home

The First Step?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:21:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It seems Kevin Drum is not selling the "first step"/"starter house" line on the health bill:

I think everyone will be surprised at just how fast healthcare reform fades from the public discourse once it's passed.

Well, I do not know how many folks will be surprised, but I DO know a lot of folks are selling "the starter house" bit. The only way to make sure real health care reform remains on the political radar is to keep the one bargaining chip that will bring the insurance industry to the table - mandates - in play. Sunsetting the mandate is the most plausible way to do this.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread: Silly Things We Do | "Definitive" Book on Clinton, Monica and Whitewater >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The First Step? | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Tom Harkin just said on the floor (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    that "we could have done reconciliation on this bill" but the President "wanted to involve the minority as much as possible."

    Nice catch (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:15:11 PM EST
    Now did he mean the Republican minority, or did he mean the Democratic minority (Lieberman*, Nelson, etc ... )

    *Yes, I know Lieberman isn't a Democrat.

    Parent

    It is much easier to criticize Nelson and Obama (none / 0) (#38)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    than to come up with a plan to get liberal democrats elected in Nebraska. Please follow link. Heck, I would be a lot more impressed with all the back seat driving among bloggers if they came up with a viable plan to put pressure on Snowe and Collins in Maine.

    Parent
    Irrelevent (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    and non sequitur.  Nobody with any brains thinks you can get a liberal Democrat elected in Nebraska.  The point is whether having a conservative with a D next to his name is worth it if the so-called leadership is going to let it dictate the terms of major legislation.

    Reconciliation would have made Nelson (and Lieberman and Bayh) totally beside the point.

    Do you want good policy or do you want lots of people with D next to their names who aren't actually Democrats in any meaningful sense?

    Parent

    Wow, this way of thinking (none / 0) (#50)
    by Politalkix on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 01:26:27 AM EST
    is so much like the thinking of Republicans from Southern states who have decided that they are the only real Republicans.


    Parent
    Whose Responsibility? (none / 0) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:52:49 PM EST
    I would be a lot more impressed with all the back seat driving among bloggers if they came up with a viable plan to put pressure on Snowe and Collins in Maine.

    It's the responsibility of the President and Congressional leadership to pressure members, not bloggers, that is, unless you feel that bloggers have more power than a President and should be held to a higher standard than a President.

    And as gyrfalcon said: no liberal can be elected in Nebraska.

    What planet are you on?

    Parent

    <Shrug> (none / 0) (#44)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:07:55 PM EST
    If Nelson and Obama hadn't made it easy to criticize them, it would be harder.  So what?

    If Obama had wanted, say, a public insurance option, I think he could have done a lot more to get it.  It's possible that he would have failed, but it would have been nice if he had tried.  

    Parent

    That's No Surprise (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:04:48 PM EST
    It fits with everything we know and have known about Obama since he announced his candidacy.

    And he actually gives himself a B+.

    Clueless.

    Parent

    Well, that worked out very nicely (none / 0) (#31)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:09:38 PM EST
    for him, didn't it?

    Parent
    Oh, and thinking about how this is going to work, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    I am convinced that, as implemented, the mandate is a hugely regressive tax on the people who can least afford it. Many of my age group peers, who will be the ones most impacted by it, will likely be forced to move or drop out of school.

    You could fix this even within the context of the bill, but that would likely cost much more.

    Funny how each age group feels (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    that they will be the most negatively impacted by this legislation. Not a good sign for widespread popular support.

    Parent
    Indeed, (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:55:35 PM EST
    I'm at the point where I stop worrying and love the sausage.

     This bill is what's going to pass, and I'm going to hope against hope that it's good enough to run on in 2010. Because having Republicans win would be an even worse disaster.

    Parent

    Different place than you (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:08:24 PM EST
    I do not support this legislation. I do agree that this bill will be what is passed and there is not much that I can do about it now.

    While I think that this legislation will be part of the campaign and may add fuel to the fire, I still maintain that the economy will be the make or break issue for the Dems in 2010 and maybe 2012.

       

    Parent

    Their next challenge is to fix unemployment, (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    and to appear to have made real progress on that by the spring. I doubt they can.

    Parent
    Fixing unemployment (none / 0) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:13:56 PM EST
    should have come first.

    Regarding unemployment, a few months ago Obama said "We must be patient ..."

    Totally disgusting.

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#51)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 02:36:58 AM EST
    Go read Harpers before you answer....

    Parent
    He's got a chunky writing style (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 03:35:59 AM EST
    but the article makes its points quite well. It could have been titled, "Billy's Tauzin's Little Slice o' Heaven."

    It's all about the campaign contributions, and the influence of the $pecial interests. Who knew?

    Parent

    Well, if it's any consolation (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:01:29 PM EST
    my age group might get to pay 3 times as much a you! {head desk}.

    Parent
    I will be interested to see (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    what the actual cost of policies in the exchange will be, and what the subsidies will look like.

    This is going to pass, so I really hope it works.

    Parent

    Color me jaded (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:10:26 PM EST
    but I'm going to say everything will be to the limit . . . except the subsidies. Easier to just think and prepare that way than hit the financial wall quite so hard . . . .

    Parent
    Health insurance is age-rated now (none / 0) (#32)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:12:31 PM EST
    The older you get, the more you pay.

    I'm not sure what exactly is in this bill so I can't really comment on it, but I do know that older people already pay more than younger people because they get sick more often.

    Parent

    One of the few times (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:29:52 PM EST
    I thank God for my advancing age.  This piece o'crap will only get me for about a year before I hit Medicare-- at which point, of course, they'll have made it even harder to find a doc who'll take it than it already is where I am.

    Thanks, Barack!!

    Parent

    Consider the plight (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:08:46 PM EST
    of families with children.  Those not qualifying for a hefty subsidy and living paycheck to paycheck.

    Parent
    Starter House, Mild Fixer Upper or Money Pit? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Ellie on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:53:47 PM EST
    This analogy wouldn't bode well during the best of times, much less during a time of foreclosure madness (and post giveaway to banks and Wall St, free of sensible oversight).

    Incrementalism is highly overrated, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    I think; just imagine the effect of passing real reform, making it effective immediately, and having the positive results spilling over into the 2010 and 2012 elections.

    But, no...we have to be...incremental.  We have to wait another 5 years before we make this all happen, because, what, people have waited this long, and do not need help now?

    This just might possibly be the most ignorant and tone-deaf and stupid strategy EVER.

    real reform now? (none / 0) (#37)
    by diogenes on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:51:48 PM EST
    If they passed real reform now, then they'd have to defend it in 2012 when it is a fiasco.  Much better to run on a platform of abstractly having passed "the first health reform bill" than to have to defend how it really turns out.

    Parent
    Evidence (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:38:12 PM EST
    indicates that this is the turkey that Obama wanted.  So delay it's implementation until after 2012.

    "ignorant and tone-deaf and stupid"

    Yup. Sure is.


    Parent

    Mandates (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    The only way to make sure real health care reform remains on the political radar is to keep the one bargaining chip that will bring the insurance industry to the table - mandates - in play. Sunsetting the mandate is the most plausible way to do this.

    Do you think that this is remotely possible?
    Do you think that there is any interest in sunsetting the mandate on the part of any of the leadership of the democratic party?

    From all appearances, they think they have something that they can pass and, as others have said, say "mission accomplished", wave the flag and go home.

    Just asking.

    Increase in penalty (none / 0) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    I don't see the mandates going anywhere.  In fact, I see the insurers fighting to increase the penalty.  I believe the bill will be made weaker in areas to get small improvements with a net overall loss.

    Parent
    They increased yesterday in Reid's Amend (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:01:59 PM EST


    Parent
    un- (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    -believable.

    Parent
    Increased to (none / 0) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:18:34 PM EST
    2% of household income.

    Parent
    Really. I think the Republicans will be (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:48:36 PM EST
    discussing this piece of legislation full time during the run up to the elections in 2010 and 2012.

    Depending on the final outcome of the legislation, they will have an abundance of talking points.

    OTOH, since very little of it (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    take evert for a while, I doubt it will be much discussed at all.

    Parent
    Much easier to feed into the fears of (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:59:21 PM EST
    people when the actual outcome is unknown. I think the Republicans will jump on it big time. They have stated that this will be one of their major issues and they normally follow through on this type of stuff.

    Parent
    Listening to Harkin make the progressive case (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:00:43 PM EST
    for this is very interesting. Some of it is old hat, but other stuff I was surprised to here. Apparently, we're requiring large chain restaurants to put nutritional info on menus. I don't know how effective that will be, but I think it's great politics.

    Parent
    For a while, some of the chains (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    did something like that here in MO. Some menus still have light or reduced fat entries highlighted. Personally, I think it is one of those sounds good ideas that don't have much effect on behavior.

    Nutritional info has been on food in the grocery stores for quite a while and to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't resulted in a decrease in the obesity rate.

    Parent

    Well, I'm happy to have the requirement in (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:25:02 PM EST
    any case. I mean, I would not be happy to have nutritional info disappear from the supermarket, even if most people don't see to care that it's there.

    Parent
    I'm not against this (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:58:54 PM EST
    I just don't think this is a good selling point for why I should support this legislation.

    Parent
    Oh, I didn't say that (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:59:35 PM EST
    I just think it's interesting that it's there.

    Parent
    It has helped to decrease my poundage (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:45:17 PM EST
    and my health, so it's not nothing.  And I am far from alone in that -- look at how many people are dieting, and you gotta read labels to do so.


    Parent
    Young man behind the counter at McDonald's (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    says in his opinion people's orders are effected by having the info posted.

    Parent
    andgarden, you werebeing sarcastic about the (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by esmense on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    great politics part? I think it's terrific consumer protection -- I'm an avid label reader. But it makes me crazy mad to hear a politician  suggest that restaurant nutrition labels are health care reform!

    Can you imagine the reaction of people who can't afford to eat out regularly? Yeah, we didn't do much to control costs and insurers can charge you three times more than they charge young people -- but, hey, you'll have no trouble figuring out the calories in your filet mignon at Morgan's!

    Talk about Democrats living up to the accusation that they are elitist and out of touch!

    Parent

    Well, it's about big chain restaurants, (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:24:03 PM EST
    like Applebee's. Probably it should be even more expansive.

    Parent
    In a way, that makes it worse (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by esmense on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:54:03 PM EST
    It seems to be making assumptions based on class. A little paternalistic, you think?

    Parent
    No idea what you're talking about (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    Lots of people go to big chain restaurants.

    Parent
    Applebee's is one of the restaurants that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    have a section for reduced fat items. IIRC, they may even indicate fat and carb information on these items.

    Parent
    *takes effect (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:50:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Republicans would be blasting (none / 0) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 01:18:19 AM EST
    any legislation that the Democratic Party came up with. Even if it was a government run option, they would be talking about waste and corruption there.
    Waste and corruption also run in government run organizations [link], not just in the private sector.


    Parent
    As Usual, Drum has no idea (none / 0) (#34)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:22:06 PM EST
    what he's talking about. This health care bill will never fade as outrage grows from the moment people start feeling its effects.

    Democrats are smart enough to realize this (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    That's why much of it doesn't take effect until 3 elections from now.  They're not stupid enough to run on this bill.

    Parent
    He's been completely out to lunch (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    from start to finish on health care.

    Parent
    The First Step? | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment