Mandates As Bargaining Chip

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:54:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Great post by Kagro:

Imagine if we had a "partner" (or perhaps "co-dependent") in this who's just as eager to see to it that we do get back to "fixing" this system promptly. Someone who, say, stood to profit enormously from it? And suppose the mandates also came with significant budgetary savings attached, as I anticipate will be said to be the case? Well then, we've increased the odds dramatically for getting back to the floor, haven't we?

Those mandates don't do anything for anybody for the next four years. Why do they need to sit idly in the books except as "insurance" to the insurance companies (while we get no such guarantees regarding the "fixes" we need)? Indeed, handing over the mandates now would appear to be pretty good insurance against the need for insurers to agree to allow the Congress to come back and "fix" anything.

Of course this will require actual bargaining skills from Democrats, which we know do not exist. For those interest, my bargaining gambit is a call for sunset provision on mandates.

Speaking for me only

< How Democrats Bargain | Better Luck Next Time On HCR? Sunset The Mandate >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Mandates As Bargaining Chip | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Forget about bargaining ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Robot Porter on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 02:32:52 PM EST

why not just do what the public wants?

From a Research 2000 Poll conducted December 16-17:

A health care bill with a public option has 59% support. A health care bill with a public option and Medicare expansion has 58% support. The current proposed health care bill with mandates, but no public option or Medicare expansion, has 33% support.
A strong majority of voters say that President Obama didn't fight Joe Lieberman hard enough for the public option: 63% to 29%.
One popular talking point is that this bill "provides" 30 million Americans with health coverage. But only 36% said they agreed with that statement. 48% of those polled said they felt that requiring people to buy insurance isn't the same as "providing" insurance.

Can the public's view on this issue be any clearer?

Wouldn't it be supportive of Kagro (none / 0) (#1)
by Demi Moaned on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:03:03 PM EST

... to give the link to the same article at Congress Matters?

: Good point (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:06:26 PM EST

i'll do that.

Meanwhile (none / 0) (#3)
by lilburro on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:07:48 PM EST

Ezra Klein, as usual, shows no prowess in negotiating and asks if a mandate opt-out fixes the problem.

Oy (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:09:55 PM EST

I find it interesting though (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:10:34 PM EST

that Ezra thought it necessary to write that post.

Is there actually some push back on the mandate now in DC?


heh (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:14:05 PM EST

Not kidding (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:16:11 PM EST

That was something someone dug up and fed him. Why?

Is the House thinking about doing something on the mandates?

I think my sunsetting proposal is the most plausible BTW.


Where did you explain that one? (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:19:24 PM EST

: linked in last paragraph (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by jes on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:21:14 PM EST

of the post.

: I reposted it (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:27:10 PM EST

I figured (none / 0) (#12)
by lilburro on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:29:47 PM EST

it just came out of bile and disregard for the debates the people on the left are having about the bill. EK's response to that debate is a) not to the point and b) demonstrates how out of touch he is with the real problem - that progressives are p*ssed. So I imagine the bill will lurch left in some way. And Ezra doesn't understand that whatsoever.


and lo and behold (none / 0) (#14)
by lilburro on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:32:38 PM EST

a story at HuffPo about how the WH is going to try to make the bill more like the House's in conference. No real mention of PO though.


: I was waiting for that (none / 0) (#17)
by ruffian on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:48:43 PM EST

the old 'don't worry, we are going to work miracles in conference' ploy. Single payer and a pony for everyone!

Mandates (none / 0) (#10)
by MO Blue on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:22:25 PM EST

Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance -- the so-called mandate -- even if they find insurance too expensive or do not want it?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
38% 51% 11%
link

O.T., but I want to see a thread... (none / 0) (#13)
by Dadler on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:31:09 PM EST

...that goes something like this: "Should Greg Mortenson be offered the job of being in charge of what we might call our new Afghanistan Project?"

Here's a guy who goes into these areas unarmed, doing what the Taliban have violently opposed, and succeeds time and time again.

Who better to run Afghanistan strategy. He can still be out in the field, in fact it would be even better if he stayed there while "in command".

He's an army veteran, he's proven he can win hearts and minds like no one else.

This seems a no-brainer. Make an offer to him.

Pie in the sky idealism, I know, but logic is a tough thing to shake.

again, sorry for the wildly O.T. (none / 0) (#15)
by Dadler on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:34:49 PM EST

But the idea has been festering in me for months, and with the Nobel Peace Prize fiasco has only festered more.


He doesn't want it (none / 0) (#16)
by CST on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:40:56 PM EST

I saw him talk the other day, one thing he repeated over and over:

"we do not take any money from the federal government"

not because he is anti-government, far from it, but because he thinks he can be more effective if people there don't see him as a tool of the U.S. government.

I think he's happier to be doing what he's doing.


i realize that (none / 0) (#18)
by Dadler on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:04:32 PM EST

but it's not like any president of the united states has made him an offer he can't refuse. just a pipe dream, i know. Tent, move these comments to the open thread if you can, could you please?


: Don't think that's the point (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Left2Say on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:15:03 PM EST

True, but I think you're missing the point. I haven't seen him speak but I read "Three Cups of Tea" and he seems to make it pretty clear that any support from the US government would potentially be dangerous to his mission.
They (the people he serves) do not trust the government because most of what they've seen has been the military (heck, even US citizens don't trust the government). They trust Mortenson because he has built a reputation of only having their best interest at heart.
Simply put, nobody in the government can be of any help to strengthening Mortenson's reputation (on which his success has always been dependent). They can only do harm.

The idea I like best ... (none / 0) (#19)
by FreakyBeaky on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:14:49 PM EST

... thinking it over, is a liberal filibuster pending removal of the mandates and exchanges. That's a pound of flesh my spiteful @ss would like to have. Do a minimal bill with the subsidies, recission and pre-existing condition bans, and hell, even throw in the cost-cutting pilot programs. Kill the bill without killing it. Dare those other SOBs not to cover x million uninsured people by insisting on mandates. That'll go over like a lead balloon. Who's with me? Can I get one lousy Senator? Bernie? Barbara? Anyone?

I'd ask if I can get one lousy President, but apparently I already have one. :-)