Tweet
In what is likely to be one of the last acts of health care reform kabuki theater, the role of the football will be played by President Obama’s proposed National Insurance Rate Authority. As always, the role of the Lucy shall be played by the Senate.
The role of the football has previously been played by direct Medicare drug price negotiation, the public option, Medicare buy-in, 90% minimum medical loss ratio, and a national exchange. Not surprisingly, the Huffington Post is reporting that the Rate Authority will likely be dropped because it can’t survive the Byrd rule in a reconciliation bill.
Like previous provisions that have played the role of the football, the National Insurance Rate Authority was a smart-sounding, progressive idea put forward to make people feel more kindly toward the health care bill, only to see it pulled away at the last minute.
What makes this final act with the Rate Authority so disgusting is the incredibly pure cynicism all around. Within minutes of seeing that Obama proposed it be part of the reconciliation bill, I questioned its ability to survive the Byrd rule. It simply did not seem likely, based on my knowledge of reconciliation.
If I could clearly see that it would likely not survive the Byrd rule, so should have Obama’s team, the Democratic leadership in Congress, and all the big, pro-reform groups that tried to use its inclusion as justification for supporting the bill. In fact, Democrats should have (and probably did) ask the Senate parliamentarian about it before saying they would put it in the reconciliation package.
Instead, they put the provision in the package to get people excited, knowing full well it would be removed weeks later. They then waited until literally the 11th hour to crush people’s hopes by pulling the football away one more time.
To add insult to injury, they could actually still pass the Rating Authority using reconciliation. There is no reason, according to a reading of the Senate rules, that it must be removed because the Senate parliamentarian does not think it directly affects the budget enough. If Democrats really wanted the new agency, they could get it by having Joe Biden use his own judgment on the Byrd rule instead of following the parliamentarian’s non-binding suggestion.
For this latest, incredibly cynical move, I feel a lot of people are owed an apology by a large part of the Democratic/liberal/progressive establishment. Of course, if they are actually handing out apologies for broken promises and back stabs, this latest act would be at the bottom of a very long list. It is amazing how every provision suggested that might have reined in the health insurance industry always got removed, time and time again.
49 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
What are we all complaining about? Obama and our Democratic majorities identified serious problems, started with a set of reasonable and very doable proposals to reform the system, and systematically dismantled each one on the way to enacting the legislation.
That’s not change we can believe in?
Lawrence O’Donnell is right. We need to be more practical and support Obama and our Democratic majorities as they fuck us all over.
This was also used as a key item in the Deficit Reduction proposals in the document presented on the economy yesterday. So they got a two-fer from just one Lucy takes the football yet again.
Let the “Well We Tried Now You Dirty Fucking Hippies Sit Down and Shut Up” parade commence!
“It is amazing how every provision suggested that might have reined in the health insurance industry always got removed, time and time again.”
Amazing? Really?
Of course, they could leave it an and actually go through the process and force the republicans to take it out…but that might be politically beneficial.
Can’t have that.
Here is the big difference.
Our side is going to do something about this if it passes as it appears it will now be. Your side will just sit and take it.
the latest mantra that we are supposed to chant:
ya gotta start somewhere.
ya gotta start somewhere.
ya gotta start somewhere.
hypnotized now. zombie progressives walk l i k e t h i s. t a l k
l i k e t h i s.
Earl Blumenhauer from Oregon is on the radio talking about what a great bill they have “crafted” and whatever shortcomings there are will be addressed in the future. Let the spin begin.
It is called sarcasm
I’m sure that you will proudly decline any benefits that come your way from the bill.
That is not an option. He will be forced to take part because of the individual mandate.
Over at the Great Orange Satan, the few people pointing out how Obama lied to our faces by saying he supported a public option after he had already shook hands with hospital lobbyists to promise them there would be none are being shouted down with cries of “Can’t you just shut up until we get the bill passed?”
Those willfully deluded fuckers deserve everything they’re going to get from this bill.
Hate to say Jon, but I told you so. They are going to bleed us all dry in any way possible. “HC”R is just the first of a litany of non-lubricated rectal exams we are going to get courtesy of the globo-corps.
Now, on 3, everyone practice grabbing your ankles!
We will call this morning callisthenics and disease prevention!!
….Marvin, time for your ‘wellness’ exam…..
Nothing amazing about it. It’s a feature, not a bug. Obama’s only goals were to organize a sellout to the corporations involved and to slash Medicare. Anything else was just window dressing for the rubes.
Reminds me of the NAFTA debate. Critics were told to shut up and get on board. It’s just a beginning and we can always go back and make it better. Still waiting.
Rahm to DFH’s: “You’ll get nothing and like it.”
Wait till Obama and the Dems continue their reforms on everything else. This fire sale isn’t over yet. Honestly can’t wait for people like at KOS’s reactions. Then you’ll hear screaming. Oh wait, scratch that. They’ll go along for the good of the party. All hail the Dems! Oh and please be sure to donate to our latest “progressive” challenger, who is…….tada!! Another Dem loyalist first!
social security will be on the chopping block soon.
No kidding. Every nation that signed onto that NAFTA BS is still waiting for those benefits. None have materialized.
Needless to say, Obama ran on re-opening the negotiations on NAFTA. There was a big scandal about it at the time because even as he was saying this Goolsbee was telling the Canadians not to worry because Obama didn’t mean it.
When GWB was in office there was at least the hope of the possibility that things could get better with new leadership. With Obama all hope has been abandoned.
How many will have to choose between making a house payment or a health insurance bailout payment? Will this bill put families on the street? Am I being extreme? I can’t tell anymore.
Isn’t that the MO of the D party? Oh, we’ll pass this crappy version of XXX and just as soon as it’s the law of the land and set in stone, we’ll make feeble, half-hearted attempts to make it marginally better.
I don’t see how anyone “won” with NAFTA. Really don’t. Jobs never really migrated to Mexico as they still cross the border in droves for jobs. Canada still has to fight and challenge damn near every trade dispute. What did the US win from it? I don’t see where anybody got anything positive out of it.
Lately all the comments I read solidify my belief in why we Progressives (Dems) are typically losers and the Repugs win so much-We don’t unite. It’s always my way or the highway in the trenches, not on the front line. The Repugs stand their ground united even if it goes against their principles (at least the stated ones, assuming they really are principles). We don’t. We snipe and complain and pull our support if we don’t get our own way. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is money that drives the political machine. When Progressives propose things that are good for America we are going against the big money interests. The big money is where our politicians get the funds to run for office. So Progressive politicians are always in a tug of war between their principles and the source of their political fate. On the other hand, the Repugs unite always WITH the moneyed interests. When the Repugs unite, even behind policies they generally don’t espouse, they gain power. Imagine if all the Democrats united and voted with the party. We would have had single payer 6 months ago. Stupak and Nelson and Lincoln would all be in line. In the overall they would likely get a lot more of what they stand for, along with some of the things they don’t like, but surely more than they would have gotten with their obstructionism. The only thing they wouldn’t get is re-elected.
Until there is a solid source of funding for liberal causes we will always have to play catch up with the Repugs. Jane and Move On and the others have the right idea-let’s start funding these people reliably. We have to put our money where our mouths are.
Didn’t Mr. Bipartisan campaign on a public option? GWB was a colossal failure and Obama is a colossal liar.
Anyone remember the 80s song, “Ship of Fools” by World Party? Been thinking about that song a lot lately…
MoveOn is partisan, not liberal. That’s the problem. There are no progressive or liberal organizations with the power to persuade.
No. We already pay more in health insurance than we pay for rent. We choose monthly whether to pay, say…heat or rent or medical insurance.
I don’t know. I am reminded of Animal Farm where even though Napoleon’s lies and betrayals become more and more obvious the animals continue to believe in him.
The Citizens United ruling makes any money raised through blogs, individual donations etc. is nothing more than chump change. The Chamber of Commerce has already announced it will be spending 200 million dollars in the 2010. That’s just the Chamber of Commerce.
Cheer up firebaggers – once the reform bill passes maybe Texas will secede after all, and you can join all your anti-reform confreres down there, sitting around all day uninsured, bitching about Obama and forwarding each other conspiracy theory emails.
Bend over, Obama has some more of that reeeeform for you.
Only if the Republics seize power and then only after they finish putting St. Reagan on all currency.
Social Security? We don’t need no stinkin Social Security.
Yes, that was the lion of the senate’s job all his political life. To make attempts to make things marginally better and then sell the dog poo. I never like to “compromise”. IT means both sides lose something. Coming up with a new idea out of real opposition can make for consensus and something everybody has a stake in. But what the Democrats have done since around 1972 is capitulate not anything more. They turned against the people a long time ago.
Only a Republican could resestablish relations with China (Nixon). Only a Democrat could dismantle SS (Obama). He’s already said that he finds Republican Congressman Ryans buyout proposal “interesting.”
Wouldn’t a firebag be…like a bellows? Like a device used to direct air to fuel a fire? I’ll take that. Sure beats the image of “teabagger” (which I will not describe since this is a family blog).
So once YOUR unpopular reform bill passes, and all of the “benefits” won’t hit until 2014….what is the next brilliant plan for ensuring your team doesn’t get destroyed at the ballet box? Have they passed out the talking points for defending Obama’s panel for cutting Social Security benefits? Do they chew it up for you and spit it in your mouth like a mother bird does for her chicks?
The Bravo Sierra that will be spewed by the Obama 30 percenters during the upcoming SS massacre should be especially enlightening. Could someone just send me a mechanical kangaroo [edited by mod]?…..
[MODNOTE: please no violent imagery real or fantasy, thank you.]
That reminds me I still have to write about the Citizens United case for my Obama scandals list. I have been dreading it because it was written, I think, by Kennedy. He is a really bad writer. Boumediene was the only decision of his that reached even a mediocre level of writing, interesting because it was one of the few opinions of his I agreed with.
I knew that. My comment too. Sometimes it is hard to not slip from skeptic to cynic.
DK is now actively whipping yes votes per TPM.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/from-progressive-holdout-to-whipping-health-care—-how-dennis-kucinich-is-helping-dems.php?ref=fpblg
Dammit mod, now I’m left with an image of some randomly bouncing Kangaroo flailing around with no general purpose. Couldn’t you at least have had the courtesy of editing the scene to a PG rated version?
Uh….a kangaroo that acts like Sugar Ray Robinson to a specific area of my person….
Mod, did I thread the needle on that one?
Like everyone, I take all the tax deductions possible.
I don’t see any benefits for me except one. With no pre-existing, I think I’ll just pay the fine and wait until I get sick.
And, I won’t be the only one.
i just used the kaiser family foundation calculator to see what i’d pay on the exchange.
so I make about $45,000.
single male, 40 years old by the time this is up and running.
looks like they have a lovely rate of 7.8% of my income, nearly $300/month. is that before or after taxes?
by the way, i currently can’t afford my student loans. how can I afford this on top of that?
um, well that would depend on his income.
As it stands, I can’t afford this, as stated in the comment i made at #46.
I’m not sure what “benefits” you mean, when a lot of us simply can’t afford to participate.
but he can also just pay the penalty to the IRS, right? which is 2.5%?
that’s a lot less than what uncle Sam wants me to pay to blue cross.
Proving once again…
The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society’s political machinery. This doesn’t mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it’s a “democracy.” If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is — a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.
The party’s true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn’t exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party — the essential service it renders to the US power structure — lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it’s not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a “democracy.”
As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a “democracy” and a “choice” in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for “change within the system.” From the system’s point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve — it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren’t designed to play that role in the first place.
The Democrats are not the “lesser evil;” they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can’t be properly understood if one’s study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)
The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, “If voting made a difference, it would be illegal.” Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.
Doesn’t the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches et al “prove” that the Democrats are progressive? No. The Kuciniches and are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types — but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a “Left decoration,” simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich faction have any real power.
The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.
For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.
A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.