Anthony Weiner is saying that if Martha Coakley loses today, health care is dead. But Eugene Robinson says the White House is going to fix the bill by getting tough with corporations.
While Howard Fineman is reporting that Congressional “groupthink” just wants health care to go away, as Weiner says, the reality should be closer to Robinson’s predictions. The Democrats can’t just walk away from the signature issue they’ve devoted so much energy to, nor can they pass a giant giveaway to the insurance companies and PhRMA without huge electoral consequences.
So what option do they have to fix the health care bill that doesn’t require 60 votes in the Senate?
Well, Chris Van Hollen is now using the “R” word — reconciliation. It’s interesting that the head of the DCCC, whose job it is to get Democrats elected in 2010, is the one who recognizes the need to rescue the health care bill from the Senate corporatists like Joe Lieberman who would take the entire party down to give Aetna a big payday. Win-win for him, really.
What would “Sidecar” Reconciliation look like?
Jon Walker sketched it out:
Passing the Senate bill first, and then fixing it with reconciliation, could also create strong political and policy pressure for reviving the public option or Medicare buy-in. Probably the only way they could jam the Senate bill “as is” through the House would be to get labor on board. To get labor, you need to promise to fix the excise tax, and probably the only way to do that is by using reconciliation. The unions agreed to a “fix” of the excise tax that would cost $60 billion. That money needs to be recouped through other tax increases or cost-cutting measures. Even a weak, “level playing field” public option would save $25 billion, and increasing Medicaid from 133% to 150% FPL should save another several billion.
The steps to get through “sidecar” reconciliation:
- House passes the Senate bill
- House and Senate pass a “fix” to the excise tax that they’ve negotiated
- Find a way to pay for the “fix,” which costs $60 billion. The best way to pay for it without raising taxes means putting in a public option, expanding Medicare, passing Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment, or some combination of the above.
- House and Senate then pass the “fix” through reconciliation, which requires a simple majority. 51 Senators have said they’d vote for Schumer’s “level playing field” public option, while 51 voted for Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment.
The alternative to paying for the excise tax “fix” with any of these is to raise taxes. Let’s see them try and sell that.
Why would anyone trust that Congress would make this fix after passing the Senate bill?
The adminisration has made such a big deal about how their “fix” of the excise tax helps the middle class, they’d suffer even MORE damage if they reneged. And the unions would — quite rightly — go apeshit (or face a rebellion within their own ranks) if they didn’t.
Even Republicans like John Shadegg have been running around saying the public option is a superior outcome to the current bill, which simply forces people to buy insurance from the companies who created this problem in the first place. As we’ve seen in polling in both Vic Snyder and Steve Driehaus’s districts, that’s a wildly unpopular concept.
How long would “sidecar” reconciliation take?
Theoretically, it could happen quickly in the Senate, since the underlying bill has already passed. The Finance and HELP committees would probably have to approve, and then it could go to the floor for a vote.
None of this, by the way, is a function of what happens to day in Massachusetts. It can — and should – happen regardless of what happens with the Coakley/Brown election in Massachusetts today. The Democrats have a huge perception problem that the health care bill is just the bank bailout extended to the insurance companies, and they need to fix it if they want to turn the ship around before the 2010 elections.




226 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
I just came back from voting in a small, politically-aware, educated town not far out of Boston, and turn-out is as good as a presidential election.
I hope you’re right, Jane, but I fear ObamaRama doesn’t have the collective intestinal fortitude to take such an aggressive approach. O gave good lip service to being tough on corporations on the campaign stump for Coakley, but as soon as the polls close tonight, I think he and Rahm will go back to loving that corporate fat cat money. My take: the insurance companies are the winners today. The rest of us lose.
Jane, Two points I’d like to hear your thoughts on. Clearly, Obama wanted just what the Senate delivered. Do you think he’s likely to fess up & FINALLY deliver what people want over what PHARMA wants? My guess is, not without a REAL fight. Second, what’s the chance Dorgan’s Amendment can be reintroduced back into the discussion. If there’s one item in HCR that would be inexcusable to let die, it’s drug importation.
I agree with your analysis. The only thing I would say though is if Coakley wins there is no shot at reconcilliation or a publilc option. The Democrats just want this off the table even if it means election suicide for some of them.
I still don’t beleive that the democrats actually want a public option or single payer. They would have given Kucinich’s amendment to allow states the freedom to install a single payer system a vote if they did. All the democrats used to give lip service to progressive ideas now half of them don’t even bother with that.
Best case scenario is that we get some watered down piece of sh!! public option, that will eventually fail because it won’t be funded and won’t be big enough.
Hope I am wrong
.
I don’t really take stock in meaningless votes made by democrats when they know there is no chance of the bill actually passing. Reid and Pelosi let some of the Democrats off the hook when they know the bill is going to fail or pass. When the rubber hits the road they won’t cast votes in our favor.
Actually Jane, its not necessary to pass the Senate bill first. The House can take it up anytime before the end of the current Congress (that is, the end of this year). The House and Senate can start working out the terms of the budget reconciliation bill and once the Senate has voted to pass it, the House can vote to approve the reconciliation bill and the Senate healthcare bill on the same day.
Why on Earth would anyone in the House trust the Senate and the White House not to screw them over on the reconciliation bill if they’re suckered in to vote for the Senate healthcare bill now and work out the terms of the reconciliation bill later? After all, a sidecar rides next to the motorcycle not behind it.
“Charlie, meet mr Ball”
Unless this bill has Free Health Care for everyone in the US, than it’s just welfare for health care corp.
I wonder what Grover Norquist and the teaparty think about this. Do you think they will get on board for a public option?
Has anyone gamed out a decisive Coakley win? I know conventional wisdom is it will be tight, or she’ll lose outright. But what if that’s not the case? My view from afar sees very shallow Brown support, being ginned up by supporters being brought in from out-of-state (as well as typical corporate media GOP coverage). Having “independent contractors” and temp workers staffing your campaign is not a sign of deep support.
Or I could be completely wrong, and New England will once again foist another assclown on this nation.
It’s interesting that the head of the DCCC, whose job it is to get Democrats elected in 2010, is the one who recognizes the need to rescue the health care bill from the Senate corporatists like Joe Lieberman who would take the entire party down to give Aetna a big payday.
I think its more than interesting he went public with this he defied Rahm to say something the Dem Party bosses don’t want said. He obviously felt he had to say this to save the Dems from loss in November.
Very interesting idea- It just might work!
Who does high turnout help?
my guess would be that Grover much prefers Obama’s sell out to Pharma and Big Insuramce, than a PO.
If Obama says he will do something,
he won’t.
Until further notice.
Jane, I think you’re missing a step between 1 and 2.
Once the House passes the Senate bill, it goes to Obama’s desk for his signature and IT BECOMES LAW.
That fact changes the legislative landscape dramatically, and not for the better.
Once the Senate bill becomes law, all the discussions of a “fix” involve either the filing of a new bill or amending other items already before Congress. But make no mistake: the process you are sketching out involves the House accepting the Senate’s bill as is and adopting a major law now, and then immediately going to work in the HOPE of fixing it.
There will be lots of pressure to simply leave the law alone and come back to it later — and the later the later, the happier a lot of people will be. The GOP will be more than happy to delay, derail, and otherwise obstruct all the progress to fix it, and PhRMA and the rest of the Baucus Caucus will be happy to oblige them.
“let me be perfectly clear…” /s
Good points a surprise strong showing from Coakley could show Obama has support and the Net Roots don’t matter this could all be a set up from the get go for us and the GOP.
Overly rosy, imwo. Obama getting “rhetorically tough” now, according to Politico’s unnamed WH source. My guess is they mean rhetorically tough on progressive caucus in house. beat up the liberals, pass the bill with the minimal fix you mention in step 2, and they’re done. no public option, no dorgan amd.
What about the 60 billion, you ask? –they blame that on Bush. It’s all the rage now, you know.
Obama’s whole approach to healthcare has been premised on deals with the insurance, drug, and medical industries. To take them on now would mean scrapping everything he has gotten to this point, and I don’t see that happening or him doing it.
If the House passes the Senate bill, that’s essentially it. Game over. Might there be some deal to fix the bill as suggested here? It’s possible, but unlikely. It would drag out the process further and the Democrats, especially their leadership want to end this. As for the fix, it would likely evaporate somewhere in committee or be procedurally sidetracked into oblivion. It probably doesn’t matter anyway because what voters will remember is the main bill, not some mild fixes to it later.
So if Coakley wins I get McCain’s health care bill and if Coakley loses there is a chance I won’t.
Whre is the down side to Coakley losing?
Trusting any of this bunch of promise-breaking liars on anything would be insanity.
I remember in 1994 I went to Europe after graduation thinking the health care plan Clinton was pushing was a slam dunk. The Democrats all wanted it the polls said people wanted it. Yet in two months time it was dead. It died because the insurance and pharma pulled out all the stops and killed it. Then the right wingers jumped on and took the House.
Earlier last year 65% of the public wanted a public option according to several polls. Now a majority are opposed to the current plan. The right with the help of many impatient progressives have turned the tide against any reform. Progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Rush Feingold said lets vote this through and repair it next year – but that wasn’t good enough for the purists. Now we face a similar situation to 1994.
Lets hope that enough will see the light and get this done. When a teaparty right wing anti-feminine anti-rights bigot get elected in MA, I fear we are in deep poop.
Sorry, but we’ve been talking about this for months about how the “fix it later” approach doesn’t work. If they’re willing to reform healthcare reform later, then they can do it now by FIRST using reconciliation to get the good stuff and then and only then passing the Senate bill. Seeing how backroom corporatist dealings killed the Dorgan amendment, I have no trust when they say “trust us” if we give them what they want first and they promise to fix it sometime in the future. If the Senate bill was passed, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear the same things all over again about how impotent Obama is and how we gotta go along with whatever politician is holding out (who happens to be controlled by Obama). It wouldn’t surprise me in the least for this deal to go in defeat due to corporatist backroom deals and then having the corporatists use this as their midterm rallying cry to elect more of them to office with claims that if they only had 80 senators that they’d fix things.
“Change has Crumb to America.”
President-elect Barack Obama.
because they are stupid and refuse to look at one long record of destroying efforts for a good bill in the first place.
Thanks Jane.
It would be nice to see the share price of the health care cartel head south.
“Once the House passes the Senate bill, it goes to Obama’s desk for his signature and IT BECOMES LAW.”
Precisely. Dollars to donuts it will be when the Senate bill passes (rather than the only steps) that Obama declares victory and then all sorts of roadblocks are put up into actually carrying out the deal…like gosh, they wont let a crisis go to waste even if they have to invent one. Under no circumstances should a bad bill be passed in exchange for promises of getting a good bill later on. Once you’ve lost your leverage, you’re toast.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Oh my, bless your pure heart Sister Jane but whatever has possesed you to think that the corporatists in the White House who have created this incredible mess on behalf of the insurance industry and the political lunatic fringe, will now change their politics and self-interest and make the system work for the people of the country??!!! I have found you to be one the the clearest political analysts and effective activists in my lifetime but, woman what makes you think that Rahm Capone Emmanuel and Barak Clinton Obama would use reconcilliation to “fix” a bill they worked so hard to create for their corporate masters??!!
No Citizen Hamsher, I am through waiting for the conman I voted for to do right by the people or even his own party…it’s time to put a mortal wound on the man who would destroy the Democratic Party, take our lumps at the polls next November and make ObamaRahma understand that the Democratic Party is larger and stronger than the corporatist Potemkin that has defined it for nearly 20 years. If I thought that Obama was capable of doing the right thing and puttin’ the public option back in through reconcilliation then I’d be in the street helpin to rally the troops for it but, Dear Heart, Obama ain’t stupid so why would he shit on his corporate masters just at the moment he’s won the field for ‘em??!!
So kill the fuckin bill and let the people sort out who is to blame at the polls! And get Howard Dean back in charge of the DNC!!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND LET THE PEOPLE SORT IT OUT!!!
the ignoring of single payer is very similar to what’s happening in washington state this year – one house of our state congress has a bill to legalize marijuana, and it has over 50% support according to polls, and yet no politicians want to touch it. Why? because they’d lose out on pharma money from pain meds, the jails and cops would get less work, etc.
this country needs an enema that abolishes all business over 50 employees or something
the Audacity of the Hype!
I certainly agree!! But I’d like to see someone try to explain to me why I’m wrong to think that. What evidence is there that that any of these folks actually care about what the people want versus what their party insists they do?
Why do we have to vote a bill that taxes the middle class more and makes them buy health insurance they can’t afford? Is that reform? Why don’t we fix it now? What makes you think we will be able to fix it next year after the democrats loose a ton of seats in November?
I doubt it will get fixed next year is an election year with the GOP all set to run against the government forcing people to buy healthcare.
Nothing will get done until after the election.
I wonder if Obama’s really proud of spending months chasing Olympia Snowe’s unobtainable vote for HCR. Today’s election certainly brings that whole bipartisanship foolishness into focus.
Bingo.
Citizen asdfl:
“This country needs and enema that abolishes all business over 50 empoyees …”
And criminalizes banks and credit card companies!
Off-topic to a degree: The American Association of University Women, now know solely as AAUW, has sent out a second email to its 100,000 members asking them to contact their senators about Obama’s Social Security and Medicare commission proposal that will keep Congress from being able to do anything but an up or down vote on the commission’s proposals.
The highlighted part of the message stated: Debate on this proposal is set to begin on the Senate floor as early as tomorrow, so AAUW and coalition partners are joining forces and calling on our members to flood Senate offices with calls today opposing this undemocratic, entitlement-cutting commission.
I guess Obama wants to get every women’s group mad at him and the Congress.
Can anyone explain to me just why people seem to get so excited about drug reimportation? I can’t see why supporters feel the pharma industry would go along with it. Here is how I would see the scenario playing out if re-importation were legal
1. The pharma companies control the production and distribution of the drugs.
2. the pharma companies know how much supply of each drug is needed in Canada (for instance) to supply the needs of Canadians.
3. the pharma companies are under no obligation to ship more drugs than necessary into Canada to support re-importation back into the US. And, it would be rather stupid of them to do it.
4. If Canadian pharmacies were to export enough drugs back to the US to affect the supply of those drugs for Canadian citizens, then the Canadian Govermant would quickly change their laws and ban the export of drugs to the US
Thanks for that. I was wondering the same thing. Why the hell would anyone trust this congress to revisit healthcare through reconciliation AFTER the Senate bill passes. If they can pass them concurrently, then that would work but if they have to do reconciliation after, then I would suggest killing the Senate bill outright and starting over with reconciliation and a blank slate. Yeah, I know. Never gonna happen.
So if Coakly loses, it is because God wants American’s to have the public option?
Since I experienced no earthquake or hurricane after reading your comment… you must be right.
The drug companies are not going to give up their profits by denying a sale to Canada. Even if they don’t get as high a profit as they do in the US they still make a profit in Canada.
It is not that easy to ban exports. A new law would need to be passed in Canada.
Right. They have no honor.
Sen. Brown.
Somehow, I can’t see this crowd salvaging health insurance reform…
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards
But hey….prove me wrong, Democrats!
I think you’re quite right.
Plus, the drug companies accept the Canadian cram down in prices ONLY because they make huge profit in the US.
The day re-importation becomes legal is the day prices around the world go UP.
What we really want is the prices Canada pays for drugs. You are right the drug companies can game the system we should be asking why the same drugs from the same companies sell for cheaper to Canada.
Or when we talk to the GOP why do Mexicans get to pay less for drugs than Americans do? Turning the GOP hate on big business :) yes!
abandon the free market fig leaf? I don’t think so.
What can he do? It will be a lot easier to vote out some wingnut republican in two years than some corporate democrat. See Sen. Gillibrand in New York.
“But Eugene Robinson says the White House is going to fix the bill by getting tough with corporations”
Shall I hold my O’Breath?
Or wait for the empty O’Rhetoric?
In some alternate reality posts and comments on a few progressives sites like FDL actually determine policy decisions for Congress. In the real world lobbyists and the MSM to that job. I’m not so deluded as to think that whatever disappointments are expressed here have any effect on national policy. If you don’t like the current outcome blame the people that actually implement and influence policy with the roles of authority and money.
Progressives, few though they may be in comparison to the population at large, use this site for brainstorming and venting. We are viewers of the grand lobbyist and political theater in DC not it’s authors. Too bad, but that’s reality for you.
If you think things are going wrong look elsewhere for the cause.
the drug companies will NOT sell more drugs into the Canadian market than necessary when they KNOW ultimately that it would be replacing a more profitable sale in the US.
In order for your scenario to make sense, you would have to believe that a US customer not being able to buy from Canada would not ultimately buy in the US.
Trust me on this I used to work for a pharma company. They know EXACTLY how much product they need to distribute into every market to handle the needs of that market.
So after being told for months that we had to accept crappy HCR because we needed 60 Senate votes, now they’re going to turn around and do it with 51? This is bullshit and I’ll tell you what’s really going on here.
See, the 60 vote threshold was set up to enable the fat cats to whore the bill down to their liking, to turn it into Tauzincare. Once the whored down version was written, the priority becomes getting it passed. So, as the spring follows the winter, the threshold suddenly gets lowered to 51.
I’ve seen this kabuki bullshit so many times. And you people wonder why 4 out of 10 voters are independents and hate both of our 2 phoney political parties.
This presumes that this administration puts a premium on its own sustainability and that it gives a shit about its core constituencies, women, labor, LGBT, etc.
Prices can’t go up around the world because the Drug companies have to actually prove the costs to the Government before they can raise the prices in most countries. It works a lot like utility companies here where you have a monopoly but with controls.
Sidecar? They’re going to get tough with those corporations? Like this?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/15-10
If Mass has to endure another republican idiot because of sellouts like Coakley, that’s too bad.
If that were the case the drug companies wouldn’t care so much.
Obama’s leadership potential can never be realized as long as Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, and Emmanuel are still there.
People can smell a con a mile away.
It is not a perception problem, the bailout is the central concept of the bill.
How could anyone trust the Obama on this? They seem willing to sacrifice the whole Democratic party to get their W.
Can Bernie’s $10 Billion for community health centers be passed in it’s own bill, using reconciliation?
What is good about the Senate bill that cannot be passed through reconciliation.
Obama has already shown he is willing to gamble, if not outright give away many congressional seats. Why would this change after passing the Senate bill he always wanted?
so why did they fight drug reimportation so hard?
Even for your argument to have any validity then Canada would have to pass a law to disallow drug exports and that will not happen. Why would a person in the US pay more for a drug that they can buy over the internet for a tenth of the cost?
such an easy question… The reason drugs are cheaper in Canada than in the US is because the Canadian government sets price controls on the pharma products. The US government refuses to do the same.
The pharma industry isn’t bothered by the price controls set in Canada because the Canadian market is so small compared to the US market.
The US market and any other market around the world without price controls is subsidizing the markets around the world that do have government price controls. It’s as simple as that.
Americans are paying unresonably HIGH prices for drugs because Canadians, French etc are paying unreasonably LOW prices for drugs.
Why at this point should anyone believe Dems have the guts, the sincere desire, or the intelligence to do the right thing?
Obama’s Coakley campaign appearance was a preview of the Dem midterm strategy. Spin baby, spin. Dems are the greatest gift to populism since Jesus, or so they would have us believe.
I won’t argue that, but that just brings it back to “Why don’t we do that instead if the gimmic of re-importation?”
It’s like complaining that food prices at the local supermarket are too high, so let’s get them to buy from Wal-Mart across town because Wal-Mart’s negotiated lower prices from the same suppliers.
The US has as much negotiating power as Canada, it’s just that the US government doesn’t have the stones to do it.
I don’t see how shipping drugs to foreign countries and then re-importing them back is a very efficient system.
We are not subsidizing the drugs in Canada that is such a myth created by the drug companies. See my earlier post 57. Don’t kid yourself they still make a profit in Canada.
Correction, Americans are paying unreasonably high prices for drugs because Big PHrMA has us by the balls.
Rahmbama’s predicament is whether to lose popular support or the support of Wall St, Pharma, the insurance companies, and with them the media.
Given that they have already done so much to damage their popular support, they would be hard pressed to put their faith in a disgruntled populace to support them in the face of what would be constant negative media attention.
God damn them for willingly getting into this predicament, if it even is one in their eyes.
I think Canada would pass a law to ban exports if the drug companies didn’t ship enough drugs into Canada to allow for all the exports back to the US.
If Canadian citizens couldn’t buy drugs for their own use because of a shortage caused by exports back into the US, the citizens would be up in arms demanding that their government stop the exports to the US.
The Canadians and their centralized price controls and death panels disguised as actuarial tables. The gall (gaul?) of those people worrying about themselves when there are corporate profits to be made.
This is all a lovely, rosey scenario; but hell will freeze over before this will ever happen.
First of all the white house would have to grow a pair, then tell big insurance and big pharma and their lobbyists to go fuck themselves and then the self-serving jackasses on capitol hill would have to follow suit.
I think I’ll have better luck waiting for a unicorn to show up on my front porch with a health insurnce policy in it’s mouth.
So we set price controls.
The real secret to Health Care Reform is for the govt. to control prices. They don’t have to take over the delivery of health care or even the insurance. They only need to limit health insurance premiums, drug prices, hospital charges, and doctor bills.
That’s what the French and Germans do and they get very good results without much political bullshit.
The Dems will never fix this Bill. They have crafted the Bill that they wanted all along.
jane, doesn’t this require too much faith from progressive congressman who are not on board because of this issue
how are they to get a guarantee their concerns are addressed during reconciliation
Are you kiddig me? That is your argument. The Canadians are up in Arms because they are shipping drugs to the united states and making a profit? No they wouldn’t be up in arms because the drug companies are holding back in producing enough drugs to sell to both. Please be realistic!
Or, there would be an international backlash to a perceived effort by the industry to ration pharmaceuticals.
that’s counter intuitive, the smaller the market the higher profit margin necessary, not lower
the reason they don’t mind is because they have no choice, if they had an oportunity to get the “no bulk buying deal” bush and now obama gave them they would jump at the opportunity
I agree completely except that Canadians, French etc may not be paying unreasonably LOW prices for drugs, they may be fair, but the US is paying too high a price.
If a pill costs 10 cents to produce and it sells for 20 cents in Canada, that can be considered fair. But the drug companies recoup all their development costs, profit, high exec salaries, and advertising costs by selling the same pill in the US for $2. That’s not fair.
Would you settle for a puppy?
I agree, Jane describes what I wish could come true except in my version they pick single payer and world peace.
I don’t think this is a growing a pair issue simply because I don’t think the current outcome was a due to threats. Witness Gruber’s role. I also don’t think they are overly worried that opinion is something they can’t fix later.
Too bad I don’t have front porch to receive my copy.
Wow, radical idea.
Health care reform consisting of reforming health care rather than health insurance.
Bring down prices by bringing down prices instead of taxing Caddy plans and mandating insurance for all and adding more programs.
Totally radical.
Disagree.
They kept playing the way things have been played before.
But this time, the GOP Senators – with the strange pseudo-exception of Snowe – became instransigent, recalcitrant, and nihilistic in their opposition to **anything** the Dems came up with, then went wailing to the media that they’d not been involved.
I’ve watched politics off and on over many years (sometimes missing years at a time, so when I return for a new view the changes leap out at me). Back during Watergate, we saw nothing like Grassley’s “Death Panels” bleating, and I’d say he rivaled old Joe McCarthy for sheer venalty when he and the GOP started frothing back in August.
What’s happened is that this whole health care discussion was going along like they always do, but while that happened the GOP refused to budge.
And the economy is struggling mightily.
And Wall Street has been bought off and no one seems to know what happened to all that money (and TARP is only a drop in the bailout scheme bucket).
And wars continue…
The charade has been exposed over the past 8 or 10 months, and that’s what’s happened.
We now look and see that the filibuster rule is a straight-jacket holding the nation back.
We see the demographics, the fact that someone like Grassley still acts like he thinks it’s going to be 1980 or 1994 all over again.
What’s happened is that the wheels have come off the bus, the wizard is madly grabbing at his buttons while Toto runs far away from Kansas with the remnants of the curtain in his teeth.
Maybe you’ve seen this kabuki before, but many Americans never paid attention.
Until now.
Sue, I don’t know if you write diaries but I’d be interested in reading one about this. I can’t find anything about it on the AAUW website.
And the media are agree: If Martha wins or loses, it’s great news for republicans and dems should be terrified. (groan)
How do we go about declaring ourselves Amish.
THe drugs in Canada are not produced by Canadian drug companies. The profits made on those drugs are NOT Canadian profits. THe large pharma companies are not located in Canada. The company I worked for was a UK campany. One ofthe largest in the world. Their drugs are produced in manufacturing facilities all over the world. Then from those production facilities, they are shipped into the various markets around the world.
Why you believe that they would ship more drugs into Canada than they need for the Canadian market so that those drugs could then be re-shipped into the US market for a lower price is hard for me to understand.
The solution is for the US government to get into setting prices like other countries around the world already do.
Of course another way for americans to lower the cost of pharmaceuticals would be to make lifestyle changes to avoid the need for the drugs in the first place.
The biggest selling drugs are those for controlling blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol. A HUGE percentage of the people who take those drugs wouldn’t need them if they would change their diets, lose weight and exercise. But, the majority of americans would rather take a pill and keep on eating….
I sincerely hope that the Democrats have come to this fine conclusion! if they haven’t, today is only a preview of next Nov.
I had my doubts about Van Hollen when he was talking up the watering down, but I’ll happily contribute to the DCCC again if House Democrats get a decent deal for a public option by means of reconciliation, “sidecar” or otherwise.
Thank you, Jane, for another great post.
Damn good thread, Jane.
Obama’s staff, trying to cover the possible loss of Kennedy’s seat, and, coincidentally, their boss’s ass:
“If she loses, we will begin trying to do the things that we should have been doing 10 months ago…when it would have been MUCH easier to do them, and when even making the effort would probably have resulted in a cakewalk for Coakley.”
Jane, you write about Chris Van Hollen, saying that he is “the one who recognizes the need to rescue the health care bill from the Senate corporatists like Joe Lieberman who would take the entire party down to give Aetna a big payday.”
But the essential problem is that it is Rahm Emmanuel and President Obama who have sold out the party for their corporate interests.
Lieberman did not engineer the defeat of the drug re-importation bill, the WHite House did. Lieberman didn’t set up the backroom deal with Big Pharma, the White House did. Lieberman did not set up a policy to trample over all of the progressive principles that this bill was supposed to incorporate, the White House did.
This is the bill that Rahmbama wanted. Please do not lose sight of that.
When are people going to have enough balls to face the truth and express it honestly: Barack Obama is full of shit. He is an unqualified 90 poud weakling who has no clue what he is doing; that is why he turned the Presidency over the his band of Chicago thugs, just like George W. did to Cheney and Rove. Electing this unknown, inexperienced, part 1 term Senator who didn’t have the balls to commit himself to a vote in the Illinois Senate, but voted “present” more than 100 times so he wouldn’t have to be committed to either side, is sheer lunacy. We are already beginning to see the sets backs and suffering caused to the American people by putting this ego maniacal empty suit in the White House following the disasterous 8 year reighn of King George, speaks to the ignorant & uninformed way that the people of this couutry vote. The Mass senate race is another example of that.
ReaderofTeaLeaves@83: Hammer-nail-bang.
Or join an Amish union, heh.
Wow. I wonder what genius finally figured that out. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Simple formula:
Believe no one in government or politics.
Trust no one in government or politics.
Expect the worst, and prepare accordingly.
Have paramedics on speed dial so that when something is actually (or accidentally) done that benefits the people, you can summon help before falling unconscious due to heart attack or stroke brought on by the surprise.
Steny Hoyer just said the Senate bill is better than nothing. Boy, what a feelin’ to know that we the American people are deserving of something that is better than nothing.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/hoyer-senate-health-care-bill-better-than-nothing.php?ref=fpb
(The linky thing above isn’t working, either.)
Why would a pharmacy in Canada not ship a drug to the US if they made a higher profit there? There is no law against that and there never will be. This would create a need for the government to buy more drugs. Are you honestly trying to tell me that a drug company would only sell 10 million drugs if they knew they could sell 35 million. That CEO would be kicked out so fast his head would spin.
I’m all for it, if it cuts out the bloated for-profit insurance companies.
“If Martha Coakley loses, healthcare is dead.”
Massachusetts progressives:
“Can we get that deal in writing? Sounds like a plan, to us…at least as the sucker is now constituted.”
Steny is full of shit, the Senate bill is far worse than nothing. Another day, another pack of lies from Dem leadership.
How generous of him to fling the serfs some crumbs.
Fatster@96:
Now, now, let’s give Steny a point for being honest…even if his honesty is being extorted at gunpoint by Massuchusetts democrats. :o)
Some further points about the process, as it now stands:
Both Budget Committees (chaired by Kent Conrad in the Senate, and John Spratt in the House) would be heavily involved in any reconciliation bill-writing, I believe.
Remember this? From December 14th:
That was the end game of the sabotage of Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment. The quid of the quid pro quo for Senate Democrats who were former supporters of drug reimportation (Kerry, Levin, etc.) that allowed them to publicly turn their backs on Dorgan, and instead help defeat his amendment, in obedience to Obama & Emanuel and their private deals with corporate executives, with the Reid/Dodd/Baucus floor statement figleaf of a promise as their cover.
As we know, of course, there is no “conference committee” of House and Senate members appointed to merge two widely-divergent bills. Instead there’s a Senate bill sitting in the House, and private wheeling and dealing going on in the White House between a handful of Party leaders (and certain privileged outside vested interests) about what to do next.
Furthermore, ready for action in the Senate in the next week or two or three, is the unfunded $250 billion (over ten years) permanent “doc fix” (reinstatement of a previously-scheduled 21% Medicare reimbursement pay cut) that rightly belongs in the health reform legislation, but is being acted on separately so that everyone can pretend that the health care bill is “revenue neutral” for the first ten years.
One thing I think we can probably be sure of: The return of the real filibuster – procedurally, legislatively, and democratically probably the best solution of all – that would force the Senate to function at least briefly as a Senate again – in order to return the rightful power of the simple majority – instead of as a 60-vote-supermajority rubberstamp for White House deals, will not be mentioned or proposed, except to be deep-sixed, by anyone in attendance at those Party machine strategy sessions that are being conducted out of view of the American people and the public record.
If those are Cadillac crumbs you will be taxed accordingly.
The polls were busy today , I was surprised to see such a large turnout for a special election.
Exit polls in the state show Brown with a slim lead.
We probably won’t know who won this one , until all the votes are counted.
You can’t Fly to the Sun in that Ship: No problem — We’ll go at night
Good points all, Jane — thanks. I can’t see Obama’s and congress’ puppetmasters giving a nanometer in the reconciliation process. In fact, with the administration’s PR approach to hoping away the nation’s structural problems, reality spirals us into photosphere as we continue to hear — We’re making a good start here.
Regardless of MA’s special election results, the media will spin as partying like it’s 1994. I predict Gingrich/Petraeus will emerge by early 2011 as the republican’s 2012 presumptive nominee ticket.
I’m afraid only a fool would actually believe the WH and Senate would put any effort at all into a reconciliation bill once the Senate bill passes. The Senate bill is what they wanted from the beginning and they will fight any effort to change it, as we’ve seen during the current negotiations with the House.
Refusing to pass the Senate bill until AFTER the reconciliation bill is passed by the Senate is the only way to insure the bill gets fixed. Alternatively, and this is how I hope it plays out, the House can vote down the Senate bill, forcing everyone to start fresh with a bill using reconciliation only. The result will not be comprehensive and it will be time limited, but if it contains a robust public option or Medicare buy-in for anyone not covered at work, then it would be a better bill.
Other things, like drug price negotiation for Medicare & Medicaid, would also be possible in a reconciliation bill that only required 51 votes in the Senate. The Stupak language would be gone, too, as well as the excise tax(replaced by a tax surcharge on the rich).
But the absolute worst thing the House could do is to pass the Senate bill before forcing the Senate to pass the reconciliation bill that would make the necessary changes. But that will be EXACTLY what RahmBama will be demading if Coakley loses today.
I suppose one thing is clear, in hindsight, and that is we would have been better off to have finished the HCR before Haiti and the MA senate race grabbed our attention.
It’s not terribly important to map out all the possibilities just now. We’ll know very soon how the senate race comes out and that will narrow the range of ways to handle HCR.
I suppose the question is how to take the bill into reconciliation to add back the PO. Someone with much more experience than I would have to provide that answer.
How did MA go from Ted Kennedy to potential Flyover Country so fast?
I don’t understand why progressives don’t begin organizing a new, populist political party that vows to fight corporatism. You all work so hard to elect “Democrats” thinking that there is some great dichotomy between the GOP and the Dems. Has our republic experiment not devolved into an oligarchy as predicted by Robert Michels? It is time for new parties and new ideas to be manifest through new political parties.
Fuck Coakley. And FUCK Brown. Either one will eventually become beholden to some organized interest – be it labor or corporate or some perverted mix of the two.
With all the groundwork that has been laid (kudos, Jane) and such a strong internet presence (the future of political activism), your time is now! Rally behind the WFP (http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/) or similar organizations! Drop the Dems – they do nothing for you!!
Lord! Rommel’s at Alamein and the democrats are in Cairo, burning the codes. Do we have a Monty in the house?:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/hoyer-dems-could-pass-hea_n_428219.html
More smoke , mirrors, and backroom “deals”?
Well , there may just be another source of funding down the line…from Big Tobacco. Check these stories from last Friday:
Washington Post Big Tobacco tries to avoid trip to Supreme Court – 2 days ago
As part of any effort to convince the government that it should skip a trip to the Supreme Court, the tobacco companies may have to drop plans to ask the …
Salt Lake Tribune – 362 related articles »
Big Tobacco tries to avoid trip to Supreme Court – Salt Lake TribuneJan 16, 2010 … Washington » Tobacco industry lawyers met secretly with Solicitor General Elena Kagan in an effort to avoid the government s last-ditch …
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14209110 – Cached
Big Tobacco makes secret plea to avoid payout – Addictions- msnbc.comJan 16, 2010 … Big Tobacco makes secret plea to avoid payout. Industry wants to keep Supreme Court out of racketeering lawsuit …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34894780/ns/health-addictions/ – Cached
Well, all we can do is try. And now that Van Hollen has opened up the possibility of reconciliation, there is no reason for members of Congress not to keep their pledge. To wit, nobody can say “well I have to break my pledge to vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option, because otherwise there will be no health care bill.”
We will be calling members and asking them to keep that pledge, and demand reconciliation. The “60 vote” thing? It is — and always was — bullshit. And now they’ve admitted it.
“How generous of him to fling the serfs some crumbs.”
Crumbs don’t mandate a huge contraction in the consumer economy, and with it, many jobs.
The Sentate bill will only accelerate the demise of the middle class, which will make small political donors even less important in elections and policy.
People may be able to barely afford their mandated health care, but at the expense of most of their discretionary spending, which will drag the entire middle class down, or at least what is left of the middle class.
All by design, IMO.
Jane,
Scale back the ObamaRama Health Care monstrosity. Make it simple. Easy to understand. And make it perfectly clear to people that someone else is paying.
Ezra Klien says, “What would be eligible through reconciliation? Well, Medicare buy-in, for one thing. Medicaid expansions. The public option. Anything, in short, that relies on a public program, rather than a new regulation in the private market. That means we’d probably lose the regulations on insurers, many of the delivery-side reforms, the health insurance exchanges, the individual mandate and much else.”
I’m happy with that. Tax the scummy rich to pay for it all and call it a day.
Future Democratic Strategist
Make that “cake crumbs”.
As in…… “Let them eat cake!”
Thanks.
because that pharma CEO knows that the extra 25 million in your example would ultimately be sold in the US at their higher price.
A Canadian Pharmacy can only sell what the distributor will ship to them.
The distributor can only ship to the Canadian Pharmacy what the pharma company will ship to the distributor.
The CEO of the International Pharma company who authorized shipping 25 million extra drugs into Canada to be re-imported into the US when they could have sold those same 25 million drugs directly in the US at a higher price is the one who would be kicked out.
I’m having trouble figuring out why you find this so difficult to understand.
It is the same Pharma company making and selling the drugs in both Canada and the US. In fact since this whole concept is being called RE-IMPORTATION, it is quite evident that the majority ofthe drugs they are talking about re-importing from Canada were actually produced in the US and shipped into Canada for sale there.
If you owned a company that made cookies and you knew you could sell 100 dozen cookies a week for $5 per dozen in your town and also sell an additional 10 dozen cookies per week at $2 per dozen in the next town 5 miles away…. would you be willing to ship all of your 110 dozen cookies to the next town 5 miles away and have all your local customers dive 5 miles to buy your cookies at a discount?
Or, would you continue to keep your local town customers supplied with your local $5 cookies knwing that if they tried to drive the 5 miles, they would not find your cookies available?
Probably the single best piece of news to come out in the last few days.
The Big Problem with HCR
How many Dems are going to risk the end of their political careers for OBAMA HCR scam? None
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will get a lot of phone calls from Dems in congress asking them who is going to cheer if I vote for this HCR scam?
Democrats who vote for the HCR scam will be targeted by the left and right.
Remember the SENATE HCR bill is not PROGRESSIVE.
Coakley is the canary in the coal mine.
The only way a GOP candidate wins in Mass, is if the Dem base stays home.
Independents voters don’t matter in states like Mass and South Carolina, these states are control by the Dem base and Gop base period.
THE MSM wants to talk about Independent voters and ignore the PROGRESSIVE base, because the status quo fears the Progressive Base of the Dem Party.
The MSM and the white house want to portray the idea that the progressive base does not matter, if coakley loses every Dem will get a SERIOUS WAKE UP CALL, ignore the progessive base and your political career will end.
here is that link you were avoiding from the other night : Coakley is bought by PhRMA and the insurance cartel
your thoughts as to why non-lobbyists should support a candidate who is already bought and paid for?
Alan1tx@109: “How did MA go from Ted Kennedy to potential Flyover Country so fast?”
’tweren’t hard atall. Have a landslide win and just raise democratic expectations that you’ll hit the ground running, and, straight-up mounting the salvage operation with the huge amount of political capital that you brought with you, while daring the republicans to do anything about it…
And then, instead, spend the first year of your presidency bent over with your cheeks spread, while chanting “Bipartisanship! Bipartisanship!”.
Piece of cake. :o(
@#119
Now what was that Obama said about folks being bamboozled so long they don’t realize WHEN they are being bamboozled?
I feel pretty damn bamboozled about the “60 vote thing”…another addition to an increasingly long list of this administation’s “bamboozlements”.
Boy, that is simple.
Although plenty of progressives may fall into the “rich” catagory – depending on where you set the bar – so you may want to lighten up on the “scummy” part.
Anyone catch Jon Stewart, priceless.
Democrats with 18 vote majority, more than Bush ever had when he passed his legislation.
“Tax the scummy rich to pay for it all and call it a day.”
Seriously, expand Medicaid and give everybody the option of Medicare buy in.
Simple, cheap, and optional.
Fuck the doctors who don’t take Medicare. Most of them will when their business dries up.
It’s totally unfair.
Coakly has to get 60% of the vote to win as a Dem, while Brown only needs 50.1% to win as a Rep. /s
I really can’t believe I read this from Jane.
It seems amazingly nieve. When you yourself have been one of us screaming that the “fix it later” approach will not work. What magic will make it work now? Because Obama promised some Exise tax reform? That’s not enough to change the facts on the ground.
If Dems are lucky enough to get anything passed they will go far far far FAR away from healthcare for years. We won’t talk about it again untill another 8 years from now at the earliest. Because as Howard fineman pointed out in the article you linked, “Healthcare is a political albatross and dems want it to go away”
You really think they’re going to want to do anything with it once they can get away from it? Nieve is truly the word for that then.
This plan is folly. It’s more than folly it’s foolish and political suicide for the dems.
Get tough..no more “we’ll fix it later”. Pass a real bill right now thru reconciliation. Stop trying to salvage the piece of garbage that is the Senate bill, because it’s not possible.
their political career does not end if they are bounced out of Congress by their constituents – it is only beginning! they find work on K street or with a law firm or cash in in some way big time for folks they did ‘favors’ for while in office.
as lambert notes from outside the Donkey Ranch:
so it may be a wake up call, arguably, but pols can always hit the snooze alarm.
I’m on Medicare and I pay at every doctor visit, they send the paperwork to Medicare and Medicare pays me. Works so well and it keeps doctors from having to wait for their money. It’s a system I like.
Only problem:
- they would need to get a clue from the people, and they do not want to get a clue
- they would need to be working for the people
- they would need the OK from their corporate masters
- they are making shit up
the only chance is if:
- they are now shitting their pants because they accidently tuned out too many voters (like they wanted everyone to tune out of everything they do and just come back and vote for them).
MY DAD IS A LIFE LONG DEM THAT DOES NOT KNOW HOW HE WILL VOTE TODAY. HE WENT THROUGH ALL THE REGEAN BULLSHIT WITH HIS CO-WORKERS SCREWING THEMSELVES OVER WITH REGEAN (and admitting years later they were stupid).
This is indeed sausage-making but, if it works, go for it!
I have no bidness making specific comments about the process, because I don’t know enough about the whole procedure to form a reasoned, well-informed opinion.
So here I go where the angels fear… heh.
This whole situation is a good example why I am very squeamish about the practice these days of labeling politicians progressive or no, then hammering them if they “prove”, based on one or two votes, that we should be totally disappointed with their performance in office, and summarily withdraw our support forevermore. In a situation like this, a blue-as-the-sky progressive might make a choice, questionable to our eyes, which nevertheless could eventually help set the stage for achieving goals we all desperately desire as true-blue progressives.
Will we recognize the import of what they have truly done? or will we slam them for being weak because of one vote buried somewhere deep in the process?
I’m thinking back to the withdrawal of BlueAmerica support for truly progressive OH Senator Sherrod Brown way back when he was elected to the Senate, thankfully in spite of pouting liberals. No. I’m not over it yet. But I am glad every day that he was able to come out a winner back then, for all of us. He’s that kind of guy. And, yes, he’s apparently deeply involved in this health care reform fight. It’s comforting to know from experience that he does not give up easily.
Thank you Jane, for this post AND for all your incredible work making this wonderful blog what it is today and will be tomorrow.
belated apologies to all for blasting forth without even reading the other comments first.
Ya know, this is kind of a rhetorical observation, but that bailout of Wall Street-we had absolutely NO say in the decision to pay off the gambling debts of the the MOTU.
NOW,DON”T YOU THINK WE DESERVE A DECENT RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT-LIKE DECENT,AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL?
Sure as hell no pre exisiting conditions in regard to any of the peasants THEN, now was there?
And the sheer ,unmitigated audacity for the WH to get THEIR silk shorts in a twist when we have the temerity(/S) to question the “model” used to develop this POS HCR-AFTER they put our necks in the noose to get their MOTU’s fat out of the financial fire- just galls me to no end!
It’s like getting mugged TWICE!
Handicapping the Kneecapping
As Wall Street plays it’s heads we win, tails you lose game over the nation’s healthcare marketplace …. from Bloomberg today:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDQ3evVePOoE&pos=1
Good Lord man, listen to yourself. Its not like Pharma companies are using a secret formula (seriously, you don’t get a drug patent until after you’ve diclose what’s in it) or bits of minerals that landed here after the planet Krypton exploded, its very simply an intellectual property issue.
If Canada lacks the scientific expertise to manufacture a generic version of any drug they want, then India will be delighted to sell it to them. Good luck to any drug company that tries to enforce its patent rights in any country that they’ve refused to ship lifesaving drugs to on financial grounds.
This is an excellent point. Metabolic Syndrome is a big cash cow for a lot of industries. Big Ag gets subsidies to grow corn, which gets shoveled into every man, woman, child, cow and pig in the country. Even farm raised salmon is fed corn.
Big Pharma gets to sell us the drugs to treat our high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol when we become obese eating the processed garbage sitting in the supermarket. Big Insurance gets to jack our rates up or refuse us coverage when we get sick.
Watching the Food network the other day, I was amazed at the many industries that benefit from our sickness. Glucose meters, diabetic cookbooks, the list goes on and on. Sometimes I wonder if we are really any different to them than a cow in a CAFO; fatten us up for the kill. Unfortunately, I think I know the answer to that.
please consider using current candidate brown’s full name, to avoid possible confusion. it’s happened before and can be rather vexing, even while rather idiotic to consider on its face. And the answer is “NO”. I was not confused in writing #126. I do know the difference.
thanks.
p. e. a. c. e.
I wouldn’t, because they haven’t done anything like this until now. It was clearly better policy, if they were really interested in reducing the deficit, to use Medicare and/or Medicaid to cover the people who couldn’t get any other kind of insurance. They deliberately chose to do something ridiculously complicated and expensive instead.
OK, you do realize drug companies aren’t selling a product, they’re selling an intellectual property license? Once the patent rights have been expired (or revoked if the drug companies dared to treat any honest government the way they treat ours), they can be profitably sold by Walmart for $4 a month.
We’ve seen a lot of shit this past year in the sausage factory, that’s for sure. But if anyone thinks Pelosi is going to pass the Senate bill based on promises to do this or that, … I just don’t think she’s that stupid. It’s not going to happen. Full Stop.
Now if something can be negotiated, and then passed in the Senate first through reconciliation, such that the House can then vote on the Senate bill that has passed the Senate, AND the amendments that will have been passed via reconciliation, at the same time in one vote, then something like this might happen. I don’t know if the rules allow this.
I’m convinced that unless the Democrats reverse course and demonstrate they aren’t corporate-owned whores, the populist rage will take them down in November. It won’t matter who their opposition is. And conversely, if Obama did reverse course, use the loss of the mythical 60 as the pretext (he doesn’t really need one, but to save face), and renege on the pharma deal, renege on any insurance deal that might exist, jettison the bipartisan BS, and pass real HCR with 51 Senate votes, the Democrats would do just fine. The right would still vote against them, but independents and some progressives might join him, upon exposure of a spine.
My prediction, FWIW: Obama will try to talk a good populist game, but won’t back it up with any substantive action. The electorate will see through it, and incumbents take a beating in November, relative to the norm at least.
I had the misfortune/fortune of being on Medicaid briefly. Pretty sweet, with dental covered.
Medicare and Medicaid could also be improved by having a small financial incentive to switch to a generic drug, when available and appropriate.
A couple extra dollars back, or dollars reduced from co-pays would be all the incentive needed, and save the government billions.
Eliminating Medicare has been one of Zeke Emmanuel’s ideas for health reform for some time now.
He is also in favor of health vouchers and value added tax,according to a Huff Po interview in 2008.
He also espoused that lower employee health costs would raise worker wages-just like Gruber stated.
Ofcourse ,Larrry Mishel of EPI did a thread here and challenged that assertion that wages would rise.
Mishel even stated in his thread at the Seminal that Gruber had admitted privately that he(Gruber) had overreached by taking that position.
Actually the US government does have the stones, but the politicians limit who can use Uncle Sam’s negotiated drug prices. The VA Health system publishes a “Federal Supply Schedule” with the negotiated price for 26,000 prescription drugs, averaging 53% of Average Wholesale Price.
http://www.pbm.va.gov/drugpharmaceuticalprices.aspx
Of course, Congress won’t allow Medicare recipients or ordinary taxpayers to be able to buy at the FSS price because they work for drug companies, not taxpayers.
Lets Hope and Pray.Should Marsh Coakley win.Thay had to call Bill Clinton and B.Obama in at the last minute.In a Democrat State.This would be a single shot over there heads.If Scott Brown wins Massachusetts will have unloaded both barrles over the Democrats heads.Eather way it gives the President and the Democrats time to Atone.Reflect on the 2008 campaign. Move to the good of the campaign.Move to the Public Option buy in if we want to or Medicare buy in if we want to.If we can’t pass the bill now Obama call out the people blocking the bill.We will vote you the people that will pass the Bill for the people.Obama you were voted in to do the work FOR THE PEOPLE,BY THE PEOPLE.Obama get off THE TRANQUILIZING DRUG OF GRADUALISUM.The last time I voted for a Democrat President was Carter.Write in my dog.Bush sorry.Rose Perot.My dog.My dog.My dog.Obama I thought you would be one of the great leaders.Will I vote Democrat in 2010?2012.We’ll See.
I think Zeke, Rahm, and Gruber should take their views and influence to Israel. Let’s see how those ideas fly over there.
Obama has made Democrats weak by giving in to industry at top, the Democrats at lower rung feel why should be not also? Even those who were staunch fighters before have been weakened from Obama’s popularity, proving talking the talk is all it takes and then just turn around and do your master’s bidding.
Pelosi is the most progressive Democrat right now. She has to fight the blue dogs.If Dean got these blue dogs elected, shouldn’t he have some sway over them.
I second this prediction. Exactly what is going to happen.
The democrats should never have started with the 60-vote bullshit. They should have treated the situation with the country as the crisis it is, and simply shoved the salvage operation down the repubs throats.
The irony is, that if they’d done that, Coakley would probably be winning in a romp.
(I started to say “bitter irony”, but I aint gonna lie…in this case, I’m lovin’ the smell of presidential and democratic “leadership” flop-sweat… :o) )
The easiest route for reconciliation now is medicare for all. Existing program that only needs to have age taken out.
Absolutely! He and Colbert are my idea of Must See TV. Not only are they hilarious, but the only place one can get un-corporatized news that really is fair and balanced. If Dems fuck up, they don’t white wash it.
Jane, some of it sounds promising. Namely the altering the excise tax in line with the compromise with the unions. But the public option is a fantasy. No one extracted that compromise. Coakely wins and small changes continue. Brown wins and house passes senate bill, fixes excise tax.
One option is for progressive house/senate members to pressure O and the rest on financial reform now as a tradeoff for supporting HCR. O gets his win and progressives nudge him to left on the economy.
Was wondering when Weiner would pop up to squawk about something, reminds me of Coleman with the UN. I’m gonna tell! I’m gonna telll!!!! Look at meee!!!
Chasing Snowe and 60 votes was just a cynical strategy to get exactly the bill they wanted and planned for even before Inauguration.
Right on. In fact, the plan from the beginning was to kill any kind of public option. The only question was who would take the blame for it. Why? Political contributions. RahmBama decided the $$$ big PhRMA and the insurance companies could put in their re-election coffers was far more important than keeping their promises or doing something for the American people.
It really is disgusting watching RahmBama throw away a 60 vote majority in the Senate, an overwhelming majority in the House, and the good will of a large majority of the voters in the pursuit of dubious political advantage. But I guess that must be the “Chicago Way” of doing politics, as evidenced by former Gov. Blago. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the hell these people were thinking.
If the reconciliation bill is up, the public option is most assuredly back on the table. Remember, the regulatory reforms are already in the Senate healtcare bill.
The House can draft a reconciliation bill and insist the Senate pass it (with 51 votes) before it (the House) will pass the Senate healthcare bill.
That was the number two reason I voted against Coakley. The number one reason was that I was voting against President Obama’s Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Revenue Guarantee Act of 2010 with a Little On the Side for the Serfs.
Brown’s oval got filled in but no part of Brown factored in to my vote.
and how does the house do that?
What stops 10 dems from going “no Iw ant XXX” just like they did the first time. there’s no teeth behind the Senate promising to Reconcile fixes in. there’s nothing to force them to do it. And they’re goign to want to run far far away from HCR reform once it’s “done”
the plan from the beginning was to divert activist energy in to the roach motel of “public option” advocacy, then throw away the trap.
apparently, the PO had that delightful, wonkish, pragmatic think-tanky aroma that many ‘progressives’ just couldn’t resist.
Obama won independents primarily because of the way he promised to conduct his administration; not necessarily what it specifically would produce in legislation, but in the ethical transparent manner it would pursue such goals. That was the supposed contrast with the Shrub’s operation that appealed to independents…C-SPAN and all that. Since the health-care bill is definitely a politics-as-usual-backdoor-bribathon, it has alienated independents no matter what they think of public options or tort reform.
If I were Obama I would take Coakley losing as a cathartic moment to:
1. Start over on a health-care bill and re-focus on the revolution of ethics and transparency in governance that is the core of his appeal outside party lines.
2. Prove that conviction by cleaning house of the Wall Street gang embedded in his Treasury Department…especially the Three Amigos of Geithner, Rubin, and Summers. Replace them with a good career wonk out of the OMB, GAO, CBO…some non-partisan government outfit like that with a good reputation and minimal ties to Wall Street. It would remove a political liability, and be highly supported by the left and the right…FOX News would twist in the wind trying to put the hate out on a move like that.
Bill@153: I hope you’re wrong. Some of Obama’s staff are already saying that they’re not going to incrementally move rightward to try to save seats
this fall, that instead, they will fight the good fight and “let the chips fall”. If we lost trying (said a staffer) at least we can say we tried and the republicans blocked it.
Of which, as BlueTex says: “Better late than never, I guess.”
We’ll see. But, with the voting still going on, I insist that losing the safest democratic seat in the universe will be the best thing that could have happened to us.
The down side is Brown winning and total inertia on health care and any other measure.
My view is that the progressives in Congress should get some cajones and play the same game that Lieberman, and the Blue Dogs have. They should say “Okay, we have 60…but not us…unless you advance reconciliation.”
Another possibility is that 60 is sufficient to change the Senate Rules. Thus they can vote out the filibuster rule, and then go to 50 (+1…Biden) for passage of any Bill. The Blue Dogs might not like this as it would end their power (but so would a Brown win, I would think). But under pressure they might accept it.
We “purists” may “see the light” when our leaders stop allowing the health care sector to write shitty bills behind closed doors that require us to purchase their products we didn’t want/can’t afford in the first place.
May be the best thing but I really hate to think about the Rs crowing for the next decade about how they took a really “safe” Dem seat. They’re obnoxious enough already.
Much of your sentiment was shared yesterday on Seminal thread here,entitled “The Flawed Logic of Voting for Coakley”.
Both the thread and the comments are superb, and the comments ran the spectrum both yay and nay in regard to casting one’s vote for or against.
One of the best threads I have read here,imho, and well worth scrolling through yesterday’s Seminal titles to find it.
The issue of how did the fact that Mass. have its OWN healthcare figure in as to how people would vote.
That issue was discussed very little,to my knowledge, on other threads,but it took front and center on the discussion comments.
HIGHLY recommended.
I agree, as well. As I wrote in another thread, my first article about Obama was entitled Actions Trump Words. That was in May of 2007. More prophetic than I realized at the time, it now appears.
Here’s an idea. The progressives hold out. The Senate votes to revise the filibuster rule with the progressives agreeing to THAT (removing BOTH their abilit and that of the Blue Dogs to block passage). That allows the health care bill to pass with the Senate version…but makes it much easier to modify. The Blue Dogs have the shelter of saying that they voted against the revisions that are made. “It wasn’t the health care bill that I voted for.”
True…but wouldn’t a Federal bill severely affect State programs…particularly if insurers are not bound by state regulations, as I believe that the Massachusetts Law is dependent upon. Federtal law would certainly pre-empt state law in this case as it would involve Interstate Commerce.
They are going to market themselves as fighting the good fight and letting the chips fall where they may.
That was the strategy even before this Coakley disaster.
In 2004 an annonymous Bush aid spoke contemptuously of the “reality based community.”
“The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
I contend that this contempt for the populace is a bi-partisan belief among the elite D.C. tribe running our government an media.
Rahm and Obama think they can spin us in 2010, no matter what the HCR looks like. That’s why they’ve taken us so far down this road so far.
Here’s Obama’s other wise tribe guru:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Local_issues_at_play.html?showall
It will only be the best thing to happen to the Dems if they learn from it.
If the Democrats respond to this loss with a doubling-down of late-night horsetrading and procedural gimmicks involving the current health-care bill, it will be political suicide for the Donks.
The President should really cut his losses on this one, and “re-launch” health-care at the State of the Union address. Tell the nation that, OK, the last one politically tanked…but the support for reform itself is undiluted, and the status quo demands reform. Proceed to introduce not a wish-list for the next bill, but a procedural roadmap for hammering out the new legislative critter complete with a target date for a final-bill vote by, say, midsummer. Take control of the process where the new bill will be forged…don’t let Pelosi and Reid veer off into backdeal land. Its not all their fault, its the only way they know how to operate in the legislature (old dog, new tricks problem) and I believe that was the root cause of this health bill’s failure and increasing political toxicity for its supporters.
The President could really turn this lemon into lemonade if he thinks outside the box on this one.
@#164
If I am not mistaken, there are a couple of posts there that delineate that exact issue.
“If I were Obama I would take Coakley losing as a cathartic moment to:
1. Start over on a health-care bill and re-focus on the revolution of ethics and transparency in governance that is the core of his appeal outside party lines.”
And without 60 votes and an intransigent Senate Republican caucus how precisely is that going to be possible? Note that almost all the transparent acts (the discussions and debates on the public option, Pharmaceutical re-importation, etc.) were the things that were presented in the open debate. These were all killed in back-room deals. So both the Blue Dogs and the Collins, Snowe, Lieberman bloc would not be moved by “open discussion” to any sort of real Health Care reform.
I think any meaningful health care reform is dead as long as the filibuster rules exist and the Republicans have 40 Senators.
“They are going to market themselves as fighting the good fight and letting the chips fall where they may.
That was the strategy even before this Coakley disaster.”
If this was the “plan” then why not put forward the best possible bill without compromises to corporate interests..and use this as a wedge to say “look what the Republicans did to block your increasing health costs…we only needed two or three of their votes to get this done”. Of course that would also have put several Blue Dogs necks on the chopping-block…but they could have been replaced in primaries (or retired).
Rahm blew this in every possible way, IMO.
They’ll be partying like it’s 1994.
Certainly they could do it, but they seemed to have already given up on it (by it I mean a national public option open to all). But Pres. O has already said he’s gonna go out and make the case on health care. I don’t think he wants to add the public option to that case. The pressure point for progressives is better on financial reforms in comparison to fighting the same battle again.
Also, Jane posted about getting a concession on the public option in to pay for changes in the excise tax.
Rearranging the taxes seems an easier sell than the public option.
“If this was the “plan” then why not put forward the best possible bill without compromises to corporate interests”
Dude, they thought they could get away with serving us a shit sandwich, as long as they spent enough resources on spinning it after passage.
Remember how Obama raised hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall St and Big health care? It wasn’t so that Obama could do whatever was good for ordinary people and the Democratic party.
You’re just part of the reality based community…
TheZeitgeist@169:
True, but check out the quotes by an Obama staffer, on the thread by BlueTex:
http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/19/early-morning-swim-keith-olbermann-discusses-ma-senate-race-with-eugene-robinson/
If those are real (and he or she is unnamed, as yet) then there is hope.
Note that almost all the transparent acts (the discussions and debates on the public option, Pharmaceutical re-importation, etc.) were the things that were presented in the open debate. These were all killed in back-room deals. So both the Blue Dogs and the Collins, Snowe, Lieberman bloc would not be moved by “open discussion” to any sort of real Health Care reform.
You can outflank the Republicans easily I think, but only if you’re willing to entertain compromise on a lefty sacred cow…like tort law for instance. Cold reality here is when discussing European single-payer systems as an analog for American health care evolution, no one mentions malpractice costs on a per-capita basis are an order-of-magnitude more than anything in Europe or Canada, and that the USA now turns out more malpractice lawyers than doctors at this point. Fact is, its a problem. Dealing with stuff like that is where you’ll find well over sixty votes in the Senate, but only if you’re willing to go there.
What Norske said @ 29.
“C’mon. We need your vote. We’ll fix it later…” sounds like so many other cons that have worked out so well. Let’s see, how about, “By the time your mortgage resets, the value of your house will have increased so much that banks will be fighting in the streets to get your refi. You can’t lose.” Or the ever fresh, “Sure the original purpose of the surge was to bring about political reconciliation and progress on specific government policies. But we’ve reduced violence by arming factions to the teeth, so let’s declare success and…stay forever in our billion dollar, multi-purpose fortresses. We’ll call ourselves a peace-keeping and training detail.” Or even, “Let’s give free money to the big banks, so they can do the right thing and provide credit for the economic expansion that will be driven by 10% unemployment and a continuing loan default crisis. Drive up asset prices on Wallstreet and let them continue to crater on Mainstreet. Can’t lose.”
Point two: The Obama corporatists would rather lose than use reconciliation or challenge the filibuster. If anyone ever figures out that it only takes a simple majority to pass legislation, the cat is out of the bag. It will be impossible to continue to cater to corporatist sellout Senators in order to keep the masters happy, and still claim that they really wanted to do the right (i.e. left) thing. See Matt Yglesias, today’s best example of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/an-apology-and-an-i-told-you-so.php#comments
Deeply and sincerely wishing to be proven wrong, I remain…
I don’t know…so far Obama’s efforts to be combative and feisty have been counterproductive for Democrats. And this part of the quote: We can say, ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.’ isn’t accurate, and frankly shows blinders on a little. The Republicans didn’t say no, but voters did. Voters in Massachussets said no. Huge difference there…Dems need to figure that out, for all our sakes.
The reason I believe there will not be (and may never be) any Health Care reform is because of the sort of misguided purism on the so called Left as evidenced in the Jane’s main article and the responses to it. The Right has no such confusion about their issues. To succeed in politics requires compromise.
To paraphrase Colbert, it’s rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg.
Oh please. Tort reform is nothing but a smokescreen, a big showy ideological pile of piffle that would strip injured patients of a ton of rights for very little gain. See this Jon Walker post on the subject.
i hate this. i hate this. i hate this. That said, i suppose that the Senate bill is better than nothing, but since we’ve fought this hard & long for ANY reform, why not do what should’ve been done in the first place: scrap the ConservaDems (and the horse they rode in on), stop fretting over the Coakley race or any other “iffy” seat & go die-hard to the wall with reconciliation. There will, no doubt, be more such hair-raising elections in November, so why not set the pace now? Get down or get lost! Bipartisanship is a dead end. The only way to get anything done is with 51 votes. Period. The ConservaDems, being in hot water anyways, will not be forgotten come re-election time. Cut the fat.
Obamas populist angle isn’t working. The country is more divided politically than ever. The only way to salvage the Democratic party (and Obamas agenda) from certain doom in Nov is to STOP BEING WIMPY. You’re only as credible as your last achievement, perception-wise, to the constituency. If Rahm can’t reel in his Blue Dogs (which seems blatantly apparent), maybe 44 needs a new Chief of Staff. Either you want to get things done, or you don’t.
P.S. Did i mention that i hate this?
If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill for no other reason than the Senate can no longer be expected to agree to its own craptastic bill, then BOTH houses of Congress have just been declared irrelevant and the Legislative branch is dead. It’s a profound betrayal of the Constitution to throw out the entire legislative product of the House just to prevent the Senate from getting a chance to vote on the bill.
Utterly disgusting madness.
If Stephen says it, I believe it, and that’s the end of it.
IF we get a decent health care reform, what ever the process, it will be in-spite of Rahmobama. He talks a good game, which is just another way of saying Obama is a very skilled LIAR, but he does not give a rip about America or Americans. Obama works for Wall Street which owns Health Insurance and the Medical Delivery “Industry”. Look at Sidely Austin LLP, Michelle’s alma mater, ties to insurance scams including dead peasant. The very best progressves can hope for is grid lock. GO SCOTT BROWN
Those kinds of “fixes” are pretty useless in the overall costs incurred by modern American medical malpractice. Two things – that could fit on a single page in any healthcare bill – would substantially reduce costs:
Loser pays. Everyone: including the plaintiff’s lawyer, suddenly has skin in the game depending on the fate of court cases. Out-of-court settlements (almost always made to avoid court battle costs) are not tallied (they’re always sealed, aren’t they?) in these costs.
Opt-in on class actions: At any given moment, I’m probably a plaintiff in a class action suit (so are you probably) whether you know it or not. I should be able to choose who I sue or what class action I join.
I don’t agree with damage caps (you can’t put a price on some of the heinous shit doctors have done to patients in the past) and they are not a fix. But the two things I outlined above would bring costs down TREMENDOUSLY.
So extremely wrong.
There were the months upon months dems spent working to try and get Olympia Snowe on board, months even Reid now calls wasted.
there was the entire debacle with the finance committee to try and get a bipartisan bill there.
There will be no bipartisan ship because the GOP has no interest in governing. You need ot have an active minority for bipartisanship.
The only fighting is between corporate Dems and Progressives.
I’d judge the likelihood that they are real to be about the same as how real Obama’s campaign promises have been so far. Anonymous leaks at that level are almost always part of the President’s effort to sway opinion or send messages to other politicians. Truth is usually not a big consideration.
The biggest problem here is the strategy employed by Reid for months-and-months, which is no ideological compromise, just increasingly brazen attempts at bribes. Landrieu and Nelson’s deals are prime examples of that strategy, and why it’s backfiring both at the polls and on any hope of passage now. With the current cost of the bill, you cannot bribe this thing to passage…you can only make it worse, which is exactly what Reid doubled-down on. Epic fail.
I’d agree with the opt-in on class actions, because class action suits in this country are a joke. I’d never agree to the loser pays portion because you’d be asking a patient who had already been grievously injured, perhaps maimed, or if killed, their family, to stake further their entire life savings on the prospect for justice in a system already stacked against them.
It’d be akin to having a ‘loser pays’ criminal trial, where if someone you accuse of a crime isn’t convicted, you go to prison in their place.
If the people of Massachusetts ignore history by electing Scott Brown to the Senate, I anticipate a serious case of buyer’s remorse setting in shortly thereafter. It won’t take long for citizens of that notoriously blue state to realize that they’re stuck with an obstructionist, GOP hack eager to repeat the tragic follies of the Bush-era.
Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/
[Mod Note: Please limit these little drops-ins soliciting visitors to one per day at FDL and partners. Thank you.
Yes But… Ried was given the unenviable job of selling the sell-out crafted by the White (lies) House. The senate bill is what Rahmobama wanted all along. Its really ugly… Complete corruption of ALL branches of our government.
Its really niave and really wrong to think G W Bush represents what ordinary Republicans want and desire or that Rahmobama represents what ordinary democrats want. THEY DON’T! Both parties have been played the fool by their corporate proffered and marketed politicians. This is why they hug and kiss each other when they think the camera is off them! They are on the same team… the corporate team. Obama is a continuation of BUSH which is a continuation of CLINTON and BUsh.. Corporations and their media (they own all the pied pipers be they Ed Shultz Katrina van Den Hueval or Rush Limbaugh or Insanity) own BOTH parties
I’d never agree to the loser pays portion because you’d be asking a patient who had already been grievously injured, perhaps maimed, or if killed, their family, to stake further their entire life savings on the prospect for justice in a system already stacked against them.
I don’t think that would happen. Right now the big sell for a malpractice trial lawyer is they don’t get paid unless you get paid. Common strategy with these cases is to use the implicit threat of driving up the defendant’s legal costs in court beyond the settlement he would take right now not to go to court. Those out-of-court settlements are not tabulated in the CBO report you linked to in your earlier post, and they almost all are way less than $250,000, so they wouldn’t be impacted by any damage-cap scenario contemplated in that CBO report. That is the prime reason I think the CBO (accurately I think) scored any cost-savings from those selected “reform” schemes being so low. Those schemes mentioned in the CBO report are just an insurance company hand-out (on the malpractice policy business side).
It wouldn’t pay instantly for lawyers to go fishing that way for out-of-court settlements with loser pays. But any good trial attorney would know a good case when he sees one (i.e., patient got harmed) and the attorney himself (with his probably much greater financial resources) would be willing to assume such risk for good cases.
It’d be akin to having a ‘loser pays’ criminal trial, where if someone you accuse of a crime isn’t convicted, you go to prison in their place. I think if the accuser is the State, and they go to trial, and the State loses, the State should definitely pick up the defendant’s attorney and discovery costs for the exact same reasons I believe loser pays would be so effective in tort law: it filters spurious prosecutions because everyone – not just the defendant – has skin in the game at trial.
Could the attorney even assume that risk, under your system? Would the law insisting that all parties have ‘skin in the game’ allow said players to transfer skin around at will? Plus, they’d only do so in exchange for something, a greater share of the settlement, up front fees, what not. No matter how you slice it, this equals a tax on sick and injured people as well as a deterrent on less-meritorious cases.
And that is why there is a very good chance of just that happening! Make no mistake this is warfare… class warfare and our side is STILL losing.
Pharmaceutical companies also control testing in cases where it might place their profits at risk. There is one place to get a certain type of veterinary genetic test done in the US. The researcher who is running the test discovered the problem with dogs being hypersensitive to certain drugs; made the list of drugs & identified the affected breeds. A few years later, she did a complete about face, practically denied the whole thing & it went downhill from there. A lab in Canada is the only other lab in North America that can test for this genetic defect BUT they have an agreement with the US somehow that they can’t do the test. These are commonly used drugs (heartworm preventatives & common anesthetics) and they are deadly for the affected breeds. It only takes a spay/neuter or a dental one time. It is extremely difficult to find a vet that will admit it.
Loser pays is pretty simple. The loser pays the costs…there is no conscious horse-trading of risk. And technically, a lawyer could assume the risk in the present system, but that makes no financial sense for the lawyer (hence the hatred of any loser-pays by the American Trial Lawyers Association, or the “Center for Justice” or whatever they call themselves these days).
And I don’t think a lawyer would fee or percentage himself out of getting a good case…he is competing with other lawyers for the business after all. Current market rates are a 30-40% cut of any payout for the attorney. Frankly not much room to raise percentages on “the poor” as it is before they’re taking more than half. If you were to entertain any damage caps, put a cap on percentage of the haul the lawyer can take.
And also @ 190:
These are very important points, thezeitgeist, for anyone interested in truly seeing a democratic legislative process unfold on a different piece of health care legislation.
As much as Republicans abuse obstructing, Democrats abuse their 60 votes (via cloture motions) to avoid talking with the other side. It works both ways, and the two abuses feed on each other.
But, more importantly: If we acknowledge, as I do, that the Senate bill is the Obama bill, conveniently mid-wifed by Democratic Senators covering for Obama, including Reid, how much input were Senate Republicans ever really going to have on that product, if their input differed from White House goals, given how hard Obama worked to maintain the basic outlines of his private deals through the bill’s passage in the Senate? To the extent, as Lawrence O’Donnell has rightly, if belatedly, pointed out at HuffingtonPost, that all meaningful floor amendments of both Democrats and Republicans were effectively blocked by the Reid/McConnell/Obama-generated UCAgreement (that every single Senator agreed to, to require a 60-vote margin for passage of the few substantive floor amendments that were ever called up).
The Democratic caucus fell in line behind Obama’s perversion of legislative process in the name of Party, and the Republican caucus opposed it, for the same reason, but also, for many key Republican Senators, like Mike Enzi, out of substantive disagreement and concern about the bill’s provisions, which they were truly powerless to change, given the ramrodding of Obama’s private agenda the Senate bill represents.
So, in my opinion, thezeitgeist is absolutely correct to surmise that returning the Senate to the Senate will almost certainly allow genuine cross-aisle collaboration on another, better health care bill, provided Obama gets out of the way, or, failing that, Democrats in Congress force him, at long last, out of the Congress, and the process out of the backrooms. The Senate majority sharing the power with the minority – even while maintaining its clear advantage on actual passage because of its sizeable majority – would likely make all the angst about the non-filibuster “filibuster” evaporate overnight. But, for this to happen, Obama would have to restrict himself – or be forced to restrict himself by the Legislative Branch of government – to publicly exhorting and advocating his preferred reform options, and then signing or vetoing what the Congress presented him with, thus sharing the credit a little (or a lot) for any subsequent genuine reform of the nation’s health care system.
So if a person, say, loses an arm due to malpractice, and the case goes to court, and for whatever reason, they lose, they’re out not just an arm but hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs?
We’re supposed to believe that the lawyers will willingly take on this risk, by themselves? I’m sorry, but no. I don’t believe that. And if they don’t, then you’re still asking maimed individuals to wager their life savings on the prospect of justice, which disgusts me. Your system seems to assume that all legitimate cases will prevail, an assumption I’m not willing to make.
The lawyer will either pass this risk on to their clients, or they will only take slam-dunk cases, denying those people who may very well have been harmed but have less than a sure shot at victory their day in court.
While *thinking* about lifting the PO from the dead is a nice idea, I tend to think it’s not a great idea to mention it. I’m recalling Lieb’s glee in killing the Medicare Buy-In after he saw that Progressives liked it.
Passing the Senate Bill through the House means drawing over some of the Blue Dogs. If, at the same time, there’s a floating of the notion that there might be a reconcilliation later that includes the PO or Medicare Buy-In, you might not hold them.
That’s perfectly fine if your objective, Jane, is to kill the Senate version of the bill from passing and the (slim) chance of it being improved via reconcilliation later.
I tend to think reconcilliation fixes now and down the road is much harder than people think. It sounds easy on paper, but getting 50%+1 in the House to sign on is a problem. Getting 50 Dem Senators to sign on now that *specifically* a pro-healthcare Dem is lost (rather than losing a Lieb, Nelson, Senator Wellpoint, Blanche, etc) is going to be quite a bit harder.
As DDay is pointing out, House will to pass anything will continue to wilt. The Senate has literally passes as much as they’re going to pass given the 60 vote threshold, and there’s no magic bullet to change that.
We know who will blink: us Progressives. But it’s rapidly getting to the point where that won’t matter if the Blue Dogs head for the hills.
Whether that’s a good thing or not… who knows. I’m not a fan of the Senate bill. I’m hardly in the Klein/Cohn camp of “pass anything”. But the reality is that if something doesn’t pass out of this process, it’s going to be similar to 1993/94: it’s not going to magically pass in 2011 or 2012 or 2013. I don’t know how I feel about this getting kicked to the curb for the balance of the decade. We can dream up all the ways we can bring this issue back to the forefront, but the process has shown us to have extremely little power over and in it. That’s not likely to increase, and instead likely to decrease over time.
John
The horrible system you describe above is exactly the situation with criminal prosecutions in regards to poor people. Since they do not have the means to pay for a good defense lawyer, they don’t get one barring pro bono charity. They get the public pretender instead, with predictable results. If we’re cool with that (and I guess we are, no one cares about reforming the grotesque nature of criminal law in this country), cool with a system that every week frees someone after being in the can unjustly for decades-plus (ahhh, Martha Coakley is connected to this problem) and has produced the most racist institutions in this country (drug sentencing law disparity among races, highest prison population – in total numbers and per capita – in the world) then I don’t see how loser pays is some horrible travesty in comparison, especially in the example you listed (why did the one-armed man lose the case?).
And yes, the lawyers will take that risk competing for business…the good cases will go to the best combination of cost and capability. It will save everyone money without impeding justice…especially if you measure justice by our criminal law justice…which is a crime.
“To succeed in politics requires compromise.” You have to be kidding. To succeed in politics, you have to be monolithic and unbending. Look at the Republicans. They are a minority.They are winning today because of that. The Dems should take a lesson or two from them.
Au contraire, the Republicans – with smaller majorities – would never have gotten the Patriot Act, Iraq War, Med Part D, two Supreme Court Justices (only Harriet didn’t get in), SarbOx, TARP, etc. without Democratic support. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are ideologically more tenable than their Republican counterparts, but they are incompetent political operators…impotent in the minority and self-destructive in the majority. Democrats need to clean house at the top of their caucus for the sake of this nation before the pachyderms have another chance at running us into the ground (or Iran, same difference).
The systematic handicapping of the individual’s right to recourse is a box best left sealed shut.
It is worth emphasizing that single payer inherently reduces the magnitude of claimed damages by shifting responsibility of the continued insurability and treatment of those harmed by malpractice onto society, rather than the doctor or his insurer (status quo) or the patient (pro-corporatist tort reform). And it takes another breed of rent-seeking leeches (malpractice insurers) out of the medical profession.
So you want to take the what you think is worst element of the criminal justice system and graft it onto malpractice to achieve *cost* savings?
No thanks. No sale.
I agree with reforming the criminal justice system; I do not, however, agree with making the civil system worse to resemble it more. What does it matter why the hypothetical person lost the case? I think it’s safe to assume some people will lose cases through no fault of their own, and they would be horribly punished for having the audacity to seek redress through the courts. Your system would put a big velvet rope in front of the courts, telling people without the ability to risk huge sums of cash to seek justice elsewhere when injured by a doctor, in the name of saving a tiny fraction of our national health expenditure.
Yes, precisely. People have little enough access to the courts as it is. What’s next? Solving our overworked state and federal courts by instituting loser-pays criminal trials? Don’t bother reporting a crime to the police unless you’re SURE the defendant will go away.
Yeesh. All for a tiny scrap of money.
So you want to take the what you think is worst element of the criminal justice system and graft it onto malpractice to achieve *cost* savings?
Huh? In my previous posts I said loser-pays would be a great evolution of the criminal justice system. How is that grafting criminal justice practices onto civil law? I don’t get where you’re coming from here.
And like I said, I agree with reforming the criminal justice system…with loser pays. Do you have any ideas on reform there? The State paying for poor people’s lawyers doesn’t work obviously…they’re called “public pretenders” for a reason.
It is worth emphasizing that single payer inherently reduces the magnitude of claimed damages by shifting responsibility of the continued insurability and treatment of those harmed by malpractice onto society, rather than the doctor or his insurer (status quo) or the patient (pro-corporatist tort reform).
A cost is a cost is a cost, no matter how you divy it up. Are you saying that the State should be paying out of court settlements and total damages for malpractice, therefore spreading the payments amongst “society?” And the risk in my loser-pays scenario is on the lawyer, because that’s the way the business would evolve. Cases with only a semblance of plausibility in court would actually make it to conference, much less trial. Sounds like a good idea to me. Ditto for State being more judicious in picking its battles when throwing the book at some poor guy in a ghetto. Think about it.
Also on a side note, I am guessing you are somewhat inclined towards Marxism from your screen-name. Why do you support such a laissez-faire treatment of lawyers – and lawyers alone – in your perceptions of economic justice regarding health care? Where’s the regulations, panels, oversight, and subsidies you love for the doctors, nurses, insurers, employers, and individuals? Why not the lawyers getting too?
You said that the situation I outlined, which would occur under a loser pays system (where a lawyer won’t take a client because the financial risk is too great, but if they did and lost, the patient would be out their life savings) was analagous to our criminal justice system (where lawyers won’t take poor clients because the financial benefit is too low).
How would loser-pays even work in criminal justice? Do you send rape victims to jail if their accused rapist gets off? What the holy hell?
Loser-pays just makes it harder for people who are alleging malpractice to get a lawyer to take their case. That’s the way you think it will achieve cost savings; it’s the same theory behind copays reducing health care costs. Force people to make do with less, to prioritize the ‘necessary’ cases/treatments.
And just like with copays, the punishment will fall, disproportionately and overwhelmingly, on the poorest and sickest and weakest in society. Good job. But there’s also the added benefit that, even if you’re willing to find a lawyer to take your case, if they lose, you pay all the money the doctor and his/her insurer paid their lawyers to beat you, which provides an enormous incentive to the malpractice insurers to outspend you until you and your lawyer collapse.
Gee, I wonder who has deeper pockets on average, the insurance industry or the average malpractice plaintiff.
a single payer system (like hr 676) provides for universal comprehensive healthcare for all. no recovery for out of pocket medical expenses would generally be applicable — and iirc, the largest portion ($ amount-wise) of medical malpractice suits is for continuing healthcare. if i recall the reference, i’ll post it here.
I mean, just to expand on that: in a loser pays system there is absolutely no incentive not to outspend your opponent. None. Zippo. So if you have deeper pockets, just outspend them, and when you win, your debt becomes theirs. Presto!
Hell, the incentive would be to spend massively more, to fight every case to the bitter end, decades of appeals, armies of lawyers, no expense too great. Never, ever settle!
The malpractice insurers would love it. After all, it’s a guaranteed moneymaker. As long as they have deeper pockets than the poor injured schmucks, they can spend any of them foolish enough to go to court into the ground and they don’t pay a penny.
Plus, in a single payer system, there would be strong government provided incentives to reduce unnecessary treatments (which lead to malpractice) and to reduce malpractice itself.
Look at how incompetent prosecutors are when they go up against a good defense team. O.J. and Michael Jackson are good examples. Whether you think they are guilty or not (I think OJ was guilty, Jacko was innocent…just my opinion) I guarantee that without good lawyers they would’ve been “guilty.”
There is no reason to think prosecutors have better cases or conduct when going after poor people. Indeed, I think the lack of quality counsel taking on prosecutors leads to laziness by the prosecutor – because they get away with it mostly. That also tells me that a good criminal defense lawyer (who banks $500 an hour in court for instance) would take loser pays as a market opportunity. He’d offer the same deal: you lose its free. It suddenly “monetizes” a lot of marginal prosecutions in the dock that otherwise are auto-guilty verdicts in the present system. You’ll get firms trolling for good cases, and it will force prosecutors to pick their battles, instead of just looking for easy convictions…because if they lose the taxpayer pays the defendant (who at this point would have been found innocent I might add).
Fundamental problem with today’s legal system is you go broke defending yourself, but its free to sue everyone all day. That needs to be equalized in both criminal and civil law in this country. Its a huge problem.
That scheme only works unless you’re found guilty. And again, that’s a calculation both sides will make when evaluating the case. If the insurance company spends a billion dollars defending itself on a case and loses…goodbye insurance company.
There’s a lot to this. Again, I find it strange everyone here is all against doing anything with the lawyers. All this blue-state talk and single-payer now, etc. But when it comes to lawyers, its all about Adam Smith and laissez-faire and no regulation. Weird.
You’re not advocating the same thing in both cases. In the criminal law, you want a loser-pays system for the prosecutors; or are you saying that if you lose as a defendant, you also pay the state’s costs for the prosecution team? That seems to make it double or nothing, imposing an even greater incentive to settle on the defendant (who now faces even greater financial ruin), while the Prosecutor, ultimately, is spending the taxpayer’s money – and we’ve seen just how zealously public officials guard taxpayer money.
You cannot be serious. You think that the insurance companies would not be able to, overwhelmingly and reliably, outspend the plaintiffs in malpractice cases? It’d cost a couple million up front, and you’d get it all back, guaranteed, every single time. You never get to a settlement that you can ‘lose’, you drag it out forever until your opponent runs out of cash. Which, being that they need money in the first place, will be sooner than you.
So, you’re saying that the insurance company hatches a plan where they bleed money for years and years (and have to account for the potential liability on their balance sheet) in the hopes that they win the case? I think they will judge that strategy based on the particular details of the case at hand (such as your proverbial one-armed man).
No, if you lose you are punished by the judge, just like a defendant in a civil trial is punished the jury. Trouble with modern civil tort law, you’re punished before the verdict…whether you’re an insurance company or anybody else.
It’s a guaranteed win for them, given long enough. Insurance companies are immortal legal institutions, not people. They don’t get tired. Given a near-certainty of winning, even over a long enough timeframe, they’ll take it. You’re assuming that the plaintiff can do sufficient damage to the company to make it care in the short term, which assumes that they are in a stronger financial position than the insurer, which is odd for someone seeking a malpractice settlement in the first place.
So there will be no appeals process for either side? The financial punishment is instantaneously applied and final?
Oh yes, this sounds like an excellent idea. Eliminate judicial review.
Just to sum up:
Either the process can stretch out for years, in which case the insurance company wins by outwaiting and outspending the plaintiff (Scenario A)
or
The process is time-limited and there are no appeals, in which case the insurance company has a certain end-date to their expense in beating the plaintiff, reassuring investors and preventing a bad quarterly result. They can spend any sum of money available to them and know it will be back when they win by drowning said plaintiff in paper. It may not work absolutely every time, but these are insurance companies; they play odds, not certainties. This is right up their alley. (Scenario B)
The insurance companies win either way.
Either the process can stretch out for years, in which case the insurance company wins by outwaiting and outspending the plaintiff (Scenario A)
I don’t see how this is the only resolution with loser-pays. As a matter of fact, if it worked insurance companies would do that now with the appeals process. They don’t do this now for a reason….probably because spending a fortune on legal costs for years and years is not exactly profitable.
The process is time-limited and there are no appeals, in which case the insurance company has a certain end-date to their expense in beating the plaintiff, reassuring investors and preventing a bad quarterly result. They can spend any sum of money available to them and know it will be back when they win by drowning said plaintiff in paper. It may not work absolutely every time, but these are insurance companies; they play odds, not certainties. This is right up their alley. (Scenario B)
This assumes that the insurance company finds it worthwhile to keep appealing a case its lost, piling up the bill for the day of reckoning (in addition to paying for their lawyers – on court billing – forever. Again, this makes no sense. Think like the capitalists…they want to make money, not go broke.
The whole POINT of taking it to reconciliation NOW, is to take it OUT of the hands of Obama, and leave it to the House and Senate Progressives to force a right kind of Bill. The “pass the Senate Bill, and we can fix it later” can fool Little Red Riding Hood, but YOU aint_ Little RED_ RIGHT, Jane? BESIDES!_ you don’t even have red HAIR!
Hi Margot,
Sorry you had couldn’t find the information you were looking for on the AAUW site. Here’s the link:
http://capwiz.com/aauw/callalert/index.tt?alertid=14563341
Thanks!
AAUW