home

An Unconvincing Argument For "Health Care Reform"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:54:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Village wonk Jon Cohn writes:

To [Marcia] Angell--and to others on the left [. . .] --this is reason for ditching the whole effort. But what, really, would that accomplish? The immediate impact would be to undermine Obama and his allies in Congress, creating the (accurate) impression they are incapable of passing major legislation. The Democratic Party would lose seats at the midterms and then, quite possibly, suffer even bigger setbacks two years hence. That's not exactly a recipe for progressive revival.

As a defense of the health care reform bill, this is piss poor. Assume for a moment it is true that failure to pass "health care reform" will cost Democrats seats (which will be impossible to determine imo, as Dems are sure to lose seats no matter what), what Dems are likely to lose, and why? Suppose it is people like Jason Altmire, Travis Childers or Jim Cooper? Is Cohn REALLY arguing that their losses will be a setback to progressivism? Really? That is just plain silly. I support the House health care reform bill, for one major reason, it contains a public option. Nothing else in the bill that is called "reform" (as I have stated before, expanding Medicaid is not reform. It is a good thing but not reform) is worth worrying over imo. I do not believe the final health care reform bill will have any other worthwhile reforms. But if it has a public option, it is worth passing. If it does not, it won't be worth passing. Parts of it? Sure. But let's not call those provisions reform.

Speaking for me only

< Denver Judge Invalidates Board of Health Restriction on Medical Marijuana Caregivers | 8th Cir. Affirms Michael Vick $16MM Bonus Case >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    An Unconvincing Argument For "Health Care Reform" | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Cohn is very funny (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:06:28 PM EST
    His argument is the explanation Mitch McConnell was giving at length last night as the only explanation for why Democrats voted for this terrible, awful bill, that they were holding their noses and voting yes solely because the White House insisted it was necessary for Obama's reelection.

    Great minds think alike, I guess...

    Frankly (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    I think passing the bill as it is will hurt more than not passing it. Bad legislation is worse than no legislation IMO.

    Cohn's "big picture" argument (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    seems to overlook its composite little pictures and the impact of the much larger picture that emerges.  Stupak/Pitts appears to expand the base of  Hyde, further undermining assurances that abortion remains safe, accessible and legal.  Indeed, speaking of the camel's nose in the tent, Stupak/Pitts is more likely to get done what Scalia and his ilk have failed to do and not for the lack of trying al these many years.  This is, after all,  a health care bill that should provide an equal playing field for all Americans. Federal funding/subsidies are foundational to the health care/insurance reform and the prohibition of coverage, in effect,  denies reproductive equality and places a psychological burden on a segment of the population. Optional insurance riders are essentially surcharges for women. Hyde for a brief time in the late 70's did not apply in cases deemed to bring physical health damage, rather than only life endangerment as certified by a physician (hopefully that consult was covered).  Stupak/Pitts should go, or at a minimum, add to the exclusions physical and mental health matters as determined by the women.  

    And Cohn thinks decisions should be (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    made to preserve Obama and his allies?  They aren't my allies!  Already demonstrated they will sell my butt out and use me for bus traction for a song.  I care about getting real reform for the people.  This is a war.  Why do I need to kid myself?  I'm still battling for my rights as a woman too and I'll choose the ways and means that preserves both most adaquately and insures it to the greatest degree tomorrow while I will continue to be in the face of leaders, cuz I know there is no way either war is over today or even tomorrow.  And Obama is not a champion of equal health-care for all any more than he is a champion for equal rights for all.  As far as women's rights go, that war will be on even after I'm worm food from what I can tell.  But don't think that means I'm going to quit fighting it or the war to obtain equal health-care for all!

    And because (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    Deep down, they know how unbelievably crappy it is, and that once people realize how deeply they're getting screwed they won't want anything to do with the Democratic Party -- but by then it'll be too late to make the responsible parties pay for it.

    Brilliant!

    I hope the Dems do kill it, because it is worse than nothing. And as for the political calculus, that we have to pass it to save Democrats' political lives, sorry if that just doesn't move me. In the slightest.

    As to the "pet issue" of abortion, the wholesale throwing of women under the bus isn't limited to abortion rights (although those ARE in the Democratic Party platform, right? right?) but to ALL types of gynecological care for women and also for birth control. Ah, Democrats, thanks sooooo much.

    ROE vs WADE GOODBYE? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by norris morris on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:36:26 PM EST
    The Stupak amendment is evil enough. We women finally are making inroads in being free to choose.  Actually, being free of being told what to do with our bodies. The rest is up to patient and Dr. We've come a way but not a long way, baby.

    Now I have to surrender and/or endanger Roe vs Wade to help Obama get re elected? And suffer for the rest of my life because a pack of incompetent
    and corrupt politicians want to keep their undeserved jobs?

    So far the only thing Obama has done regarding healthcare is that he's agreed to a deal with Bill Tauzin, Lobbyist in chief for Big Pharma. This deal was made in the dark months ago. Obama will NOT push for gov't bargaining for lower drug prices. Big Pharma will give $80billion over 10 yrs, and when you think about the 77 billion they made last year, this is peanuts.

    Tauzin was the scumbag that worked with Tom Delay when both were Republicans in Congress during vote on Medicare Rx Drug bill.  Delay and Tauzin wrenched arms and threatened funds cutoffs if the vote didn't go there way.  Guess what? They ran the vote THREE times until they got it the way they wanted it. Then Tauzin left Congress and went to work as lobbyist for BigPharma for over $2million a yr.

    What did Medicare Drug recipients get out of this?Screwed with the Doughnut Hole in Medicare RX which after reaching their idea of a spending cap means: You get nothing at all. See, you're in the Hole. Which means I still pay premiums and I get absolutely nothing. If I somehow spend an enormous[usually unattainable amount], then it kicks in again.

    So we were rolled by Tauzin and Delay.  Nw we're being rolled by Tauzin and Obama.

    It is sheer insolence to suggest that we should accept a rotten bill because Obama and a group of Dems need to get elected and have thrown us under the bus to accomplish this.

    A bad bill is a bad bill and shouldn't pass. And a bill that removes freedoms women have fought for for a century is a lousy slap in the face.

     Imagine our Change Agent asking us to give up the right to be equal, and under federal statue give up our hard won rights to legal abortion and the right to make decisions already made into law?

    The mysogyny and contempt for women is appalling.
    The disregard and disrespect for our hard won rights is shocking.

    If Obama's ambition and re election campaign coffers are the deal, am I to give up the fight we've won that was waged for decades?

    Forget it. Unless a decent public option bill that is fair does not emerge from the Senate and then on....there will be no deal at all. I believe that the Democrat's spineless and snarky behavior already reveals them as a bunch of opportunists who are no better than the backward GOP'ers, I will not support them and fight like hell to oppose any bill that smells as bad as this one already.

    Parent

    I can only point to... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    ...others who sum up the whole debacle perfectly, I'm too tired and worn out to do so myself:

    ...whatever happens, certain already immensely powerful and wealthy corporations closely allied with the State will become still more powerful and wealthy. Given the nature of the corporatist system that now throttles every aspect of life in the U.S., that is how the system works. That's how it's set up, and that's its purpose. The fact that insurance companies will reap huge rewards on the backs of "ordinary" taxpaying Americans is not a regrettable byproduct of an allegedly good but imperfect effort at reform, or a flaw that will be fixed at some unspecified future date. And as already powerful and wealthy interests become more powerful and wealthy, the State will also increase its already massive power over all our lives still more. None of that is incidental: it's the point.

    http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/

    Of Course (none / 0) (#1)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    The political consequences <of not passing legislation> is not the strongest argument for passing healthcare reform. I agree with you in toto.  But, while swiping away the political fallout argument as the basis for reform or even as a good reason for reform, the realpolitik part of me keeps it on the sidebar. I suspect that the potential "payback" for any perception of "failure" to pass significant reform after so much investment of time and energy (which, some might say, could have been expended elsewhere)could be massive loss ala 1994 because the public often punishes what may appear to be weakness or do-nothing. 'Just saying that whether the consequences of failure to pass argument is tertiary or just plain kick-in-the-pants get-the-job-done incentive, it shouldn't be ignored at this point. To me, this legislation is "do pass" because of what it does and what it has the potential to do. And, so much of the concept is at the heart of what defines Democrat, that I have less than low regard for any member of the House or Senate that would vote against it in pique or otherwise at this point. (I guess thats my personal line in the sand.)

    In pique? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    Sure. Opposed on the merits? No, even if I disagree with them, I can accept that.

    Parent
    On the merits (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    See here and here.

    I believe that BTD suggested or at least mentioned the idea of stripping out the good parts, like pre-existing conditions, passing that, and declaring victory.

    Parent

    why isn't banning of pre-existing conditions (none / 0) (#2)
    by jes on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    real reform - or is it because you think the insurance companies will be able to get around the regulations?

    They will raise premiums (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    and offer unaffordable insurance as a result.

    Parent
    ...and that too.... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    All back to the resistence to vesting real regulatory power in government where it comes to private insurers' practices.

    Parent
    Simply banning the practice won't (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    make it go away.  In order to do that, you would need to create a fairly sophisticated system whereby patients, doctors and other stake holders could resolve disputes with private insurers quickly and efficiently enough to keep patients from getting sicker or worse dying.  That would be "real" reform in this scenario - and that would be much more regulation than I think they've been inclined to impose on the insurance companies.  All of this is assuming that you hang on to the private insurer model - I hope it goes without saying that under a single-payer universal system like Medicare, the "rules of the road" (as it were) with respect to approved courses of treatment are much clearer by comparison - and Medicare doesn't employ leagues of doctors and other practicioners who spend their time trying to find any way they can to throw patients off the rolls.

    Parent
    Rescission (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    My understanding is it does nothing with rescission as the insurance cartel states it is a tool to deal with fraud.  You can still be rescinded and you will need to seek other coverage which won't be denied as a pre-existing condition it will just be very expensive.

    Parent
    Rescission (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    My understanding has been that rescission would be subject to the "clear & convincing" standard for insurers. If that is the case, it would be much, much better than status quo.

    Parent
    Who gets (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Emma on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    to decide what's clear and convincing?  The plan administrator?  Because I can guarantee you, it won't be the court system or any independent outside agency.

    Parent
    Rescission followed shortly by recidivism (none / 0) (#65)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Real Reform? (none / 0) (#69)
    by norris morris on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:42:55 PM EST
    With reference to trusting the Insurance Monopoly, please don't.  

    Whenever possible they have denied coverage and used every trick and piece of small print to deny reimbursement or coverage.

    Only a truly robust bill with regulatory bite
    would prod the healthcare industry into behaving fairly and legally.  Competition would handle fair prices.

    Remember Healthcare Insurance compsnies PROVIDE NOTHING.  They are middlemen who skim as much as they can and deny as much as they can.  Why? Profit, and they've been able to get away with this as there is no competetion to level the field. You pay them high premiums, and since there is no competition we are robbed blind when we are the most vulnerable and have no alternatives.

    Insurance companies sell paper and make tons of unheard of profits from exploiting and denying claims and coverage. Soon no one will be able to pay for this.  For the wealthy and connected this is another issue.

    There is no reason whatsoever to trust Insurance Companies unless a bill emerges that is real, tough, and can be regulated because its construction is such that the insured are given a fair deal both financially and medically. And is realistic for all sides in its financial structure.

    But taking a womans right to chose away after Roe vs Wade, and putting in the Stupak Amendment which Congress just approved, is a nightmare. And the noise won't stop. Obama has lusted for a bill under all and any circumstances, and yes, if women have to take a hit so he and a few stinker congressmen and senators can get re -elected, so be it.

    So now we know how Obama feels about women who voted for him.  They're expendable. Unless Stupak is removed from whatever mess is conjured in the Senate, Obama will NEVER be re-elected. If he is it will  be by a bunch of the Republicans he courts with so much delusion that he thinks Olympia Snowe makes it a bi-partisan effort!

    Snowe has already told us all...she'll vote for cloture, blah blah BUT absolutely will nix a public option. This small State Republican is an example of bi-partisanship?

    I'll say it now. I believe Obama is so ruthless that he will tolerate far more wiggleroom and a lousy bill if necessary and con us with the notion...
    That he created a Healthcare Reform BILL AND IT
    WAS BI-PARTISAN.  Hooray!

    Heaven help us if it's bi-partisan.  Can you imagine what a Republican Healthcare Bill, er Bi-partisan Bill will be?

    This has all been a fiasco of mismanagement, cowardice, opportunism and broken promises.

    Parent

    I think the bill is DOA, regardless ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by vector on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill, 23 voted "aye" on the successful, pro-life Stupak Amendment. That's 23 Democrats opposed to the bill even it it contains pro-life protections.

    Sixteen Democrats voted "nay" on both the Stupak Amendment and the final bill - meaning they have non-abortion related objections to the House version. The Democratic pro-choice caucus voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill - deferring to leadership and hoping the Stupak Amendment will be stripped after Senate passage and reconciliation.

    When the House again votes after reconciliation, either the Stupak Amendment will remain intact or it will have been stripped.

    If Stupak remains intact, the best possible outcome for passage in the House is a repeat of the original vote, 220-215.

    But how likely is it that Lynn Woolsey, Jerrold Nadler, Louise Slaughter, Rosa DeLauro, and other Democrats who have practically made abortion into a sacrament, will vote in favor of a final bill that is opposed by Planned Parenthood and NARAL?

    It only takes three defectors from the pro-choice caucus to kill the final bill in the House.

    If Stupak is stripped, chances for final passage in the House are even worse. The sole Republican to vote for passage, Rep. Ahn "Joseph" Cao, will almost certainly oppose the bill.

    There were 41 Democrats who voted "aye" on both the Stupak Amendment and for passage of the bill. If the Stupak language is stripped, and only two of those 41 change their vote, the bill is dead.

    There is only one possibility for final passage, and that is for the Senate and reconciliation committee to address the non-abortion related concerns of Blue Dog Democrats and keep Stupak intact.

    That is the only way to keep Rep. Cao and the pro-life Democrats on board. And it's also the only way to gain enough of those 39 Democrat "nays" from last night to offset defections from the pro-choice caucus.

    These are way too many "ifs".  

    I think we need to take a cold, hard look at reality.  Unless EVERYTHING lines up perfecly right, the bill is dead, dead, dead.

    The truth is, the pro-choice caucus is totally myopic.  They apparently couldn't care less that millions of Americans loose their best opportunity EVER, for good basic health care coverage.  This "pet" issue means too much to them.

    Unfortunately, as soon as the Democrats sacrafice health care on the altar of abortion, they have basically handed the Republicans the key they need to 2010 election.      

    There is no way that this crazy quilt can be explained to ordinary people.  Most people will understand it in plain English:

    In the Democratic Party, abortion is more important than giving people access to basic health care.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    You're considering only the binary possibilities that the Stupak amendment either remains in the bill exactly as-is, or it gets removed wholesale.  Not a very accurate picture IMO, but I understand you really just wanted to rant about silly pro-choice people who see abortion as a "sacrament."

    Parent
    My take also. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:11:39 PM EST


    Parent
    SILLY PRO CHOICE PEOPLE (none / 0) (#73)
    by norris morris on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:11:55 PM EST
    Steve,
    I'm one of the "silly pro choice people" you mention. Actually I'm a woman that has enjoyed the idea that we have had access to equal protection under the law and within our constitutional rights.

    I have been keenly aware of our struggle to be treated equally and to determine what is best for for ourselves. My body belongs to me.  The mysogyny so prevalent in our society is a result of centuries of discrimination.

    I know it's hard for you to understand, but I am as entitled as you are to personal freedom, respect, and self determination.

    To trivialize a woman's most searingly difficult and painful choice of abortion [for any reason], speaks to your  lack of insight regarding one of the most important dilemmas of our time.


    Parent

    Even if I believed that this bill (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by trillian on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:55:22 PM EST
    ..."gave people access to basic health care".......which it doesn't....

    I have to wonder why you aren't arguing that the anti-choicers be reasonable.

    Why shouldn't they be harangued for "sacrificing health care on the alter of religion?"

    Just wondering

    Parent

    "Pet issue".... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:03:40 PM EST
    Oy.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    I'm pro-choice and I might be willing to figure out a compromise to get a good bill but this bill is barely acceptable as it is and the senate is likely to turn it into utter crap.

    The stupak amendment was so completely stupid. It should have never come to a vote.

    Parent

    The bill would have failed (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:40:13 PM EST
    in the House without it.  I don't like it, but them's the facts.

    Parent
    Well then (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 06:33:02 AM EST
    there's really no chance at reform at all. If this crappy bill is the best we can do then there's no point really in doing it at all.

    Parent
    House Vote A Failure (none / 0) (#74)
    by norris morris on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:33:46 PM EST
    The reason you give for voting for Stupak is that it was necessary to pass the bill?

    Baloney. Women were thrown under the bus by a conservative catholic Democrat who went beyond Hyde bill. There has been dithering and compromise from Obama from the beginning.Cowardly
    and unconscionable. Entirely unacceptable/

    This bill deserved to fail. Democrats slapped women in the face when they agreed to vote against a given constitutional right as well as equal protection. Even Bush couldn't get rid of Roe vs Wade.

    The squalid politics of Pelosi bending to Obama to get "something through" was to ram this insulting,backward, and dangerous amendment to appease a few to get this rotten flawed bill through.

    At election time the Democrats will find out just how unable to govern they are and the voting booths will tell the story.

    The raw insult of trashing women's rights to get "something through" must be a hint to moderately intelligent voters that this is one rotten deal with more to come.

    While you are at it we'v e also been sold out by Obama who cut a terrible deal with BigPharma that will limit their drug abatement contribution of $80 million over 10 years. The bargain?  The government will NOT bargain for lower wholesale drug prices. So the Drug Companies made $77Billion in profits last year.  Obama's deal for the people with BigPharma is a piddling amount that they are thrilled with.

    This was done backroom with Bill Tauzin, lobbyist for  drug monopoly who earns $2million a year to screw us over.  Tauzin is  responsible along with his fellow Republican Tom Delay, who rammed through Medicare RX with it's Doughnut Hole when they were both in congress. This was also a stealth move like Stupak as it took three votes at midnight until the arm wringing and threats  by Delay and Tauzin produced a squeaker.

    Thw Doughnut Hole is the part where nothing is reimbursed once you reach the insurance "cap".  Which is pretty soon. So, we get no benefits in the "Hole" and continue paying premiums.

    A bad bill which harms any part of our electorate is a bill that should not pass until we get it right.

    Parent

    Obama pumped and primed pro-choicers to fail (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ellie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    On Saturday, Obama did some Hope-a-Dope on Dems in a 30-minute appearance at the House.

    [...] In a final push to get health care reform through the House of Representatives ...

    Obama, according to several lawmakers, did not talk about the public option or the controversial amendment to make abortion restrictions much tighter. He discussed, primarily, the momentous nature of the vote and the need for the party to be on history's right side.

    "This is the moment," said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) That this is what we all went into politics for, that this was a historic moment, that seven presidents have tried to pass health care and haven't done it, and that this was a moment like civil rights or Social Security or Medicare."  ...

    "He thanked all the chairs [of the committees involved in developing the health care bill]," said Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y). "He thanked all leadership and he mentioned specifically John Dingell."

    By the meeting's end, the vast majority of the attending lawmakers seemed confident of health care reform's passage -- though certainly there is the potential for flare-ups as the abortion amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) comes to consideration.

    "We are feeling pretty optimistic that we can defeat this," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a primary opponent of the amendment.

    "Democracy is not pretty but it works," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), another opponent of the Stupak amendment. "I was here in 1993 when the ship went down," she said, referencing the Clinton administration's failed attempt to pass health reform. "This thing isn't going down." (
    Sam Stein, 11-07-2009)

    Suckahs!!

    If this historically important opportunity for Obama's legacy wavered on the weekend, he'd have been front and center afterwards to deal with the fallout. He wasn't.

    Or, maybe it wasn't that big a historical deal after all.

    IMO, from day one he's hobbled progressives by making "bi-partisanship" a fetish of His admin and His legacy, thus emboldening Stupak, Lieberman, Snowe, &c.

    Parent

    Thanks re: Suckers (none / 0) (#75)
    by norris morris on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:36:52 PM EST
    Thanks for your insight. A fine comment that is appreciated.

    Parent
    The 2010 election (none / 0) (#70)
    by norris morris on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:56:46 PM EST
    Your logic is convincing and appreciated.

    Actually the Democrats are on another Death March into oblivion. Obama has not led on this,and finding a decent bill out of this much dissension is impossible. Anything coming out of this fiasco would be a mess.

    The GOP made an "issue" out of the healthcare reform fracas, and they sensed Obama's weakness and need for bi-partisanship as deluded and naive.

    What better for Republicans than to reverse Roe vs Wade in one stroke with a weak president hoping for a healthcare bill he did nothing to fashion or fight for?  Compromise from day one
    and calling it bi-partisan is either foolish or corrupt. Maybe it's both.

    So far the Republicans framed and controlled the debate, and now have inserted an evil Stupak into Obama's bill which rolls back decades of progress and women's rights.

    Parent

    Reports are that the (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 05:46:28 AM EST
    pro-life support is growing. That's not the result of their activist groups, it's the expansion of politics from the pulpit that took a very visible uptick last year.

    This is the creeping up of blending church and state. It's going to get so much bigger than abortion and subservience if it isn't called out.

    The other visible change we saw last year was the ease with which the superdelegates were converted. When emotional topics would surface, the email campaigns got going from other sites. The messages were so emotionally charged that their reps wrote nasty responses that these people angrily posted. Nothing could help them see they needed to write from a position of logic and reason or no one will be heard.

    Parent

    I support the bill too and (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpa1 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:51:21 PM EST
    it marks a sea change that is much needed.  Sure, the public option is vital but also is the 5.4%surtax on incomes over a $1 million Married filing joint and $500,000 for single filers.  I would have prefered a few more brackets and larger increases up the line, especially since there will be no Estate Tax for anyone dying in 2010.  Since the public option will require more doctors, we will need more money to educate them and train them, which means more meidcal schools.

    As far as the Democrats, they will survive and live well if they each grow a pair of balls and beat the sh_+ out of Republicans who lie and continually spread hate and fear.  If they don't, all they have to do is look at what happened to those losers in 1994 when they didn't back Clinton's tax increase.

    How do you feel about.. (none / 0) (#11)
    by trillian on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:58:41 PM EST
    "creating a new criminal class, people who can't afford health insurance. The solution - fines and prison."?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:05:53 PM EST
    We are all Grover Norquist now.

    Any new tax must be demagogued as a threat to send innocent Americans to prison!  To the barricades!

    Parent

    I guess you've missed the past couple of day (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    around here.

    Parent
    Not a bit (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    but you are more willing than I to do the Full Squeaky on these comment threads.

    Parent
    Ach (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    Mostly I react to having my motives questioned. I shouldn't.

    Parent
    Whilst trying to access Talk Left on (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    my Blackberry last night, I stumbled on a "Full Squeaky" thread from over a year ago.

    Parent
    Shhhh! (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:41:22 PM EST
    Don't even invoke the name-- please!!!

    Parent
    So is this not true? (none / 0) (#18)
    by trillian on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    4) HR3962 Sec 501, p. 304. Seems to state that small lapses in coverage are not going to result in taxes. I would assume this means a few days, but I don't see any specific numbers. The bill just calls them "de minimis lapses of acceptable coverage."

    Now, if you don't pay the tax in point (1) above then you will be subject to normal IRS rules and regulations. I would assume this is where IRS Code sections 7201 and 7203 come in. They feature up to $25,000 in fines and no more than 1 or 5 years in jail (depending on which is applicable). I'm not sure how these are applied in practice.

    So, it looks like no specific penalties are outlined in the bill, but the 2.5% is designed as a tax and so would fall under IRS rules for non-compliance.



    Parent
    If you don't pay your taxes (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    then you get treated like anyone else who doesn't pay their taxes.  In practice, of course, only in the rarest cases does someone go to jail because they couldn't afford to pay their taxes.

    In any event, this is the way it was before this bill and this is the way it will be after this bill.  I'm really boggled by the people acting like it never before occurred to them that you could theoretically go to jail for failing to pay taxes, and oh my gosh, what an outrageous thing to threaten people with!

    Like I said, we are all Grover Norquist now.  All taxation must be abolished, lest someone go to jail for nonpayment!

    Parent

    It's one thing to pay taxes for govt services (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    It's another thing to pay taxes to support the shareholders of insurance companies.

    Do you have in mind another industry that manufactures defective products that we should be forced to buy?

    Parent

    Text books for school kids (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:09:42 PM EST
    No doubt there are others.

    Parent
    That would be an example... (none / 0) (#48)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    ... of a defective product?

    Parent
    You're not being forced to buy anything (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    Just pay the tax if you don't want to buy insurance.

    What happens when an uninsured person comes down with a serious illness, or gets hit by a bus?  Here are the options:

    (1) leave them to die in the street;
    (2) give them health care and let other taxpayers, or the doctors, absorb the cost; or
    (3) make them pay for it.

    The mandate backed by a tax is an effort to implement option #3.  In effect, your tax is serving as a premium for catastrophic health coverage, because we as a society are not willing to deny people catastrophic coverage if they get hit by a bus.

    If you want to make the case for #1 or #2, feel free, but let's not act like any choice is problem-free.

    Parent

    You're not being forced to buy anything (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Spamlet on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    Just pay the protection money if you don't want our goons to break your kneecaps.

    Parent
    Yes, citizens in single payer countries pay... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:48:20 PM EST
    ... for health care when they pay their taxes. This system can be shown to save the taxpayers a great deal of money, and provides better helath care outcomes.

    That would be #4, I suppose.


    Parent

    That's not a 4th option (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:59:45 PM EST
    it's a variation of #3.  I understand the challenge you face in attempting to portray this tax as something conceptually different when it's not.

    Parent
    I think it may be conceptually different (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Spamlet on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:41:06 PM EST
    Are there other circumstances in which the consequence for not buying something is a tax?

    I live in a state where the consequence for not buying auto insurance is a fine--a penalty--but no one calls it a tax.

    When I pay a portion of my income to the IRS, I think of that payment as a tax, and I think of a penalty as the additional amount I would have to pay, over and above the tax, if I didn't pay the tax on time or if I tried to evade the tax.

    But if we're going to start calling the penalty for not buying insurance a tax, then should we also call a tax a penalty? If so, we should characterize payroll deductions as the penalty for not earning more money.

    Seems to me that you--not those of us who share George Orwell's concerns about politics and the English language--may be the one pushing the argument into Grover Norquist territory, given the way your use of the word "tax" encourages his kind of sophistry.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    it's called a tax in the statute, and it's paid to the IRS, and failure to pay it carries the exact same consequences as failure to pay your taxes, so that's a tax to me.

    If you want to call it a penalty I don't really care, but it's far from Orwellian to call it a tax.  If you want to be like lambert and insist that it's getting paid to the insurance companies when it's not I can't really stop you from doing that either.

    Parent

    Hold on (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Spamlet on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    I did not say that this tax, so called, was going to be paid to the insurance companies. If you have an issue with something lambert said, you can take it up with him.

    Regarding use of the word "tax" when what is actually meant is the word "penalty," I get it--you're only quoting the people who wrote the statute. Those disingenuous bastards!

    Parent

    It's a variation of #3... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:54:40 PM EST
    ... if you think that health care isn't a right. I do understand the challenge you face in attempting to portray citizens being forced to bail out the insurance companies through buying their defective product.

    Parent
    Except (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:57:39 PM EST
    that no one is being forced to buy a product.  however, if you don't buy it, you will have to pay a tax, to account for the fact that the government is ultimately responsible for whatever catastrophic care you might require.

    Parent
    Taxes (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    Some would argue that the $ would support primarily the insurance companies. Others--like myself--would argue that $ are designed to support large expansion of coverage to estimated 96% of Americans. That expansion is also estimated to beneficially effect <through healthcare> the lives of 36 million more people. That strikes me as a good deal.

    Parent
    If people who wield the 36 million club... (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:54:18 PM EST
    ... would also point out that's 36 million by 2019, that would be great.

    Leaving aside that 10 (ten) years is a long time to wait for coverage that isn't universal even then, 10 years off is so far away there's no certainly of what the outcome will be in terms of care -- especially with an administration hell-bent on entitlement reform.

    Parent

    Lambert, what about the primary (none / 0) (#60)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:51:17 PM EST
    subject of the article in your link: Health care reform plan has no legal foundation:
    The sole, largely unexamined, support for this unprecedented federal mandate is that it is "like" state mandates to purchase automobile liability insurance.

    But consider the differences...Most importantly, no constitutionally guaranteed rights are compromised by such mandates. [snip]

    There is no way to opt out of the mandate, and the federal government will penalize noncompliance with stiff fines. Such unprecedented overreach threatens important property rights and liberty interests -- at least for U.S. citizens.

    The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Struggling, cash-strapped citizens have property rights to their after-tax dollars that cannot be mandated away. They also have the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into their lives. For example, they have the right to be free from a determination of how much they can afford to pay for government-mandated health insurance based on a crude assessment of their financial status.

    Our Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. Congress has already exercised that power to fund critical pieces of a national health care system, namely Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and Veterans Affairs health care. Altogether, government covers more than 50 percent of personal health care expenditures while private insurance covers a mere 36 percent. We are more than halfway to national health care.

    If spreading the risk of getting sick over the greatest number of people is the goal, some form of tax-funded "Medicare for all" is the lawful way to achieve that goal.



    Parent
    How does the author explain the federal (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:55:57 PM EST
    government's right to collect federal income taxes?  

    Parent
    I dunno, anybody here know tax law? (none / 0) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:12:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Here's where you are supposed to cite (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:16:38 PM EST
    16th Amendment to U.S. Constituion.

    Parent
    So why'd ya ask me (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:19:39 PM EST
    if ya already knew? You're a sneaky puss!

    Parent
    Agreed, Steve, but it's not (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:28:18 PM EST
    so all or nothing an issue.  Sure, few people actually get the Full Al Capone and get serious prison time for not paying taxes.

    But an awful lot of people get hounded or harassed or generally put through a lot of grief by the IRS in cases that don't get to court, if only because people cave to get the fed government to go away.

    It's good that the IRS' ability to treat us like total dirt was somewhat reined in a while ago, but I still dread the possibility of an audit notice again -- a notice that came with only 24 hours to show up with every record ever from years before, or we would face major fines, prison time, etc.  And we were treated like criminals.  It turned our lives into chaos for some time, it cost us a lot of work time.  Luckily, we were young professionals with some autonomy in our work schedules.

    If we had been the typically underemployed, we would have lost our jobs just for the feds to end up saying . . . "oops."

    Parent

    Politically... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    ... it's could well end up legitimating right wing tax resistance.

    Another victory for the Dems struggle to maintain the two-party system by electing Republicans starting in 2010!

    Parent

    Making the IRS the collection agent... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    ... for the health insurance companies is GENIUS. It's a surefire political winner!

    Parent
    Which probably explains why (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by trillian on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    ....it won't be enacted until after Obama gets his second term.

    If it's so damn wonderful, why wouldn't they push it through and run on it during the next two election cycles?

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by hookfan on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    they need the time to fine tune it. Fine tune it, I'm guessing means allowing insurance companies to jack up prices on premiums enough to expose even more poor slobs to the consequences of irresponsible tax evasion, or irresponsible lack of coverage they won't be able to afford. See, the poor can be just redefined as irresponsible. Voila! Lots of problems solved. Insurance companies are off the hook for the consequences of their decisions, and the democratic party representatives get to avoid facing the music for the burdensome consequences of their new fangled tax on the poor. And George Will can become the posterboy for the creative class Democrats that currently run the nation.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    that the tax is only levied on people who DON'T buy insurance, but of course you knew that.

    Parent
    That's why I used the words... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    "collection agent." The people who hound you for payment, right? And so the IRS, for the insurance companies.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    if you owe money to an insurance company, the IRS will now hound you?  No.

    Parent
    Er, no. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    If you don't pay the insurance companies what the service they provide is worth, plus the extra thirty cents on every dollar that is worth nothing except profit to them.

    I mean, really, what next? Should we be forced to buy Regnery books because the demand for right wing crap is falling and they need a bailout?

    Parent

    Bonuses to health insurance execs (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:14:21 PM EST
    will be a right-wing campaign cause.  Count on it.  Even though any bill won't go into effect until 2013.  The insurance companies will spend the next couple of years ramping up our costs so that it will look like they are cutting costs come 2013 -- and those ramped-up costs will include big bonuses for health insurance execs.  Mitt and Huck and Sarah will have a lot of fun with it all.

    Parent
    I'm sure the bankster... (none / 0) (#35)
    by trillian on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:53:18 PM EST
    ...are at this moment trying to figure out how to get this kind of deal for unpaid mortgages.

     

    Parent

    A deal that doesn't exist? Uh huh. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:04:41 PM EST


    Parent
    They'll privatize it! Yay! (none / 0) (#47)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:49:30 PM EST
    Sure, worst case scenario...

    Parent
    An Unconvincing Argument For "Health Care Reform" | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment