More Madman Political Bargaining

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:22:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I thought I was done with the subject but it is getting discussion in the Beltway. Ed Kilgore, who I respect, writes:

[Ezra] Klein goes on to address the frustration of party progressives about the unfairness of this disequalibrium of power within the party . . . I'd put it in a slightly different way: if, say, the Progressive Caucus in the House wants a final, definitive test of strength against the Blue Dogs, it might make sense to choose one in which the failure to act is entirely acceptable according to their own principles and priorities. At the same time, Blue Dogs need to be frequently reminded that they will be the very first Democrats to suffer electoral disaster if the President's legislative agenda comes to grief.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ed actually gets it right but does not understand that THIS, the public option and health care reform, is that issue. This is the "final definitive test." And the downside is simply not there for the Progressive Block for holding the line. President Olympia Snowe's health care bill is not worth compromising for in this fight. The Progressive Block will gain political strength in this battle, whether they get concessions from President Snowe or not. No bill at all would be a political win for the Progressive Block IF they hold the line. A bill with a public option is a win for them as well, since it will have happened because they held the line. This is the right fight, the right line, at the right time, for the Progressive Block. At this point, capitulation by the Progressive Block would be the end of them. They really can not back down now. Time for Beltway Dems like Kilgore and people like President Snowe to get that.

Speaking for me only

< Finally Understanding The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining | Progressive Block Leader Grijalva: No Public Option Means No Health Care Reform >

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.

More Madman Political Bargaining | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If Olympia Snowe's healthcare bill (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:24:39 PM EST

includes a public option, it might be worth compromising for. Especially to get a bill through the Senate.

Now what comes out of conference is a different story.

At this point (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:27:14 PM EST

the negotiation should be between Snowwe and Grijalva.


If you put them in a room together (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:31:26 PM EST

I would bet that they'd come up with something better than Baucus-Grassley.


: It would be bipartisan right? (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:32:29 PM EST

President (none / 0) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:29:49 PM EST

Snowe doesnt support the public option from what I've read.


She supports a "trigger" (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:30:47 PM EST

OK, so let's have a chat about what exactly that means. I can imagine accepting a trigger.


The (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:32:18 PM EST

"trigger" is probably less than worthless. It's one of those things that can be put in a bill an completely ignored later on.


Sure (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:35:38 PM EST

But let's see the offer.


Does (none / 0) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:38:34 PM EST

it really matter? The administration has said publicly that it is willing to take anything and compromise anything to get a bill passed even if it's a worthless one. The NYT article someone linked to in another thread just reeked of desperation and I'm sorry but that's what I see this whole trigger thing as---little more than an act of desperation.


to the Progressive Block it should (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:47:17 PM EST

: All (none / 0) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:50:04 PM EST

I have to say is that I hope they are listening to your advice. After reading the article about what Olympia Snowe wants I dont think there's anything salvageable with this bill and frankly I hope they stand firm and the bill gets killed.

Trigger (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:38:23 PM EST

I look at the trigger option as a polite insider way of burying the issue. That way all sides can say they won. The only loser will be the American people.

The bill isn't going to go into effect for three years. Then we wait for how long to see if and when the trigger gets pulled. Now we're probably six years down the road with still no HCR.

By then we're at the 2015 election cycle and we can start this whole game all over again with a whole new batch of promises and lies.


As steviez314 says, let's chat about (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:35:22 PM EST

what "trigger" really means.


Are (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:34:19 PM EST

you willing to have a bill pass with no public option? That's pretty much what is going to happen if anything passes at all.


She supports a public option with a trigger. (none / 0) (#8)
by steviez314 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:33:53 PM EST

Now, I could design a trigger to guarantee to fire. Or a trigger that even if it didn't fire, would cause a major shift from insurers' profits to policy premium reductions.

The question is, what is her trigger.


Waste (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by waldenpond on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:57:50 PM EST

Profits to policy premiums will lead to wasteful spending.... inflated salaries, lobbying etc to reduce profits. It would have to be gross recipts plus receivables not net income.

Enforcement is laughable. I seem to remember the Iraqi's were to meet conditions or our troops would leave. I seem to recall the banks were to meet certain conditions and the average salary has gone up and so has consolidation. 4 banks now own the 2/3 of credit card debt and 50% of the mortgage market. I seem to remember conditions to TARP.


that (none / 0) (#12)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:35:31 PM EST

trigger is what? 10 years down the road? Puleeze, that can be taken away as quick as you can say p.o.


Do you have a copy of the proposal? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:36:27 PM EST

I am for madman baregaining but I also am for making my counterpart put his/her offer on the table.


Here's a New Republic story about what she (none / 0) (#17)
by steviez314 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:41:12 PM EST

probably wants (still short on hard and fast numbers though):

What Snowe Wants


The article sez (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:02:43 PM EST

Trigger to be pulled "if the reforms to the private insurance industry did not provide adequate savings." Now, certainly they will make that more concrete in a bill, they may even specify a target percentage savings that must be met.

But...

When it comes time to assess whether the trigger should be pulled or not, the insurance industry will hire a huge number of smart consultants to show that (a) if you calculate savings in just the right way, then they do meet the target; and (b) even if savings don't meet the target, there are seventeen reasons why they don't, none of which have anything to do with insurance companies not reforming enough.

And then the government will spend millions on outside consultants trying to show that the inadequate savings are too a result of the failure to reform. This will all take time.

(And if the government goes ahead and pulls the trigger anyway, could the insurance companies sue, saying that the govenrnment set a goal and they met it but they are still being whacked? I don't know but, if so, that would delay things for years.)

Any trigger will have to be implemented based on the evaluation of data. When data and smart consultants are backed by deep pockets, I can almost guarantee that you will not like the outcome.


Yes (none / 0) (#19)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:46:19 PM EST

and the price of getting her to go along is junk insurance if that article is correct.


Well (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:46:49 PM EST

When will she state it publically?


: If I were her, I wouldn't say anything publicly. (none / 0) (#25)
by steviez314 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:52:31 PM EST

If it goes another way, why should she let anyone know how close she came to siding with the Dems (at least right now).
Her negotiating team is probably just one-her. At least there aren't these maddening leaks and trial balloons.

No info on the trigger (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:49:24 PM EST

So that was a useless article.


Yes (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:45:35 PM EST

I was going to link to the article below. Kerry has said 10 years on one of the shows and that's where I got that from. So I guess you can take that FWIW and consider the source.


Yes (none / 0) (#22)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:48:30 PM EST

pull the trigger and a little flag comes out that says "BANG!!". Or tiny "bang" if it's a Republican administration.

Trigger options require enforcement....LOL, like that'll happen.


That's exactly what I mean (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:36:54 PM EST

I would require that it "fire" during this administration, and that the bullet would be a buy-in to Medicare for all. But the insurance companies have, say, a year to make their plans attractive and competitive.

Also, the trigger would have to be reengaged every year.


What is the trigger? How about (none / 0) (#31)
by KeysDan on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:27:29 PM EST

what is the public option, for starters?


This is her trigger (none / 0) (#33)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 08:58:46 PM EST

She would have nonprofit agencies offer health insurance only if private insurers could not cover 95 percent of the people in their regions with plans costing no more than about 15 percent of the person's or household's annual income.


This hinges on the (none / 0) (#10)
by waldenpond on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:34:21 PM EST

public option even in the media. Although the media is trying to carry Obama's water and repeating talking points trying to shift the discussion to other parts of the bill, that are still covering the public option. Will wait to see if any more people understand the healthcare issue if Obama leaves out the public option.

I honestly do not understand what (none / 0) (#28)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:07:11 PM EST

Kilgore means here:

I'd put it in a slightly different way: if, say, the Progressive Caucus in the House wants a final, definitive test of strength against the Blue Dogs, it might make sense to choose one in which the failure to act is entirely acceptable according to their own principles and priorities.

"the failure to act is acceptable"? Is he saying progressives should test their strength by picking a fight they don't mind losing?

Also, there will never be a final, definitive test of strength against the Blue Dogs, at least not in this administration. If Obama were not label averse o begin with, and the Blue Dogs were thought of as 'cool', he would be one.

: Never mind - I get it now (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:16:50 PM EST

'failure to act' = no bill at all. Now it makes more sense.
I still think that there will be no final test. It will be one thing after another, no matter what happens here. Health care seems like the most important thing now, because it has all the attention, and it is very important. But civil liberty issues, and the wars, are just as important to me, and progressives will have to fight every step of the way.

Ironically (none / 0) (#30)
by CST on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:18:44 PM EST

I think Snowe might be more likely to support a true public option than some "blue dogs".