I have heard a dangerous mantra being repeated by the Senate bill apologists in many different forms. The goal of the consistently uttered mantra seems to be to trick those inside the Washington bubble that the Senate health care bill is, in fact, secretly popular, but the American people are too dumb to realize it. The message in defense of the legislation basically boils down to, “when people hear that X is in the bill, they like the bill more.” Usually the X is some very popular element like tax credits for small businesses, or banning coverage denial based on pre-existing conditions.
Yes, the Senate bill does contain some popular provisions and good ideas. Democrats should not take too much comfort in the fact that they wrote a 2,000 page bill and some how managed not to make every single page terribly unpopular. The problem is that legislation is normally not judged by a handful of its most popular sections, but is often judged by its most egregious. This is especially true when the onset of the bill is delayed so people can’t actually feel the good stuff, but can still hear about the bad stuff. Legislation is like a chain, only as strong as its weakest link.
It is true that when people hear about how the Senate bill will ban rescission, ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, expand Medicaid, help close the Medicare Part D donut hole, and/or provide small businesses with tax credits, they tend to be more supportive of the bill. But it is equally true that when people hear about the mandate forcing people to buy private health insurance, the excise tax on employer-provided health insurance benefits, special money for Nebraska, the secret deal with PhRMA to stop drug re-importation, or the delay of benefits till 2014, they become dramatically less supportive of the bill.
Democrats can try to run on the popular stuff–which will not kick in until 2014–but the Republicans will be able to run against the unpopular stuff. Plus, the Republicans will probably say, “We would have happily voted for those popular provisions if the Democrats did not put them in a bill with so many corrupt deals.” While I think this will be dishonest on the part of Republicans, it will still make for a great campaign talking point.
Doubling down on an awful bet by simply passing the Senate bill in the House as is would be a terrible idea. That bill already cost Democrats a Senate seat in Massachusetts. Chris Van Hollen, the head of the DCCC, knows voting for the bill as is would be toxic for House members in 2010.
Cold Political Calculation
Democratic House members should ignore this insane mantra for the bill apologists and make a cold political calculation. Democrats wasted all year working on health care reform so they need to deliver something big to prove they can govern. Equally important the Senate bill as it currently stands is pure poison filled with terrible provisions. The bill is unpopular and House members need to at least pretend they are responding to the anger. So, Democratic House members have only two solutions:
- Quickly pass a simple, clean, and easy to explain expansion of Medicaid/SCHIP/Medicare using reconciliation. Tell voters you’ve heard them and made the bill simpler while still helping 30 million Americans.
- Create a sugary sweet reconciliation sidecar measure with as many popular ideas as possible to fix the Senate bill (include a public option, Medicare buy-in, and drug re-importation, eliminate Nebraska’s special deal, and fix or eliminate the excise tax). Pass both bills on the same day. Finally, run against Joe Lieberman and the Senate for messing things up, while pointing to how you did everything you could to stand up to the evil insurance companies, and managed, with hard work, to salvage a very decent health care reform package.
Either strategy should work. Policy-wise, both routes could produce a decent health care reform package if Democrats choose to use reconciliation smartly. For pure political reasons, I lean towards very expansive reconciliation sidecar strategy because the Senate Democrats already voted on their bill.
House Democrats can prove they are relevant, take credit for the very popular provisions in the reconciliation measures, and blame all the problems on the broken Senate. Conservative Senate Democrats can blame whoever they want. I recommend trying to make an argument that uncompromising Republicans just force the Democrats to go it alone, and only moderate Democrats can move things to the center.
Ignore The Mantra
The Senate bill is unpopular and full of easy political targets for Republicans. It will not magically get more popular by just passing it now. Passing it “as is” in the House will prove that House Democrats are a worthless rubber-stamp, and make them look deaf to the will of the people. It is a death sentence.
House Democrats need to show they are listening by demanding some popular changes, like including a public option. The public option is popular, makes the individual mandate more tolerable, and is a sign that Democrats stood up to the unpopular insurance companies. Even if the changes are relatively small, House members need something to point to so they can say, “we heard you.”



86 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Right. Nothing could be more foolish than for the House to pin electoral hopes on spinning a bad bill. The Democrats don’t understand (yet) how to frame debates and there is no communications infrastructure equivalent to the GOP’s that can “catapult the propaganda” to quote George Bush. If it were possible to win the message war on health care it would have happened a year ago. The damage is done. The only way to salvage the mess is to get real reform passed that will motivate the base.
Democrats should not take too much comfort in the fact that they wrote a 2,000 page bill and some how managed not to make every single page terribly unpopular
If you mean the Democrats copied and pasted a bill that the insurnace industry wrote, then you are correct.
Why do you think passing the popular items piece by piece want work?
no good enough. some useless symbolic change won’t cut it. substantial change, that provides real benefit to ordinary people is what is required.
Agreed. They opened this can of worms to bail out the insurance industry, and to take people’s minds off the fact they are losing their jobs and houses. Both these bills are crap. The Dems know this. So do the Rethuglicans. This is nothing more than a mess of crap, thrown together by the insurance industry, oh and here’s your little doggy treat.
The problem with the Democrat’s Strategy is that it does not account for the Fuck You All vote – which grows stronger daily.
OT, I don’t think so
Hold on, kids.
Hearing now that Obama’s ready to nix the pre existing condition clause except under 19.
Improving the bill, indeed. Working with Olympia for bipartisan blame?
Bosh!
Gotta laugh at the totally inept, double crossing contortions they’ve gone through to protect the insurance companies.
South Carolina pols seem to be on a mission to allow the pols in MS and TX to say “See, we’re not so bad after all.”
ding
See, this is exactly what I hate. Neither party is interested in actually doing anything for us.
As long as they seem to be doing something, that’s good enough for them.
They can all choke on their grand gestures.
After years of eating shit sandwiches, Congress appears completely flustered that we aren’t grateful anymore.
It has become painfully obvious that dems on the hill are piss-poor parlimentarians when it come to “working” the rules.
Those dem pee-pants in congress should once again take lessons from the rethugs on how to use – or threaten to use – things like “the Nuclear Option” or reconcillation to get the “good stuff” in the house bill passed the senate.
If the dems in either house fold like cheap lawn chairs on HCR they deserve to get booted out of office – and I’ll volunteer to lead the pack!
All the discussion of health care legislation now seems to be irreversibly intertwined with the discussion of getting Democrats elected this year. Health care reform shouldn’t be attempted in an election year, because the politicians will try to create legislation that gets them elected, not legislation that is good.
Go ahead, ignore my vote against this healthcare bill via the MA senate race, Democrats – there will be enough amplification in November so that many of you will be playing deaf at home by this time next year.
Here is an article stating that the pre-existing condition will still exist in the Senate Bill under the pretense of Fraud. According to the article, no different than today. A gigantic earth destroying meteorite could fly through this loophole. Also, a large Nurses Union oppose this bill citing this loophole for the reason. I don’t know if it is true or not, but I always suspected this.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/quelle-surprise-health-insurers-pretended-to-play-nice-lobbied-against-reform.html
This was reported on Raw Story, which referenced a blog post here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/health/policy/22health.html
The dems are apparently mulling the idea of eliminating the ban on pre-existing conditions…unless you are 19 or younger.
The old folks who are over 19 can just go **** themselves, again.
Wait a sec. This may be their grand plan. Get booted out of Congress so they can start making serious money on “K” Street, Wall St., and 42nd St.
Obama’s stategery is to tell people how good the two slices of bread are in their crap sandwich so that people magically forget they are eating crap. Obama also told Marion Berry “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me” in regards to the midterms.
From the DSM IV-TR does Obama have five or more of these traits?:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
If you think five or more of this list applies to Obama, that means Obama has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Thanks.
Jon: you make some very good observations in your writing today, and some great suggestions. In particular, the second suggestion (sidecar reconciliation, House Democrats run against the Senate) seems quite bright.
The question I have for you is: “Given that the people in the House already know that these options exist, and have known for some time, why haven’t the officials pursued any of these great strategies?”
Do you not think that Nancy Pelosi is aware of this stuff? Given that she is, as is everyone around her, why don’t they do these smart things?
It wld have been better to have examined the old pants before patching them. And upon examination of the pants [in principle by all people; never to happen?]decide to keep them or get a new pair.
Isn’t it obvious that the healthcare cannot ever be [re]formed to taste unless american right to purchase some food is restored.
At one time they have eaten well or at least better than now. So, giving people some food to eat wld add a lot to better healthcare; food being the best medicine.
Obviously, bigger pay,along with education wld help. That brings us to volition; i.e.,right to voluntarily agree on pay and conditions of work in a work place.
Alas, this right, the right to gladly agree on pay and conditions is no longer available.
This is another basic right that emperors, kings, lords, counts, shareholders have stripped us of. Rendering us dependencies; while joy, happiness, security hinges solely on being interdependent.
I’ll be returning to these and many such basic rights which ancient and modern ‘nobility’ took away from us!tnx
Has it occurred to you that this is what Obama and others want and they aren’t using parliamentary maneuvers out of choice?
Until the White House and D Leadership accept that truth, they will continue down the current path leading to electoral decimation having utterly wasted the opportunity of a generation.
Potential Democratic slogans:
We’re not quite as bad as the Republicans.
The Senate bill is shit but it could be worse.
Change is overrated.
Democrats and insurance companies looking out for your needs.
Yes, we can, and we did, just not for you.
Remember corporations are people too. The Supreme Court says so.
With political ammo like this in November how could they lose?
Bingo
Saw something about that.
It’s almost like the Democrats are sitting in a room brainstorming ways to make the bill worse.
Bipartisanship!
I think sidecare reconciliation is a longshot. For one thing the WH isn’t 4 square for it. That’s always a tell, albeit a fairly obvious one.
How could I have missed that one? LOL
fides@14 has a link to the story.
What would happen if Obama finally stood up to lead.
During the SotU speech he could say “Congress has worked for a year on a bill to reform American health care. But what’s been presented will not reform health care in this country. All it does is change some insurance requirements. I’m directing Congress to start over. Don’t start with Pharma or Insurance companies. And don’t get sidetracked buying votes by giving special deals to special states or select categories of workers. Consider what reforms will improve health care and bring down prices.”
It would look presidential (something Obama could use about now) and it would give Congress cover so they wouldn’t have to vote on this stinker.
How does that work?
And considering Joe Lieberman alone derailed the Medicare expansion – simply because, as he said, ‘The liberals like it’ – and because Joe is now sponsoring a Bill to deny any funds to DoJ for ‘terrorist trials’ in NYC as a way of thwarting Obama once again – Obama must sanction Joe in the strongest ways possible and allow the Medicare expansion to be passed and take effect immediately. Obama has shown he’s not worthy nor qualified for the job he was elected to. Time to turn it around or throw in the towel.
I think House members are leaning toward the first of Jon’s two options (quickly pass a simple, clean, and easy to explain expansion of Medicaid/SCHIP/Medicare) or some scaled-back or piecemeal approach, but that the second option (create a sugary sweet reconciliation sidecar measure with as many popular ideas as possible to fix the Senate bill) is not something that House Dems can decide to do as if it were their decision alone.
Leadership has to want it (leaders aren’t going that way) and Senate Dems have to get on board (not happening).
The thing is that Obama has led in cutting the backroom deals. Obama would just look silly flailing about criticizing the very deals he orchestrated behind closed doors, which isn’t to say he wouldn’t be above using hollow hypocritical words in his SOTU speech as that hasn’t stopped him so far.
What you say is so painfully sane that it seems almost obvious. Any chance that YOU will run for Congress, Jon?
Very well put.
Good find.
What will it take for all to see how low every last one of them will sink to deceive us, rip us off, and hand it over to corporations?
Issues of life and death, like trumped up wars and terminal illness isn’t beneath their addiction to power.
You still gonna trust them or vote for them?
They are evil.
Pelosi and Hoyer just signed off on a commission as a backdoor way to slash Social Security and Medicare, the two most popular programs in government. It is impossible to see with leadership like that the House is going to do anything “popular” let alone relevant.
Do we have any evidence that they aren’t a worthless rubber stamp?
I have to look twice every time I see “SOTU” because at first I see “STFU” – which is actually how I feel. I just want Obama to STFU and DO something. I may want to believe whatever he says on Wednesday but I won’t, I can’t. One more fired-up-and-ready-to-go barnburner speech will only make the capitulation that follows just that much harder to take.
I’m not sure you can diagnose Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but it’s a given that basically everyone in national politics has narcissistic traits. You’re lucky if they are just narcissists and not sociopaths.
Not after all the enemies I made in that place.
How better to demonstrate the strength of their convictions than by talking tough prior to capitulating?
During the run-up to the Coakley debacle when people who could not bring themselves to vote for another corporatist Dem were being denounced as Naderites (and worse), it struck me that the folks saying turn out for the Democratic candidate or else are much like the “progressive” Dems on the Hill who invariably wind up voting against the positions they espouse.
the Dems made very
bad legislative decision-making on the deals–NE benefit on Medicaid, LA specials, unions get excise waiver while others pay it, etc.
the excuse that every bill has it (deals), doesnt fly. apply IOKIYAAR liberally.
Dems look like the Vikings with 12 men in the huddle.
Inept and amateurish.
It was a good idea to federalize the Medicaid additional costs. Why it got written at first just for NE was a bonehead idea.
your plan of medicaid, medicare buy-in, etc. is terrific.
I thought I was the only one whose mind does that rearranging. I think it would better be called the STFU address these days, though, because everyone is getting sick and tired of hearing talk about stuff that is never going to happen. I hear it’s going to be all about jobs. Yet, the deficit is still getting more attention than anything, so what are the odds Obama is going to translate his “I get that” speeches about jobs into actual jobs programs with actual money to make them work? If Congress had any brains, they’d be fighting against Obama, not buying his crap about needing his popularity to help them out in November. His charm didn’t do all that much for Coakley, did it? What Obamabots are still out there are still gonna vote D no matter what, so they aren’t the ones they should be chasing.
Is the ban on preexisting conditions exclusion gone, except for those under 19?
I don’t know, doesn’t it look like health care reform is totally dead? Some people are saying the House can take it up later in the year, but of course that also means closer to Election Day.
Besides, you cannot be 30 years old are you?
In your TV spot you looked about 21*g*
The Senate bill is unpopular and full of easy political targets for Republicans. It will not magically get more popular by just passing it now.
Amen. I think your option 1 is the best one, but even for it they need to be ready to dig in and address the costs and funding issues.
They couldn’t pull off this idea, but IMO the political winner for them at one point would have been to offer up a public option and – instead of a tax on “cadillac” plans or even an additional upper income levels tax (which is an ok approach with me fwiw) they should have laid out that the downside of a public option is that it would disproportionately be used by people with pre-exsiting conditions who cannot get coverage on the market so there would be a surtax on income earned by insurance companies on the sale of policies with pre-existing condition exclusions and caps.
That, imo, would have been a political winner on the sales pitch. A tax on insurance companies (not policy holders – at least not as directly) that the insurance companies can avoid by offering a product that gives the insureds pre-existing conditions coverage and also a tax tied pretty directly to the costs incurred by gov when the insurance companies suck down premiums for years and then abandon their insured to bankruptcy and medicaid later.
Nice post.
they keep going back to the same bad place; to get insurance companies to conduct themsleves in a way that would be the legal minimum standard for just about any other business, they have to be PAID OFF with 35 million people forced (at gun point) to buy their near worthless product. THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Actual “reform” is long dead and buried. I suspect the Dems intend to pass something but it won’t be good.
What evidence do you have that they are not sociopaths? “g”
Bipartisunkship
Axelrod is fond of arguing that the Senate Bill ought to be passed because American will learn to like it after they’ve had a few years experience with it. Axelrod’s comment is both paternalistic and arrogant. Axelrod is implying that the American public is too dumb to appreciate everything the Senate and the Obama Administration is doing for the, The White House is totally tone deaf and doesn’t appreciate the fact that they are insulting the voters with these arguments.
Because they’re nice to rich people?
Frankly, I don’t see how Medicaid can be expanded if the deficit commission is going to cut it.
It looks like they are trying to get some preexisting condition ban without mandates. Insurance companies wouldn’t go above about 19 for that, so that’s as far as they will go. They will say they took on the preexisting condition problem without actually doing anything that will help much of anyone. But that’s a huge win for our oh so brave Congresscritters who are fighting tirelessly for our good.
Jon pointed this out in a previous article. I figured this would be the case, implicitly, when I heard about this provision in the bill. To make so much ballyhoo about this being in the bill is like a ‘DUH’ moment. Who would call it reform without the loathed preexisting condition and recension issues addressed. And of course none of this starts until 2014. Phbbbt!
Even DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen in saying the Senate bill should be dropped because it is irrevocably tarnished attributes that to bad branding. IOW people don’t hate it because it’s a bad bill, it just wasn’t successfully marketed.
Wrong.
Cute as a button, JClausen. He’s cute as a button! (In a very good way, Jon!)
Bipartisanshit!
A starving person will learn to love mush seasoned with cow shit and Castor oil too, but that doesn’t make it good now does it. Axelrod is a fuck stick cheerleader and only a complete idiot can’t recognize that.
Exactly. And as thick as I am its dawning on me whats “wrong” with democrats. the no drop provision of the law is what this is all about. its for wealthy upper middle class and upper upper middle class people who have, what should be excellent insurance, but don’t because of what should be illegal conduct (dropping paid up customers) by the insurance industry racketeers. it was never REALLY about expanding coverage, except as a way to force people to buy insurance. its US who are dense. the dems think their REAL customers are this mythical, legendary middle class, who don’t exist anymore in enough number to keep them elected. that’s where they are screwing up. they don’t care, or understand, that most of the same well insured retiring baby boomers they are trying to suck up to, have adult children who have had spotty (at best) health care for all of their adult lives, and it looks even worse for the grandchildren. the dumocrats again, are living in the 80′s.
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post available: Why The Cornhusker Kickback Raised So Much Attention
If the house progressives are truly serious about the public option, they should consider marshalling the forces and creating a holy shit storm.
But if they suffer defeat in the fall they can just go to work as a lobbyist, consultant, adviser, or get a job on one of Obama’s many commissions. So even if they lose, they still win. While the rest of us are left unemployed, uninsured, and totally fucked.
It’s a goddamn shame the British lost the Revolutionary War. At least we’d have health care by now.
the failure of this bill is a win for the cause. it comes down to fixing the problem. in the end it will HAVE to be fixed. they have no right to fix it on the backs of poor and working people who have long been the victims of the insurance industry.
ratfood:
That’s what I like about fdl, great writing and great wit.
It is really quite simple: They were for expanding it before they were for cutting it.
Several of them are. That’s why I said we’re lucky any of them turn out to be only narcissistic. A lot of the Wall Street guys are sociopaths. It’s not hard to see how having empathy would be a drawback in making it to that level in that world. This is why shaming has absolutely no effect. How can you feel bad about what you’ve done when all you can see is how well it benefited you without any insight into what horrors it unleashed on others or why that would matter? Sociopaths respond to punishment, but not to altruistic reasoning.
Being a true sociopath is not as positive in politics. Look at Obama, for example. If he really couldn’t figure out how other people feel, a lot of his speeches and campaign promises would never have happened and he would definitely not have been able to win. In a way, he disturbs me more and definitely angers me more. He gets it enough to campaign on it but still doesn’t do it. That really pisses me off. It’s a deliberate action. So even though he is not as scary in general as a sociopath, he’s much more irritating because at least you can tell yourself that sociopaths don’t know any better.
Very well stated.
Unfortunately, the response I’m seeing from Dems is that the Senate bill is just fine – they just need to launch some more propaganda and everybody will support it. Delusional, to say the least.
This will be a great test of just how dumb and corrupt our elected Dems really are, and I’m not sure at all that they will pass the test. Darwinian selection at work here.
The crazy thing is that even if they pass this bill, they will have to fix it before long. It makes too many things worse without enough fixing of what is already bad. So to take the position now of making everyone pissed off at something you are going to have to fix anyway looks especially stupid. You don’t spend a year messing with the can and stuffing it full of shit before kicking it down the road. Then you just have shit as well as can to pick up.
“Some Elements of A Bubonic Plague Outbreak Are Popular…”
… it frees up parking spaces downtown!
I think in Obama’s case it’s cynicism, not sociopathic tendencies, that allow him to casually disregard whatever empathy he might feel for those who would suffer from his policies. He uses the same excuse Clinton did – some must suffer in the name of the greater good. Of course, the greater good never arrives because it was traded away at the outset and only the suffering remains.
The Senate bill supposedly would close the Medicare Part D doughnut hole by 2019… Nearly fifteen years after the original passage.
If that is the speed with which they “fix” comparatively simple legislation, none of us would still be around by the time they remedy the HCR package.
Kill the mandates, kill the subsidies. Forget about the insurer regulations — if the Senate does not have guts to regulate the insurers for real, then pretending won’t help. See the 1936 Soviet Constitution: “guaranteed” the Soviet people plenty of rights, while Stalinist dictatorship continued heedless. Pass the Sanders amendment as a separate bill. Tell the Senate to move on. Campaign against the Senate this year.
theres no hope of rehabilitating a sociopath though. they have to be contained
I was laughing until I remembered all those people against HCR because if the people dying without insurance were to suddenly be able to see a doctor, they’d have to wait longer for their doctor appts.
I’m not aware of anyone being able to teach sociopaths empathy. It seems to be one of those things you either get by a certain age or never. Some of it appears to be brain related, too, so I don’t see how you are going to change that. If you can’t change that essential element, the only rehabilitation you have is to teach them better fear of consequences. In a sense, you can rehabilitate them, but it takes rehabilitation of their environment as well. You can teach them a healthier fear of consequences, for example, but they still can’t be put in charge of anyone else’s wellbeing, especially without excellent supervision. There have always been a lot of sociopaths on Wall Street. They didn’t blow everything up until they were given too much control over their own behaviors. At this point, they do not fear any consequences and there is no system in place to force any real consequences on them. Incredibly stupid.
Speechwriters tell Obama what to say and consultants tell Obama what to promise.
In canada, healthcare for all is financed from sale taxes, etc.
But i favor healthcare also on a principle and not on any other reason.
The principle that we all swim in one genetic pool thus have the right to swim in also a living pool.
it is from one and only genetic pool that we obtain all ailments. And it took tns of people to make me and the geniuses and who bring us knowledge and progres. Alll geniuses are of the people and made by the people. They are,in principle, ours and we are theirs. Not in practice, tho!
I think Obama’s problem is actually fundamentally the opposite of narcissism. He doesn’t have high enough self-esteem. This is the case with a lot of people who come across as thinking they are all that and then some. The best defense is a good offense. He wants everyone to like him. He doesn’t like conflict. He is too easily swayed by those who tell him that people really do like what he’s doing even if the polls aren’t good. He needs to feel like he belongs in the cool crowd with the big players and that he is liked and admired. He would be a total pushover for the argument that the best thing the Dems have going for them going into November is him. He desperately needs to believe that to be true, so his default is to buy in. People with big needs make great puppets. I’m sure his handlers have figured out by now to tell him constantly how great he is and shield him from any evidence to the contrary except for those who call him socialist or otherwise serve as useful prods to jerk him to a more corporate friendly stance. Have you noticed how he overreacts to what criticism does penetrate his bubble? That’s not someone who really thinks they are God’s gift, but someone who deeply struggles with not feeling good enough.
True, but he doesn’t have the air of someone who just read it somewhere and can’t fathom it personally. He can see the views of others in extemporaneous remarks. He knows we are suffering. My guess is that he has been told, and has accepted, that he can only do what can be done without pissing off “stakeholders” and that incrementalism is a huge accomplishment. You can tell he doesn’t quite agree with the latter, though, because he can’t help but try to sell his incrementalism as major reform. His insecurities are showing.
Sorry i misunderstood your question. You were asking ab how to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement btwn employee and employer.
May i explain it so: to me, it is fact that we’ve never had law [i am using the word as in folk-usage and cannot be futher defined]in the entire recorded history.
So let’s finally have at least one important law: all emloyees wld have the right to unite in big happy union in order to obtain and agreement with da bosses!
I also aver that human beings are not dumb; thus can choose for selves what’s best for them. And if no ceo wld get more than $200k a yr, so much the better!
Or whatever is mutually ok! tnx for your question!
“Some parts of the tree are edible.” – Euell Gibbons wiped out entire forests with that simple statement.
I keep hearing such that “sure, most important elements of reform have been stripped from or are missing from the latest iterations of the bill(s), but don’t forget there are some good nuggets in there–so we should at least approve it to get a foot in the doorway.” Right. It’s more like having our door smashed in by cops demanding payments to fund demolition of our homes.