Republicans, usually for a few hundred thou in campaign funding, and the bill will die.
It’s how it works. All the campaign promises in the world cannot trump big industry in the Senate.
So therefore we should destroy Rahm. It’s his fault.
Your right! Obama is the Biggest Corporatist on the block, he’s not fooling anyone anymore. His neo-liberal economic policies are clearly defined for all to see now. Trillions to Wall st. banks with little oversight , this fraudulent so called health care reform another big Corp. give away, a continuation of the Military/Industrial/Intelligence wars against goatherders with AK-47′s etc. It’s disgusting. This wasn’t the Change we can believe in I voted for. Fool me once….
Sorry for the extra post. and then this one too. ok.
Translation: “I feel sorry for people who believed all that bullshit Obama said on the campaign trail.”
The filibuster rule didn’t stop the Gopers from doing whatever they damn well pleased did it?
Isnt this what pragmatism is?
Getting the best you can out of the system you have.
Cabin Girl on booman has a good post
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/12/25/164235/01
21 percent are documented as forgoing health care. I would be surprised if the actual percentage is not higher.
I really enjoyed her “Countdown to Lieberman.” It was deadly. She described the White House’s dilemma in trying to get Harry Reid, who faces re-election and wasn’t polling so well, to kill the public option for the President. She didn’t mention Lieberman until the last line: “That camera hog Lieberman has been awfully quiet lately. Wonder if the President has been calling him and twisting his arm?”
that was Oct 5, and that’s exactly how things played out six weeks later.
I am not in the habit of rewarding bad behavior. The health insurance industry is stuffed full of bad actors. So forcing everyone to do business with them seems sorta sucky to me. They will still kick people off their policies for pre existing conditions, because there is a fraud exception, which is what they use every time anyways. Their lawyers are fantastic at kicking the shit out of sick people–it’s like clubbing baby seals. Your friends and relatives who think this is teh awesome will be wondering how to pay for deductibles and copays and junk. Hope is a good thing, but we live in the real world. Sorry, but this deal is a boon for the corporate side of the equation. For everybody else, not so much.
We’ll see about that. I would normally agree but have u seen the Mass. law over turned yet? It does just what the forced mandate in the Sen. bill does.
Right and the subtext to the story of creation in the Bible is “if you’d kept your mouth shut we’d still be in paradise.”
Now THAT’S progress!
NUtshell. Obama and the rest have only fooled the weakest minds.
A calm, thoughtful and intelligent conversation is best conducted without vindictive accusations and name calling. On the other hand, [Edited by Moderator.]!
We should concentrate on pushing Harkin to push his cloture reform bill asap. It essentially is a sliding bar for cloture over a short time span to reduce the 60-votes to 50+Biden to end cloture. Progressives need to be especially forceful to Dems in the 2010 primaries. Support Harkin’s bill or we won’t support you. Until the 60-vote rule is changed, Corporate American will continue own enough Blue dogs to produce health care bills that could have been much better.
I think they have callously manipulated people who actually believed that the United States was better than the Bush administration had depicted it on the world stage and hoped that Mr. Obama was honest in his appeal to the better side of Americans. Lincoln was right, “all the people all the time” anin’t gonna happen!
In Washington, “liberals”, “moderates” and “conservatives” are largely irrelevant when it comes to multi-billion dollar legislation in Congress. There are only those who are more or less willing to pursue the prevailing Wall Street agenda.
But, okay, health care is lost. But let’s use this fiasco as an object lesson for the future.
From now on, whenever Congress is considering a piece of legilation that has a broad and/or a weighty impact on Wall Street, follow it very, very closely. But forget about the mainstream media narratives: Democrats versus Republicans, liberals versus centrists versus conservatives. Instead, pick yourself a good public watchdog site [I like opensecrets.org myself] and start typing in the names of Congresswomen and men….and the names of corporations and industries. Then follow the fucking money.
Finance reform, energy/environmental policy, EFCA, war. Anything related to big ticket economic and foreign policy items. You will clearly note a bipartisan commitment to policies that are most favorable to the broadest coalitions on Wall Street. Period. End of story.
I remember a year ago when I was posting at The New Republic [before they "blocked" my posts and banned me], I kept insisting there was no way in hell there would ever be anything approaching progressive reform of our health care system. Not in our Bilderberg world. I was ridiculed to say the least. They wanted nothing to do with systemic crony capitalism. They really believed that Obama and the new Democratic Congress changed things in Washington!!!
They probably still do.
The real straw was the Drug re-importation vote. He really stuck it to us with that one after campaigning all yr. for its repeal. he;s just like Cong. Wilson said..A liar.
Progressive rhetoric, followed by corporate appeasement is consistent in this White House. “The Change You Can Believe In” turns out to be K-Street writes “Democratic Party” on their bribery checks now.
Pols accumulate frequent liar miles, exchangeable for campaign donations.
And keep this in perspective.
Americans are over-paying for healthcare to the tune of about a trillion dollars per year, which is 50% more than the entire military budget. And the current bill is going to add about $100 billion per year to that.
So far as I can tell, a coalition of centrist dems led behind the scenes by the White House and the Republican block have successfully blocked all efforts to mitigate this rip off.
I really like the conservatives’ rage. I’d just like to get it directed to the right target. Like this.
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, “every word he speaks is a calculated lie, including the punctuation”.
we had our version of the reform in 2006. and just to put things in perspective: first, MA was probably the best case (high rates of insured, relatively well off, and actually pretty decent regulation). and second, in almost all ways our reform is better than the current house bill (this was confirmed to me by my rep’s aide shortly after the vote. she hastened to reassure me that since MA already has a waiver from HHS, with the house bill we would be able to keep our exchanges, etc. don’t know what the situation is with the senate bill).
The first “Big Straw” was candidate Obama voting YES for the FISA Bill last year. He had campaigned vehemently saying he would vote NO on the FISA Bill. He did a 180 & voted YES, but the McCain/Palin ticket was so scary, progressives hardly blinked. It showed me for the first time Obama wasn’t going to change a thing. He was Wall Street’s guy(McCain was too of course). A year later & it’s very clear Obama isn’t shaking any corporate trees. I will say that with 40-automatic GOP NO votes & a 60-vote Senate requirement, it’s hard to change the status quo. I hope Obama finally emerges as a leader for progressive causes.
Wow, mods that was quick. That post was very revealing about hellsshittiestangel.
Wow, if I’m not mistaken the mods just disappeared a troll. “Yes ratfood, there IS a Santa Claus.”
Thank-you mods!
So I’m correct in my use of the term, right?
Becuase it’s impossible to directly observe these action, only possible to observe their effect.
Observing effects is paranoia, by your thinking. Not a scientist are you?
I think you’re correct.
If you like your exchanges I sincerely hope the waiver applies to the Senate bill as well, if it actually goes into effect, which I hope it will not.
Thanks. My views exactly. I need you help on a project. dh (at) synoia (dot) com. I send you the words.
Actually, I feel sorry for people who were convinced he was ever intent on trying. At least I was never one of those. You see, after nudging Canada on Nafta, after selecting Rahm Emanuel as his COS, after choosing Wall Street to run his economic team, after accepting $6,000,000 from the finance industry to fund his Inaguration, after his bailout of Wall Street….
…well, let’s just say that, by then, I reckoned the fate of health care “reform” would be decided in the Oval Office shredder.
The thing I found scary about that FISA flip was not just the fact that he flip but he denied that he flip, just like he did last week regarding the public option.
I call that Obama’s “Duck Soup defense,” on account of Chico Marx’s great line to Groucho: “Who are you going to believe, me or you’re lying eyes?”
We need a network, but before we go there, let’s explore the issue of Jane’s joining with Norquist. It helps to see it as a conflict between individual and group. It helps. Norquist emphasizes the individual. He has his and he sees no reason the group help others, no safety nets, no regulation of individual greed. Progressives see the group as obliged to help individuals and curb individual action when it damages the group (ie pollution, zoning etc.)
A problem arises when someone like Jane who may be perceived as representing FDL does something controversial as join Norquist. She has every right to do what she wants. It is her representative capacity that’s the problem, like Moveon with the Betrayus ad. Their executive committee decided and everyone was forced to go along.
Perhaps, Jane approving since this is her soap box, we might try electronic democracy here where individual members of the community discuss and vote on something like joining with Norquist. If we create democracy here, perhaps we can use the experience to create democracy (or democracies) elsewhere.
Moved up to next thread.
thanks. it’s not i like our exchanges (although there are some very good things — it’s just that there are no cost controls. if you want the gory details of what that means you can read my comments at EW).
a couple of the things that are better about the MA exchanges: reproductive healthcare is covered. instead of adding to medicaid, low income people get to use the subsidized exchange (i’m told better provider access because they have better reimbursement rates).
we also have somewhat decent regulations (we have modified community rating and no pre-existing exclusion, etc BEFORE the 2006 reform). both the house and senate bills may undermine that.
the absolutely most important thing, imo, is that whatever comes out of congress can not undermine the state based single payer efforts. if that happens then we are in very big trouble.
thanks.
Damn that tree of knowledge!!!
If only we would follow The One blindly, we wouldn’t be pestered with things like ambiguity or uncertainty.
Let alone sin and infidels.
Or damnation.
True. But they don’t call the weakest minds dittoheads for nothing.
They’re everywhere…..
This is a sad day in american history when three Democrat Senators can hold the entire country and legislature “hostage” to their demands.
The three snakes are Blanche Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson. We will drive them from office for this.
But we learned the lessons of overt hypocrisy and lying in your face from the masters: Bush and his co-conspirators in the GOP.
With liberals so willing to put those same blinders back on, there is little hope that any kind of progressive base movement will occur. Some of us have so overdosed on the kool-aid that we’ve bought the bull hook, line and sinker. Then there are those of us who absolutely refuse to fall into liberal lockstep…..To me – to NOT question and to simply blindly pledge allegiance to now-known lies and defrauding during the campaign is tantamount to being duped and asking for more.
Perhaps some of us have forgotten the horrendous lessons of George W. Bush?
The whole issue of Norquist is way overblown, painfully so. Emmanuel’s corrupt bankster activities, and their coverup by the administration are the issue. Please avoid clutching pearls.
Well, at least you finally told us who you are. Now go away,we get enuff of this bullcrap everyday without the likes of you coming here to bother us and take up our thread time time to educate you away from your “it’s all about me” greed meme.
If these Republi-Dems in the Senate hold this bill hostage by threats, then they will personally insure Obama’s fall from grace. There is NO WAY Obama will save face once the american people realize that this is a HUGE corporate giveaway with a few reforms thrown in because liberals screamed to Harry Reid about it.
If this passes “as is”, the Democratic Party will soon be no more – with major losses in 2010 and 2012. Obama will be a one term president.
People are angry about the Pharma Backdoor deal and once they smell a rat in what’s in this bill for Big Insurance, there will be no base left for either party.
Amen! We never expected miracles. What we expected was someone who told us he would fight for the people and champion real healthcare reform with a public option.
If that was a miracle then he should have never made it sound like a reality.
Jane is free to do whatever she likes. I don’t see her as speaking for me. It’s just that I usually agree with her.
Alliances with potential enemies are how one wins wars. It’s how we defeated Hitler for example. The fact of the matter is that the Western front was simply a holding acton, and there were five times as many troops committed on the Eastern front. (And please don’t anyone accuse me of comparing Obama to Hitler when I give this example of the effectiveness of alliances with rivals. I’m not.)
Here is an interesting Dkos diary on the shifting political landscapt in the U.S., based on a Glenzilla article, that is currently on the rec list at Dkos:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/26/819341/-Corporatism
Go help out Andiamo over at Orange — tip his diary — he’s run into a buzzsaw…
You are inaccurate about the progressive voice being neutralized; in fact, there appears to be a quite minute minority of Obama supporters out there who do NOT feel duped and lied to.
If, as you claim, we’re expecting “miracles” then what the hell was he spewing on the campaign trail?? Miracles?? In fact, at every campaign stop his loudest applause and appeal was for real healthcare reform with a public option and he educated everyone along the way about how and why a public option was “pivotal” in bringing competition to the monopoly.
So, if we are accused of wishing for “miracles” you can go right back to the horse’s mouth who then was nothing more than a miracle-expecting charlatan and not a realist.
Trying to remember him saying anything at all that did not turn out to be a lie…
I applaud Jane for remaining true to her convictions and having the integrity of character to speak truth to power. If we fail to do this, we have no one to blame but ourselves when we find ourselves duped by the people whom we’ve trusted.
As for her pallin around with anyone, who cares? I have family members who are Republican. It’s really none of anyone’s business, is it?
I think you’ll find they were just enablers for Obama’s agenda. Lieberman provided the cover he was looking for. Obama could have used reconciliation, could have twisted arms, campaigned in CT against Lieberman, stared down the Blue Dogs. He didn’t want that. He isn’t lying when he says he got 95% of what he wanted. If fact that’s just false modesty. I think he got precisely what he wanted.
“In reality nobody in the political class works together, because anyone who dares say so is a ‘conspiracy theorist.’” Is this what you’re arguing here?
Please go rec up Andiamo’s diary, save it from the hidden comments section.
Yeah, I suppose it’s like Mickey Knox paying his respects to Charles Mansion: “It’s pretty hard to top the King”.
Really? Who is primarying these politicians, and what are their poll numbers?
The unkindest cut of all. He played us like Rubes, it was shameful how easily & totally we were suckered. I can’t believe he thinks his club membership will outlast Dems control of Congress. At least Clarence got a lifetime membership!
This is super-important.
Reconciliation
Breaking the term down to its component parts:
re — a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion
con — –adjective 1. involving abuse of confidence: a con trick. –verb (used with object) 2. to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings. 3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
–noun 4. a confidence game or swindle. 5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk
silly –adjective 1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish: a silly writer. 2. absurd; ridiculous; irrational: a silly idea. 3. stunned; dazed: He knocked me silly.
ation a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives
It’s simple when you have your corporate oligarchy decoder switched on.
I think the analogy would be to having government require every citizen to purchase automobile insurance…whether you had an automobile, or drove, at all. One could certainly make the case that this would reduce the premiums on automobile insurance, and reduce the numbers of those that lacked insurance (greater coverage). But it would be unlikely to stand up to Constitutional grounds.
For one thing each individual so required to pay for such mandatory auto insurance would be able to challenge it on the grounds that it was an “illegal taking” of property. Even under Kelso the state entity has to defend the individual acts of “public interest” in court filings before a judge, who weighs such balancing interests. The situation is thus deemed to be weighed on individual circumstances. This bill treats everyone as a collective, not requiring an individual weighing of interests.
Again, in the case of automobile insurance those who DRIVE are deemed to present a potential risk to others (far greater than, say, those on a bicycle or pedestrians). Thus this “risk to others” is the outstanding public interest. The insurance is thus “liability insurance”. The law does not require one have insurance to repair ones own vehicle or pay for ones own health expenses, although these are often included.
nice, very nice.
Instant gratification takes too long.
I am beyond sick of the red herring “required auto insurance” fallacious analogy. And, anyone proposing that you must have it “whether you had an automobile, or drove, at all” would be laughed off the continent.
CANDIDATE Obama claimed health care to be a “right” (see debate w/McCain). But, PRESIDENT Obama subsequently irritably resorted to the “auto insurance” canard (see ABC interview with George Stephanopolous), confusing a “right” with a “responsibility.”
One more important point that is missed by those who agree with the filibuster rule regulating every vote. The Constitution specifically states
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
So this naturally assumes, and is implicit within the Constitution, that a simple majority should decide votes on legislation. This is not a 60-40 rule…it’s 50-50.
It’s also very unclear that a reconciled bill would need to require cloture to be voted upon. It would seem to me that it would automatically pass to the floor to be voted upon after reconciliation with the House. It’s an amended bill, and amended under the Senate Rules under the Committee process, AFTER the passage of the bill, and Amendments only require a 50% vote to pass.
Good, then you agree with that comment, and most of us.
done at your request.
Do those come in crackerjack boxes? I need one.
Article I, Section 5, paragraph 2:
“Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
Hence, frustratingly, filibusters, cloture, etc.
Health care is (or should be) a right…but I don’t see that Health Insurance is a “right”.
We are talking about the issue of whether or not the Courts will allow the Government to impose a mandatory Health Insurance plan for all Americans, whether they want one or not, and whether they would pose any liability on others if they did not have one. Thus the analogy is perfect. Can the government impose mandatory Health insurance plans on those that do not want them, who would not use them, and impose fines on those that didn’t purchase one.
If they can impose fines, then it seems to me that they could impose the same requirement on every form of insurance. For example, they could require everyone obtain homeowners insurance, earthquake insurance (even those outside of earthquake zones who believe their “risk is low”), fire insurance, etc.
And if they can impose fines (and these would be collected from one’s taxes- dunned as it were- since the government has assured the insurance companies that it would use these to coerce citizens)…then it’s likely that “scofflaws” could be sent to jail, as well. Or other aspects of their property could be taken as liens against the “fine”.
I think that the Courts will look very carefully at these mandatory requirements, since they are not specific to any potential liability or risks that the individuals have towards others. In fact, the fines are actually targeted at those who are the most healthy individuals specifically because they would be unlikely to use their insurance.
Thus it would be like imposing fines on pedestrians who do not drive for not purchasing automobile insurance…”because if the pedestrians don’t buy it the costs of the policies will be higher”. In other words pedestrians (the young and healthy currently uninsured) are, quite explicitly, being compelled to purchase insurance to subsidize the dangerous drivers (the individuals with serious health problems). And all of this coercion being directed to private entities.
You don’t need one, Jane — you are one. Take that as an acknowledgement, not just a compliment.
So could a “rule” take away the established Constitutional role of the Vice President? It’s clear that by requiring cloture on both debate, and the actual vote on Amendments and Laws that it has, in fact, done so. In this case it’s overstepped it’s Constitutional bounds. The Senate can pass Constitutional Rules, but not those that violate the Constitution itself…which clearly holds that votes on Laws must be based on simple majorities.
It would be like passing a rule that says the Senate can consist of twenty Senators from some states and only one from another.
Or a majority party expecting major losses in the next election requiring that approval by the minority party is necessary to pass any new law, including that of changing this rule…
…oh wait, that’s what apparently they are interpreting cloture as meaning.
With you all the way there.
“If they can impose fines, then it seems to me that they could impose the same requirement on every form of insurance. For example, they could require everyone obtain homeowners insurance, earthquake insurance (even those outside of earthquake zones who believe their “risk is low”), fire insurance, etc”
Yep. Took the words right outa my keyboard.
As to the notion of health care as a “right,” I wrote on my blog:
Declaring something to be a “right” in no way mandates that it be either “free” or unlimited. Taxes are the proper mechanism to provide for it, not requiring that citizens purchase it from the for-profit sector.
No, paragraph 2 only speaks to rules of congressional proceedings, not to membership within the bodies, c’mon, that could not be more clear. Notwithstanding, within that, they have broad latitude. If the Senate wanted to require 90 votes for cloture, nothing the the Constitution stops them.
BTW, I like this point you made, re the VP:
“It’s clear that by requiring cloture on both debate, and the actual vote on Amendments and Laws that it has, in fact, done so.”
Interesting.
Jane,
Thanks for your work – judging by the screaming here and other places, this is more shit storm. Good. Shit storms to bust the status quo are good. The current status quo is the proverbial road to hell paved with good intentions. We need to jack hammer the road up and re-pave.
Jane Lieberman will take the credit if anything good happens with the final bill and will use it as an example of how sleeping with the enemy is what all should be doing. If it’s a bad bill, she’ll call Karl Rove, Dick Armey, and Sean Hannity for a date. See?
BTW:
Where is that explicitly (“clearly”) stated in the Consitution? I missed that part. Just asking.
Closest I see is the “yeas and nays” thingy in Section 7, paragraph 2. Simple majority, while perhaps implicit, is not alluded to with specificity. Senate Standing Rules XII (Voting Procedure) is likewise silent.
Kay, I am puzzled by your recent turn.
Is it possible that a long-time reader and commenter here can’t wait for this to play out?
Disagree, sure. Loudly? Me too, sometimes.
But pissed as Hell? I don’t get it.
If KayinMaine didn’t exist, someone would have to invent her…
As someone who was told by a staffer for his member of the House (Woolsey, D. CA 6th) that I must stop calling and emailing because that worthy had her mind made up, knew what was best for the electorate, and neither needed nor wanted opposing views, I could have told you that any hint of representation was dead at least 6 years ago. About the same time I was told almost exactly the same thing by someone in the office of Babs Boxer (Senator, D-CA).
My congresswoman is Dina Titus (D-NV). After I’d pressed my case on HCR repeatedly and in detail with her, her staffers though it’d be cool to send me formal written reply letters via USPS on topics wholly unrelated, stuff which I’d never brought up.
Basically flipping me the bird.
might be true, I don’t live in Europe, I happen to live in America where the discussion is taking place, using the language and it’s inferences from the discussion, NOT from some other land where words have different meanings then they do where we hare having the discussion
of course we’re progressives, you’re just being deliberately argumentative, actually using a definition from another country to claim some new meaning for the worked here
pedestrian at best, I can’t even say “nice try”
you can draw that bizarre conclussion if you want, you might even try to claim it’s “obvious” again using the very pedestrian, “Im rubber and you’re glue” tactic of a child
all I can say is, “keep trying” you might get something right sooner or later
The Constitution flows politically, philosophically from the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment itself is a manifestation of the historical transition from feudalism into mercantilism into full blown capitalism.
Some like to think of the document as though it literally conveys the “natural rights” of men and women.
But there are no natural rights. There are only the inherently problematic rights of particular individuals and communities codified into laws at particular historical junctures. And of course laws that either are or are not enforced.
And more than anything else laws reflect the interests of the rich and the powerful. The propertied class. The tiny percentage of the population that earn the most income and [by far] have accummulated the most wealth.
It is only the extent to which a growing and prosperous middle class exists that this will trickle down to the rest of us.
Indeed, that is the concern of many these days. That the middle class is shrinking. And that’s scary [again, for some] in the way Jedediah Lelend tried to explain unions and workers amassing in the streets to Charles Foster Kane.
And that’s particularly scary today because it appears to be BeckWorld that is organizing them. Not us.
I wish I could offer the same observation for you, sadly, no…sorry
those who call clearly accurate obervations “conspiricies” as if the word “conspiricie” is an argument in itself are again, trying to game the conversation
keep at it noen, you’re not getting better yet but I think you might given time
Daily Kos . Your guy Obamarahm is all about bipartisanship? How do you reconcile that with the anger for Jane showing bipartisanship? Hypocrisy is so unbecoming.
Kay in Maine …a treasure.
Landrieu will be easy . In her home state , the right and the left are angry. Don’t think she is dong enough.
For a House member it is “you and 160,000 of your closest friends in your district”. It’s that other 160,000 that is the problem. Nobody seems to want to put in the effort to mobilize them.
And if you are talking about anyone but Burr, Hagan, and my Congresscritter, I have not control of their election at all.
Abstractions hide the dirty nitty-gritty hard work required.
Yep. I have since moved, and my rep is now Thompson (D-CA 1st), who is marginally better.
I’ve had email responses from Feinstein in which the staffer sent me both the “thank you for supporting me on this issue” and the “we must agree to disagree on this issue” form letters.
Just noticed that commenter noen is an FDL semi-regular and that he/she is not that different in thought…
Talk about prescience! So it is now officially OK to talk about your point of view here even if the future has yet to arrive.
Phew, glad that’s settled! Now back to the discussion…
I sent my Rep a paragraph and the title of Jane’s article above. I hope he’ll have spine enough not to bow down to the Senate. We need a commercial on tv abt the Senate making the House impotent. How come were not out protesting? That’s why the tea baggers get attention.
Jane is right.
It is Obama who is teaming up with the corporates to destroy democracy. Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman represent little except their own personal ambitions and sicknesses. They were bought out years before. Any situation where these two with no personal following manage to turn health reform into health deform has no shred of democracy.
The Constitution makes the House and Senate partners. The constitution has no requirement that 60 votes are needed to pass any legislation.
The Constitution has nothing to do with those two bullies. They need to be dragged into the Senate cloak room and given a bloody nose or an adult equivalent. The school bullies are ruining the country and will ruin it for the next 40 years if they are not confronted. So confront these two and rein them in.
Nelson already ruined the stimulus bill. We have a jobless “recovery.” Ben Nelson and Susan Collins are the biggest villain followed by weak-kneed Obama. Now, with Obama’s connivance, he’s at it again. Free Medicaid for Nebraska for 10 years and he’s still got to ruin the rest.
Asw for Blanche Lincoln, she’s owned by Wal-Mart and will likely be defeated in less than a year. She’s just staring her lobbyist career early. POS. All of em.
The first thing I would strike, the sweetheart deals for Landrieu and Nelson. And I would let the press know.
President
ChamberlainObama could send Rahm over totwist armsnegotiate all he wants.It’s so frustrating… I’m a primary care doctor and I have lots of ideas about the bills, and I can’t even get my rep’s office to return a call requesting a meeting, much less set up a meeting. I would settle for a higher-up legislative aide and can’t even get that. I’ve had more luck getting meetings in DC, but I should be able to talk to my representative where I live