home

Why Did Progressives Support A Public Option?

(See also Norman Solomon.) And when I say progressives, I do not mean Ezra Klein. Here is an example of progressive post-loss rationalization from Daily Kos:

True, we did not get a public option, but we are going to get a health insurance reform bill that covers virtually every American citizen and puts in place a patients bill of rights on steroids. It's not perfect: outside of Medicare, the middle-class will be entirely dependent on a system of for-profit medicine [. . .] But even though the bill is not perfect, for the first time in our nation's history we will have enshrined into law the notion that everybody ought to have health insurance -- and that's a major accomplishment.

When Lewison says universal health insurance coverage, he is referring to the individual mandate that requires all citizens to have insurance, but does not offer all citizens a public insurance option. That, we are to believe, is the great progressive accomplishment. I respectfully demur. There was a reasoned basis for believing a public insurance program was essential to real health reform. There was a real difference of opinion about that point in Democratic circles. Last December, Ed Kilgore articulately described this divergence of view:

This approach was inherently flawed to "single-payer" advocates on the left, who strongly believe that private for-profit health insurers are the main problem in the U.S. health care system. The difference was for a long time papered over by the cleverly devised "public option," which was acceptable to many New Democrat types as a way of ensuring robust competition among private insurers, and which became crucial to single-payer advocates who viewed it as a way to gradually introduce a superior, publicly-operated form of health insurance to those not covered by existing public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. (That's why the effort to substitute a Medicare buy-in for the public option, which Joe Lieberman killed this week, received such a strong positive response from many progressives whose ultimate goal is an expansion of Medicare-style coverage to all Americans).

Now that the public option compromise is apparently no longer on the table, and there's no Medicare buy-in to offer single-payer advocates an alternative path to the kind of system they favor, it's hardly surprising that some progressives have gone into open opposition[ . . .]

Lewison seems to have no idea why progressives focused on the public option as an essential element of health care reform and that the total defeat of the concept in the current health bills is precisely why the political bargaining by progressives was an abject failure.

It appears that many progressives of Lewison's stripe simply do not understand why the public option was essential to the progressive vision of health care reform. Perhaps to them the public option was just some type of symbol. But for serious progressive health care reform advocates, the public option was THE essential element of health care reform because it would be the linchpin to future reform that accomplished progressive goals.

There is a reason why the Medicaid expansion component of the health bills is undoubtedly in tune with the progressive vision of health care reform -- it involved expanding health insurance to the less well off through a public insurance program.

Moving away from the for-profit health insurance system that currently strangles our health systems is the key element of the progressive vision for health care reform. The complete defeat of that vision in the current health bills is precisely why political bargaining by progressives on these issues must be considered an abject failure.

Unless, progressives really do not believe the things they said last year about the essential nature of including public insurance reform in any health care reform proposal. In which case, carry on with the Victory Parade.

Speaking for me only

< Progressive Failure: More On Political Bargaining | David Headley Pleads Guilty To Mumbai Attacks And Danish Terror Plot >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    know why people don't understand that for this to work the middle class has to have a vested interest in keeping a program alive. The way it is set up now is a pipe dream for the GOP. They can easily completely eliminate the subsidies and and any and all regulation on the insurance companies and then we are left with people mandated to buy junk insurance.

    As far as the medicaid expansion, I don't really see that doing much at least here in GA because first of all your assetts can not be over $2,000. So basically you cannnot own a home and you cannot have much more than a junker car. Another problem is that very few doctors even accept Medicaid so the people that do qualify for it are left going to the emergency rooms for treatment. I don't see anything in this bill that proposes any solutions to the problems and I think progressives like Lewiston dont even understand the problem in the first place.

    What do you think of the states that have already passed legislation saying that you can't force mandates on the citizens like VA?

    Your last question (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    Those laws violate the Supremacy Clause. They are clearly unconstitutional.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    what's going to happen? Who's going to force the citizens of the state to buy insurance if the state government won't back up the Feds?

    Parent
    The Feds will sue (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    and win.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:07:29 PM EST
    essentially states that pass laws like this aren't going to have to comply for quite a while. I don't know that I would trust the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Feds though.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    The Feds would get an injunction in a New York minute.

    This is all silly grandstanding.

    If you are resting your hopes on that, you are being foolish.

    This is not a close legal question.

    Parent

    Well, it sets the stage for tax resistance... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:39:22 PM EST
    ... on the right. And there will be plenty of people cheering them on, especially after the attempt to regulate the insurance companies fails (again, and as usual) after they game the system (again, and as usual), and people discover they've been forced to purchase a defective product.

    Parent
    California has the answer (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:37:25 PM EST
    Let everyone be able to sue his or her health insurance carrier for bad faith.  Right now under California law, an insurance carrier can be sued for "bad faith" if they "unreasonably" deny coverage.  The damages for bad faith include punitive damages and attorneys fees.....

    When Republicans talk about selling across state lines, they are talking about allowing an out-of- state carrier to sell insurance in California without being subject to California bad faith standards.....

    Right now, however, ERISA, pre-empts California law with respect to health care insurance.  So, if you get your health care through your employer, you can't sue them for bad faith--you have to go through the carrier's administrative process......

    Lift that ban on bad faith lawsuits, and presto! chango! I think you see a different world in health care....

    Parent

    I wonder if the states would (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    really sue if the bill passes.....

    Just like the Governors saying they would reject stimulus money.

    Parent

    There is going to be a showdown (none / 0) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    One state has already passed a law stating that it's citizens are exempt from the insurance mandate(which was kinda stupid since the bill allows for a fee in leiu of insurance I believe).

    I do believe that ultimately the Federal position will prevail. I'm not sure how a state manages to do anything other than grandstand when an individuals federal tax form asks about insurance.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    I'm pinning NO hopes on it. I just think it's interesting. Frankly, I have NO hope whatsoever. The whole HRC thing has become lose/lose proposition IMO. The GOP is already talking about repealing it if it passes.

    Parent
    BTD.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ctrenta on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:02:05 AM EST

    You make some really good points... But can you disagree with this person and be respectful of his/her opinion at the same time? Calling someone "foolish" is unnecessary to the conversation, not to mention it's really condescending, caustic, and unhelpful to others who want to follow this lively discussion.  

    Just MHO. Thanks.

    Parent

    If you seriously think (none / 0) (#151)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    the SC would rule against supremacy I don't know what to tell you- its one of the basic principles of American Democracy though.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    silly boy when you look at Bush v. Gore what do you think? I certainly would never veture to guess what these bozos might rule in any give circumstance.

    Parent
    Who Will Be Able To Afford (none / 0) (#158)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:52:42 PM EST
    this mandated insurance?  The great middle class is either out of work, in debt, and probably lost their home along with the sub primes.

    The fragility of subsidies continuing is on a par with the end run on RoevWade. Democrats not Republicans trashed women's rights to make concessions to cram this crud through. Please tell me what is good about it?

    30 million people suddenly forced to buy expensive private insurance? Unemployment rate is reaching 20%, and where and how will they be able to afford it let alone enforce it's use?

    2700 pages of legal babble no one I know udersatands, and all we've seen is pork given to special states to buy their senator's votes.

    The bill is so toxic that House members would not vote for it, so now to actually create a secret ballot we have an underhanded scheme to ram it through without a vote. This of course leaves it wide open to the Supremes.

    When Deem came before the Supreme Court,  liberal Justice Stevens denounced it as unconstitutional, and it was rejected because Madison clearly stated what proceedures make law.

    While the congress can make any proceedure it can think of, making law is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Believe me the Republicans will challenge this just as liberal have in the past.

    Republicans have used this proceedural trick 16 times, and the Democrats 4.  The Democrats were overturned by Supremes.

    So this bill with add-ons,pork, giveaways, abortion restrictions, and shredding of RoevWade with abominable concessions to the Catholic Bishops, & Union breaks not given the common
     other folks, er,for slobs like me is a good bill?... We have no idea how many amendments or caveats are contained in this 2700 page monster that would take a week with the help of a few lawyers to decipher.

    I've seen it and it's mind boggling. For such a landmark bill encompassing everyone in the USA, an up or down vote is in order. And surely it would be great to know what's really in the blurred words.

    Kos and the whole gang of water carriers are doing this crap to "Save the Presidency". Essentially this and being threatened with no support from Obama at election time, no appointments, and no campaign $$ has moved so called liberal like Kucinich to cave in the new Oval Office....Air Force One.

    Or, Force One senator and representative at a time until as Rham predicted they will all cave.

    Social Security law contained 64 pages. Medicare, etc about 150.  This is ridiculous.

    Parent

    Who Will Be Able To Afford (none / 0) (#159)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:53:47 PM EST
    this mandated insurance?  The great middle class is either out of work, in debt, and probably lost their home along with the sub primes.

    The fragility of subsidies continuing is on a par with the end run on RoevWade. Democrats not Republicans trashed women's rights to make concessions to cram this crud through. Please tell me what is good about it?

    30 million people suddenly forced to buy expensive private insurance? Unemployment rate is reaching 20%, and where and how will they be able to afford it let alone enforce it's use?

    2700 pages of legal babble no one I know udersatands, and all we've seen is pork given to special states to buy their senator's votes.

    The bill is so toxic that House members would not vote for it, so now to actually create a secret ballot we have an underhanded scheme to ram it through without a vote. This of course leaves it wide open to the Supremes.

    When Deem came before the Supreme Court,  liberal Justice Stevens denounced it as unconstitutional, and it was rejected because Madison clearly stated what proceedures make law.

    While the congress can make any proceedure it can think of, making law is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Believe me the Republicans will challenge this just as liberal have in the past.

    Republicans have used this proceedural trick 16 times, and the Democrats 4.  The Democrats were overturned by Supremes.

    So this bill with add-ons,pork, giveaways, abortion restrictions, and shredding of RoevWade with abominable concessions to the Catholic Bishops, & Union breaks not given the common
     other folks, er,for slobs like me is a good bill?... We have no idea how many amendments or caveats are contained in this 2700 page monster that would take a week with the help of a few lawyers to decipher.

    I've seen it and it's mind boggling. For such a landmark bill encompassing everyone in the USA, an up or down vote is in order. And surely it would be great to know what's really in the blurred words.

    Kos and the whole gang of water carriers are doing this crap to "Save the Presidency". Essentially this and being threatened with no support from Obama at election time, no appointments, and no campaign $$ has moved so called liberal like Kucinich to cave in the new Oval Office....Air Force One.

    Or, Force One senator and representative at a time until as Rham predicted they will all cave.

    Social Security law contained 64 pages. Medicare, etc about 150.  This is ridiculous.

    Parent

    On the other hand, it's a Mulligan... (none / 0) (#46)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    ... on the outcome of the Civil War for the Roberts court. Not that I'm paranoid...

    Parent
    Maybe because (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Spamlet on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    so many "progressives" are Democrats who are ashamed to be called "liberals" and afraid of the fight to reclaim the meaning of the term "liberal."

    I think progressives like Lewiston dont even understand the problem in the first place.


    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    call me a liberal. Progressives are cult members who sit in their foxholes waving a white flag begging the enemy not to shoot at them.

    Parent
    Me, too (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:09:16 PM EST
    I'm a liberal and proud of it.

    Parent
    Amen! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    how true (none / 0) (#135)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:22:58 AM EST
    Oh, this is really perfect: (none / 0) (#65)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:43:09 PM EST
    "so many "progressives" are Democrats who are ashamed to be called "liberals"

    Parent
    OT (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:53:53 PM EST
    but what happened at AC? The site doesnt seem to want to come up.

    Parent
    Well, I know. I just sort of came back into (none / 0) (#70)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:55:14 PM EST
    things, so I really don't know.  I'll try to see what happened.

    Parent
    What basis? (none / 0) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:02:00 PM EST
    What basis does VA have to sue?  Who are they suing on behalf of?  The individual has the choice of not heeding the mandate.  They can pay the penalty.  Is VA going to sue on the basis the US govt can't tax the people?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    I dont know all the ins and outs of the law but I do know that VA has passed a law pretty much negating Obamacare for their state. I guess they think that they can void the legislation and it's not really considered a tax is it? If you don't choose the mandate that would basically be a fine I think.

    Parent
    Not exactly a fine (none / 0) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    It's my understanding the penalty is going to be run through the tax code.  VA is not going to win suing the IRS.

    VA can pass a law stating grass is purple if it wants.  Who cares.

    This is the nearly the exact legislation the Repubs proposed in 1993.  It is silly to think they would be successful suing against in now.  If I were a taxpayer in that State, I would be a little sick of resources being dedicated to this juvenile game.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    VA would not be suing the US, the Feds would be suing VA is what BTD indicated above.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    it's a winner with the voters in VA even if is silly. I doubt Obama will carry VA again. The state seems to have turned against him.

    Parent
    It's not the penalty- (none / 0) (#51)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:48:41 PM EST
    it's the Fed forcing state citizens to contract with private entities. The Fed will sue VA for non-compliance-not the other way around.

    I don't mind paying for Cooch's busywork if it distracts him from the rest of his wingnut agenda.

    Parent

    The Fine is not a Tax (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    IIRC, at least in the house bill the language spelled out that it was not part of the tax code.  Will need to re-check the senate language.

    Parent
    Fine or tax? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Spamlet on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    Not so long ago, we had a number of commenters making this point:

    It's simple really: (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 04:32:11 PM EST
    if you don't buy insurance, you are taxed at a higher rate. It's like not getting a deduction when you don't give money to charity.

    Steve M has also insisted that it's a tax, though apparently he's no longer willing to comment here.

    During the primary campaign, Obama talked about fining people, not taxing people, for not having insurance. And this sure looks, sounds, walks, talks, and smells like a fine to me.

    Parent

    BINGO and a CHALLENGE (none / 0) (#59)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    The challenge is for any here to show the language that the fee is a tax.  

    Should be very simple to prove the case that it is a Constitutional "tax".

    Parent

    Where does it stop? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:32:04 PM EST
    If the Federal government can force you to buy this product, where is the product they cannot force you to buy?

    (The case of car insurance isn't really the same, unless you think that getting health care is optional in the same way that arranging your life to take public transportation is.)

    Parent

    Collection (none / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    If it not run through the tax code, there is no mechanism for collection.

    Parent
    Directing the IRS to be the collection agency (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    does not require the fine be incorporated into the tax code.  Again, the house bill specifically stated it was not part of the tax code and was not a tax.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    Now that I think of it... the IRS serves as a collection agency for child support.

    Parent
    Yes, but that's not the same... (none / 0) (#47)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    ... as serving as the collection agent for a for-profit corporation selling you a defective product.

    Parent
    The IRS will not be collecting (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    premiums for the insurance companies, just the govt fines.  

    Parent
    A distinction without a difference (none / 0) (#80)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:19:29 PM EST
    Functionally, it comes to exactly the same thing.

    Would you prefer "enforcer"?

    Parent

    @lambert - A distinction without a difference (none / 0) (#85)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:24:26 PM EST
    Please see the post below regarding what the govt is  specifically empowered to do and what it is not - aka:  levy taxes vs fine its citizens.

    Parent
    As far as the money moving out of my pocket... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:29:18 PM EST
    ... and whose pocket it moves into, and who's taking it out of my pocket (the IRS) it is functionally the same thing.

    I really don't care about the legal hairsplitting, at this point, since at least at the elite level, there's no rule of law in the country anyhow.

    Parent

    Correct. (none / 0) (#50)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    By levying a fine for choosing not to enter into a private contract is where some of the murky Constitutional crap enters into this entire fiasco.

    By specifically keeping it out of the tax code and classifying it as a fine...  Very slippery slope.

    Parent

    Worse, they're forcing you to contract... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:22:45 PM EST
    ... to buy a defective product. (Raise your hand if you believe the insurance companies won't game the system)

    It's one thing to bail out, say, the auto companies.

    It's another thing to force you to buy a car to bail out the auto companies.

    And it's quite another thing to force you to buy a Ford Pinto to bail out the auto companies.

    Parent

    Do you know what the cap (none / 0) (#88)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    on co-pay percentage for the mandated insurance is?
    It could definitely just be me, because I'm not reading all the news on the bill, but it seems to me that the good news about the new insurance is pretty damn vague. I mean "you'll be in a pool just like Congress". Uh huh.
    The costs are not going down---they're just not going up as fast now. Uh huh.


    Parent
    The states (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:35:56 PM EST
    will do all of this. They will determine minimum standards to participate in the exchange.  Outside of the exchanges, for-profit insurers will do as they always have under their state regulatory systems: raise premiums, deductibles and co-pays.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#93)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    I don't think anybody knows, because the bill is still in the CBO process.

    Parent
    I do recall that there was talk about (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:42:42 PM EST
    30% co-pays several months ago.
    Leaving the regulation to the states seems irresponsible to me, to put it mildly.


    Parent
    You're assuming there's a public policy aspect... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:49:13 PM EST
    ... to this, right?

    Parent
    There's a public policy impact, (none / 0) (#101)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:52:51 PM EST
    that's for sure!
    ALl these sob stories about poor people with cancer remind me very much of the sales job on Iraq. Remember all those poor, poor victims which it would be absolutely heartless to ignore?
    If the sales job is so flim-flam, you can bet the product won't be glam!

    Parent
    CBO says the IRS will need (none / 0) (#56)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:13:26 PM EST
    another $10 Bil to track down all those scofflaws who refuse to do their American duty and buy their insurance.

    Great use of public funds. Go Dems.

    Parent

    I take the Howard Zinn approach... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    "When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them."

    I thought it was a damn shame that the outsiders, the bloggers/activists, etc.. accepted at the onset the notion that Medicare could not be expanded upon.  That they shouldn't be pushing for precisely that.  Now, I don't mean universal Medicare day one, but pushing for Medicare to be expanded as the primary solution to health care finance.  I mean, Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  You simply can not expect to be an effective activist if you consider national policy debates through the confines of what Congress tells you is possible.  You may as well hang up your hat right their.  That isn't the job of activists.  

    Great analysis on the process here, by the way.  Brutally honest.

    The President's Deficit Commission headed by (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:04:48 PM EST
    Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson will have their sights on Medicare (and Social Security), those nasty entitlements.  Since the health care reform act will induce  Medicare "savings" of great magnitude, additional ways and means to reduce Medicare costs (through "savings") will become an interesting study.  One way, of course, could be to increase the age of eligibility to 70 from 65.  After all, the new "universal coverage" available through health insurance reform will not leave anyone in a health care lurch.  So, a possibility exists to shorten rather than expand Medicare, in my view. Fortunately, the Commission has the force of recommendation, but it can give political cover.

    Parent
    Normally I'd say it's just a commission... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    The Congress nixed the idea of giving them any sort of authority, thank GOD!  However, seeing the way liberals prioritize Obama's personal success as President over policy, I'm not so sure.  My gut says they are going to ignore his commission though.

    Parent
    Astonishing (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:17:07 PM EST
    But even though the bill is not perfect, for the first time in our nation's history we will have enshrined into law the notion that everybody ought to have health insurance -- and that's a major accomplishment.

    He seems to believe the notion that people who do not have insurance don't because they don't think they ought to have it. I know that is true of many young people, but probably not even as many as urban mythology has it. At the bottom of their decline to get it is the expense of it, not the idea that they ought not.

    A progressive accomplishment would have been to enshrine the idea that everyone should have health care, not that everyone should buy insurance at whatever rates the companies charge.  gawd.

    Daily Talking Points, still - (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    fresh off the latest OFA garbage truck.

    "(p)atient's bill of rights on steroids" is one of Obama's favorite ways to describe something that we have no idea if it will be able to be enforced to any measurable degree.

    "(c)overs virtually every American citizen" is important on two fronts: one, undocumented workers are prohibited from buying even unsubsidized insurance through the exchanges, which will guarantee that health care for a large number of individuals will be passed on to the taxpayers and two, it avoids the truth that coverage, in and of itself, does not equate to care.

    "(t)he middle class will be entirely dependent on a system of for-profit medicine" isn't just a truth, it's a truth that represents a medical and financial death sentence for too many people, and our fearless leaders have accepted that as an acceptable trade-off for handing the industry a huge and guaranteed windfall.

    As for what we are enshrining into law, it would have been far more historic, and would represent a far greater accomplishment, if we were enshrining into law the notion that everybody ought to have health CARE.

    But good to know I'm not missing anything by not reading DK; it's a propaganda machine and still the Best Obama 527 ever.  Blech.


    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    the same thing.

    So everyone has insurance.

    Then what?

    Parent

    The question never asked is this: (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    Can a for profit insurance system provide both broadly affordable coverage and comprehensive benefits? (And make the profits financial markets demand?)

    And if it can't, how can we justify continuing to embrace and, in fact, prop up, such a system?

    We have decades of experience that says the answer to the first question is "no," yet, we have just passed "reform" that prioritizes maintaining the for profit system over providing affordability and access to care.

    Broader, more affordable and comprehensive coverage is what was promised in the 1970s when insurers were encouraged to "manage" care and for profit insurers entered the health care market.

    What we got instead was less coverage at higher cost, fewer employers able and willing to finance coverage for their employees, and millions of people without affordable access to any kind of coverage or care.

    If insurers can't, as they claim, profitably provide coverage now without shrinking benefits, raising premiums and limiting access, how will they be able to maintain profitability when it is more difficult for them to manage risk by denying coverage (for pre-existing conditions, for instance), limiting benefits, limiting lifetime payouts, etc., etc.?

    The simple answer is they won't be able to do so. And we won't actually be asking them to do so.

    Instead, we will be asking middle class tax payers to pay the tab for some additional publicly subsidized care for others while  coverage and care for everyone, subsidized and not, continues to inflate in cost and decrease in benefit.  

    The system is heading for a big fail (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    We should have at the very least get a framework in place with a Medicare buy-in so when the system inevitably collapse we will already have a a way for people to go. Maybe that is so easy to do that it can be done now now now when the time comes, like TARP.

    Single payer is coming - but it is going to come in the midst of a major crisis after millions more people have been devastated.

    Parent

    I've argued that point in several forums (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    At the very least, the insurance companies that have gone public need to give up their shareholders and be responsible only to the customer base. They need to go to a true Not-For-Profit model and any profits should be returned to the insured, or lower premiums.

    The way this plan is written, insurance companies could get rate increase approvals by saying they need to increase their contract terms with the medical providers while still being allowed to hand out billions in executive bonuses and shareholder dividends.


    Parent

    I coming to the conclusion (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    that healthcare should not be subject to the marketplace at all....it is too important and there are too many vagaries associated with the market.

    We can't have profits driving care....

    But there may need to be rationing of some sort.  We have that now:  the rich get what they want, and many others simply do without....

    Complete socialized medicine a la' Britain may not be so bad....

    Or single payer....But both single payer and socialized medicine would never happen here....The French model, however, of government (single payer) insurance for all, with many supplementing that coverage with their own private coverage was a result we could have achieved here.....A "robust" public option could have taken us there.....

     

    Parent

    I am coming to the conclusion (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    that food should not be subject to the marketplace at all... it is too important and...

    that shelter/housing should not be subject to the marketplace at all... it is too important and...

    that utilities (water/gas/electricity) should not be subject to the marketplace at all... it is too important and ...

    that IPods should not be subject to the marketplace at all... it is too important and...

    Parent

    Utilities are different (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:55:17 PM EST
    Very highly regulated--or have been and should be.  The Supreme Court has held a consumer has Due Process rights before you can turn off the lights or heat....

    Food/shelter can be subject to the marketplace because we can subsidize the needy....

    Not medical care....it doesn't work.  Subsidies to insurance carriers don't deliver care. Insurance carriers make money by denying care....Farmers and grocery stores and apartment owners don't work on that basis--they make money by delivering the product, not withholding it....And there is true competition (usually) among food and housing providers--not so among insurance companies, which are looking more and more like monopolies....

    Insurance companies should be treated as a highly regulated utility--and the hope is that the regulations in the current bill will go in that direction.

    And, I, for one, would still like to really look into true socialized medicine.   Britian hasn't fallen into the sea or despotism....

    public schools, highways, fire protection, health care--looks like they belong together in the same set.

     

    Parent

    Mrs. BTAL is English (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:21:41 PM EST
    and her extended family still reside there.  I spend over 9 years there and have seen the massive decline in the NHS.

    Once upon a time, it was a good thing but it could not scale in relation to cost and quality.  Now it is a national Medicaid system.  

    Be careful what you wish for.

    P.S. The same can be said for the much vaunted "Medcare for all" system that is so popular here.

    Parent

    Could that be because of Maggie's (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:24:14 PM EST
    mucking with the system?

    Parent
    Utilities - regulated - like with Enron (none / 0) (#110)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Enron was not a utility (none / 0) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:38:26 AM EST
    Food, utilities and housing are all subsidized (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:19:05 PM EST
    by the government. Ever heard of the mortgage deduction? Agriculture subsidies? PUBLIC utilities? Energy subsidies? Federally supported marketing and reseach programs for agriculture, energy and high tech?

    That IPod,BTAL? That's a recent consumer product arising from generations of development in technology pretty much CREATED by the federal government through defense spending and still heavily supported by a whole array of development programs, tax incentives, direct subsidies, etc., etc.

    We subsidize most of these activities because they are vital to the maintenance of a well-functioning modern society and economy.  

    As for health care -- our system has never been a "free market" system. There is, in fact, no modern, sophisticated, effective medical system anywhere in the world that is. Why? Because the cost of maintaining a sophisticated, accredited, high tech, educated labor and research intensive medical system is too high to be borne by consumers (the sick, dying and often, because of their illness, financially compromise) alone. That's why (non-profit) ways of socializing costs developed hand in hand with modern medicine. And it is why commercial, for profit insurers did not enter the health care market until late in the game -- only after Uncle Sam created an environment that made it profitable for them to do so by first, through Medicare, removing the sickest and most elderly (and therefore least profitable) consumers from the market, and second, during the Nixon administration, by instituting "reforms" that allowed insurers to "manage" care (by denying it) and therefore manage risk in a sufficient way to allow for profit. Without Uncle Sam's intervention and support there would be no "for profit" health insurance industry. The reason for this -- the difficulty of profiting from actually providing health care coverage -- should be self-evident, but gets repeatedly overlooked in discussions of health care reform. For insurers, unless they can deny benefits and limit coverage to the healthiest policy holders, the health care market offers risks that are too difficult to calculate in anything but the very broadest terms (age, gender, some limited risk factors like smoking).

    Unlike commercial insurers who mostly insured against, and profited from, the calculated risks of rare, catastrophic events, early health "insurers" like the original Blue Shield (which covered hospital stays) and Blue Cross (which covered medical services provided by doctors) were non-profit instruments that socialized care -- premiums paid by the healthy paid for the care of the ill and in the process guaranteed that medical resources and care would be available for every policy holder when they needed it. They were developed as much to guarantee payment for providers, who were providing increasingly sophisticated and very expensive to services in very expensive to maintain facilities, as to guarantee care for consumers.

    Why should health care services be broadly available and affordable? And why should we subsidize care for other people? Because health care is a universal need and because we all benefit from a healthy society -- just as we all benefit from an educated society, a sophisticated and efficient energy infrastructure, a well maintained highway and transportation system, etc., etc.

    Parent

    Kill Medicare (none / 0) (#73)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:56:32 PM EST
    Yeah, yeah, let's just kill Medicare and abolish SS.  Free market all the way.  Go Paul Ryan. Woot. cough. Woot.  Private for-profit is the solution to societal ills (pun intended.)

    Yeah Palin is correct...Canada should abolish it's nasty public non-profit socialist communist health care plan and let the free-market have it's way.

    Parent

    Of course there has to be rationing (none / 0) (#63)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:38:36 PM EST
    In fact, insurance companies already ration health care.
    I don't know if this is still true, but I used to read that end of life care made up a huge chunk of health care costs. I'm sure we could spend even MORE to keep people alive a little longer.
    In fact, that's exactly how some cancer treatments work, as I understand it: people pay exorbitant sums of money for treatments which may extend life on average only a few months.


    Parent
    I coming to the conclusion (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:34:21 PM EST
    that healthcare should not be subject to the marketplace at all....it is too important and there are too many vagaries associated with the market.

    We can't have profits driving care....

    But there may need to be rationing of some sort.  We have that now:  the rich get what they want, and many others simply do without....

    Complete socialized medicine a la' Britain may not be so bad....

    Or single payer....But both single payer and socialized medicine would never happen here....The French model, however, of government (single payer) insurance for all, with many supplementing that coverage with their own private coverage was a result we could have achieved here.....A "robust" public option could have taken us there.....

     

    Parent

    What is the dollar amount of the (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:27:35 PM EST
    Medicaid expansion, and is this a done deal?
    The Senate still has to approve these changes, no?
    A while back, there was a ceiling of 8% of income that insurers could charge for their policies.
    Is that still the case?
    Finally, insurance companies are jacking their rates through the roof right  now. It seems likely that the maximum rates allowable under this bill will be reached---and with what co-pays, btw? Is this insurance really affordable? At the 8% of income figure which was around before, clearly the answer was no.

    Which public option was essential? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:35:55 PM EST
    The "bait" of Jacob Hacker's original, Medicare-style "public option" with 130 million enrollees, or the "switch" of the House version with only 9 of 10 -- or some policy in between?

    I agree that "introspection" is necessary, and the morphing process of "public option" should be one of the first items on the post mortem.

    words are fungible (none / 0) (#136)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:49:17 AM EST
    in this new paradigm of progressive "talk."  Haven't you noticed how these evolved progressives mimic Republican propaganda techniques.  Obama is especially adept in the use of this new language.

    Parent
    Its like how in the 90s (none / 0) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:36:39 PM EST
    Welfare Reform was a good thing?

    Parent
    the way forward (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by souvarine on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    Yes, you are correct on the particulars. Ed Kilgore, as usual, gets to the substance. But Ezra Klein's argument is coherent, progressives lost the battle for the public option when we nominated Barack Obama for president. Obama never offered a real public option, so what is the point of pretending that the public option was ever on the table?

    Your political objection is to the universal mandate, but that was the best we were going to get from Obama. He did not campaign on it, but it was clear to all informed observers that he would have to add a mandate for his plan to work at all.

    So now we have an inherently flawed bill. Liberal advocates for health care reform argue that the bill's flaws will force Congress to fix this reform and move it further in the direction of public insurance. The alternatives would require either larger subsidies or weakening the adverse selection prohibitions, neither of which are politically possible.

    Liberals are not (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:47:37 PM EST
    the only ones to have focused on the public option as central to any serious attempt at healthcare reform.

    Here's a bit of history - now nostalgia:

    "[A]ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."
     Obama - Radio address July 2009

    What flipped him?

    Some relevant info from the article in the NY Times:

    "Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates -- generally 80 percent of private sector rates -- or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. "We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference," one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter..."

    "Representative Henry A. Waxman,..., said the president had personally assured House members that he did not intend to let the Senate Finance Committee determine the final legislation. "This is going to be a genuine conference with give and take," Mr. Waxman said. "The president has said that personally to the senators, and he has said it personally to us." He added: "The president has said he wants a public option to keep everybody honest. He hasn't said he wants a co-op as a public option." Still, industry lobbyists say they are not worried. "We trust the White House," Mr. Kahn said. "We are confident that the Senate Finance Committee will produce a bill we fully can endorse."

    And they did just that. No public option. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

    In a year or so, we'll look back... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    ... and thank our lucky stars that Obama betrayed "progressives" on public option from the start.

    1. Many, even if not most, will have had their eyes opened to the nature of the party and its head.

    2. With the neo-liberal, market-based "public option" solution no longer serving as a roach motel for progressive energies, we can go to work on real solutions that have been shown to work, by looking at the experience of foreign countries and adopting what is known to work.


    Parent
    good point (none / 0) (#140)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:28:22 AM EST
    But some things are not so easily resolved...Does the right to a lawyer in a criminal case  necessarily ensure you the best lawyer?  And between states, a big difference as well.  The best (or even good) doctors and the best lawyers are usually not working for average wages. They're certainly not working for medicaid payments .A truly competitive market has its benefits ...And the Swiss model is closest to ours. But as I said in another comment, there are always trade offs.  People like to cite the VA system...well, residents keep that system running.

    Parent
    The problem are the limbaughs of the left (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:52:32 PM EST
    i.e., the obamafans, They are the 180 degree opposites of the obama-must-fail-at-all-costers.  They are for anything, regardless of merit, impact, or outcome, as long as it boosts obama - the ezra kleins of the world. They're really no different than their wingnut counterparts in that they believe in nothing except for the success of image, which for them is embodied in obama.

    Good Point (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:56:26 PM EST
    i.e., the obamafans, They are the 180 degree opposites of the obama-must-fail-at-all-costers.

    Although I think that you were off by 180 degrees. More like 360 degrees opposite. Yeah I know, being the same and the opposite  at the same time seems like a paradox, but these are heady times.

    Parent

    Ezra as Rush (none / 0) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    I don't know.  That's a stretch.  I do think Ezra's cheerleading pompoms would have wilted if his Republican wet-dream exchanges were dropped.

    Parent
    I couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#141)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:29:15 AM EST
    DailyKos knows perfectly why... (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by dkmich on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:53:45 PM EST
    Left blogs and radio are hard selling us this corporate boondoggle. I've seen vaccuum cleaner salesmen with more finesse.   As the propaganda arm or should I say new voice of the Democrat Party , they are starting to remind me of Rush, Hannity and right.   That's my opinion anyway.  

    For only $2500, you can own the (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:01:20 PM EST
    same gold-embossed  "I support the public option" pin  that Nancy Pelosi keeps hidden in her very bottom drawer.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#129)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    Let's keep Pelosi's drawers out of this, mkay? This is a family blog.

    Parent
    The way (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    that Kos treated Hillary Clinton turned me away from him and his blog - as well as the way he ignored so many of the right wing moves by Obama before and during the campaign.

    Parent
    But It Was OK To Do the Same Here? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:23:59 PM EST
    Trashing Hillary bad, trashing Obama good? Dkos bad, TL good?

    Oh I get it, it was OK to call Obama stupid and an empty suit at TL because he was those things, while to call Hillary names at dkos well that was just eeeeevil.

    Doesn't it seem odd? Does to me.

    Parent

    I'm going with Kos himself on this one (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    Kos: "To be honest, the only crowd that ever had any real reason to gripe was the Hillary crowd."

    Given that Kos enforcers drove them all off the site. It has nothing to do  with calling Obama an empty suit (which is obviously not true; a mere empty suit could never have normalized Bush's policies on torture or handed the banksters their billions).

    Parent

    Well Yes (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    I have no problem understanding how poorly Hillary supporters were treated at dkos. What I do not understand is how those supporters came here complaining about the treatment they received, and then proceeded to engage in the same behavior here.

    It is bad enough that the respective worshipers blamed each other for acting badly, when they were doing exactly the same thing. But, for progressives, or liberals to go nuts over two mainstream democrats who differed only in style, seems strange to me. Even stranger that the cultish obsession continues on.

    Parent

    More "both sides do it" (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 07:15:42 PM EST
    instead of actual analysis.
    You ought to work for CNN!

    Parent
    I think if you reread more carefully... (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:24:19 PM EST
    ... you'll see that we're posting at cross purposes. Kos, I believe is referring to the way he, and his admins, purged the site of Hillary supporters. To its credit, TL didn't cross that line (though Jeralyn was pretty rough there for awhile). Now, I applaud the fact that you understand and admit this, since to this day most Obama supporters will not (making any of the "introspection" that BTD calls for in the context of health care impossible in the context of the primaries).

    I'd take issue with you on two points:

    1. I don't think that the practice of worship was equivalent for both candidates. Certainly there wasn't the explicit practice of training Hillary volunteers to peddle conversion narratives, for example. Or Oprah calling Obama "The One" (!!). Examples can be multiplied, if you want links.

    2. Both sides did not do "exactly the same thing." There is simply no equivalent from the Hillary side of false smears of racism, to give but one example (I cite Kevin Drum on this one, who's a pretty neutral source). Examples can be multiplied, here, again.

    Now, after the health care debacle -- et tu, Dennis! -- I've concluded that the Dems are and have been irredeemable. It follows as a consequence that electing one centrist Democrat as opposed to another would have made only a marginal difference (although marginal is not insignificant). However, we shouldn't mistake equivalence in policy outcomes between centrists to equivalence in the campaign tactics both sides used, on and off line. That equivalence can't stand up to analysis. Those who don't learn from history....

    NOTE As far as "the same thing," I don't even bother with the civility argument, if that's what you're pointing to. The most deadly insults can be delivered in the politest fashion, and Darwin will weed the lousy commenters out -- unless, as at Kos, the site owner puts their thumb on the scales.

    Parent

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:11:06 PM EST
    wasn't Jeralyn a pretty strong Hillary supporter all through the primaries? HRC supporters didn't race over here to take the site away from its owner...they were supporting the same candidate.

    Parent
    After the nomination... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:30:45 PM EST
    ... things changed somewhat. There's a history here, but nothing compared to Kos.

    Parent
    Jeralyn initially supported Edwards. (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:49:47 PM EST
    Edwards still in the race when KOS (none / 0) (#146)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:15:34 AM EST
    started banning HRC supporters? I wasn't a KOS reader, so don't know the specifics on timing. I don't think that little technicality fits into the argument underway.

    When did BTD leave KOS for TL?

    Parent

    I don't think DK banned supporters (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:08:19 AM EST
    of Hillary Clinton.  But many diarists and commenters made it a point to chastize anyone who posted comments supportive of her candidacy.  

    Parent
    Sorry To Say (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:12:48 PM EST
    I was a Hillary supporter, although I had no illusions of who she was and is.

    And, since I never got involved with dkos or any other site than TL, my only perspective is from the Hillary and Obama cultists that landed here. Prior to that most commenters thought little of the Democratic party and of course substantially less of BushCo.

    I do understand that those who believed that Hillary would have made a marginal difference to significant difference had she been elected as opposed to the crap we have now, see the hostility from the Obama cultists as incomparable to what they themselves dished out.

    What I don't understand is how such smart people not only fell into a cult worship, but continue to revise everything Clinton for the sake of bashing Obama. And what is even stranger is that that group appears to be substantially to the right of most who inhabited this site prior to the primaries.

    That is the biggest irony for me. Most of the Hillary flock have views that are more in keeping with Obama's (and Hillary) tough on crime, etc policies than not. But nary a word of praise for the policies they support, because Obama evidentially was mean, sexist, and racist to poor innocent Hillary.

    Parent

    You wouldn't have to try so hard ... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:48:13 PM EST
    What I don't understand is how such smart people not only fell into a cult worship, but continue to revise everything Clinton for the sake of bashing Obama. And what is even stranger is that that group appears to be substantially to the right of most who inhabited this site prior to the primaries.

    ... to understand it, if you would just stop imaginingit in the first place.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    Hows this:

    What I don't understand is how such [not so] smart people not only fell into a cult worship....

    Better?

    Parent

    Closer (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    More like

    What I don't understand is how such [not so] smart people spend so much of their time creating fantasies of imaginary Hillary-worship.

    There ya go.

    Parent

    Several things (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by observed on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:32:17 AM EST
    First and foremost,
    there is absolutely no reason for you to do this EVERY SINGLE DAY---bash Hillary "cultists", bait people with ridiculous comments (the same ones every time)---no reason at all.
    You never add any analysis. You obviously just want to cause trouble. It's rude to everyone.
    Not to mention that nearly any comment can set you off to call someone a Hillary supporting nutjob.

    Second, when you say you were a Hillary supporter (a claim for which I have never seen any evidence, btw), it's a bit like "some of my best friends are [blank]". If you did support Hillary, that doesn't make your arguments any better.

    Third,
    Your comments on the subject are absurd and shallow. You obviously have done absolutely no reflection on the primaries and the election, and you have nothing to say except that people who think Hillary would have been better are cultists.
    This brings me back to point 1: If you have this opinion, fine. There's NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO need at all to repeat it, day after day.

    I know you won't give it a rest: the only thing I can hope is that you are hounded into being less of a pr*ck by other people here.


    Parent

    Oh Well (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:34:29 AM EST
    Nobody's perfect, lol...

    Parent
    + 10,000 (none / 0) (#164)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:43:40 AM EST
    this behavior is rude, absurd, shallow & toxic

    i think this person has a bad case of adult oppositional defiant disorder

    that is if he/she actually is an adult & not a teenager holed up in the parental basement

    better to spend his/her computer time privately jerking off to porn rather than publicly jerking off to personal Hillary fantasies

    pretty sick & obsessive, imo

    Parent

    Where are the posts (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:34:31 AM EST
    boasting the great job being done? What policies that are wonderful have been introduced so comments to support them won't be Off Topic and either ignored or deleted?

    Maybe if you would argue comments and give the other side (benefits of the policy in the post) to show why you support it/them rather than degrading and slamming the commenters, both sides can be heard and common ground found. Those who oppose the policies being posted about are explaining why they oppose, but the supporters are falling short of providing explanation for why they support. No one is going to change their opinion without being given solid reason to do so.
       

    Parent

    I'm probably going to regret this, but... (4.60 / 10) (#123)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:04:17 PM EST
    where is all this Clinton revisionism that you think has occured - or is occuring - because it seems to me that the only time Hillary's name is invoked is in response to those who criticize Obama, and it usually takes the form of, "well, I didn't hear you complaining when Hillary did _____," or "I suppose you think Hillary would have been better."  Sometimes, like in your comment, you classify anyone who criticizes Obama as a cultist, and sometimes it's just flat-out taunting to provoke a reaction.

    You did it to me today - called me a cultist - and I don't believe I mentioned Hillary even by inference.

    Before I came here, I used to comment at Steve Benen's old place, and while it was smaller than DK, it was chock-full of people with serious Hillary hate; at the time, I was an Edwards supporter - yeah, that worked out well, lol - but the conversation there was all about Obama The Wonderful and Hillary The Evil.  I found myself digging into Hillary's record for the sole purpose of being able to correct how badly she was being represented, and much to my surprise, found that I liked what I thought she could bring to the presidency.  I mean, I was really surprised, because on some issues, she is to the right of me, and in a sort of meta sense, I was sure that the media and the Hate Machine would just never let her govern.

    My support for Hillary was an evolution, not an immersion into a cult; and I could have accepted her defeat for the nomination had it been a fair fight - but we all know that it wasn't, and we know why it wasn't - I shouldn't have to go into all those reasons here, again.

    I do not judge Obama in light of WWHD, I judge him - and the rest of the party - on what they, themselves are doing, because this is my reality - living in a world of what-ifs and wouldn't-it-be-great-ifs is a waste of time and energy.

    I get that you and a few others rise to Obama's defense because there is almost no praise for him to be found here - but my perception is that you don't defend him on the basis of his actual policy positions and actions, but by claiming the criticism is just because he isn't Hillary - and that's not what's going on here - at least not with me.

    And, for the record, the Obama campaign was overtly sexist, it was overtly condescending, and it encouraged that attitude among his supporters and the media.  The charges of racism that were leveled against both Clintons may have been the most reprehensible and abhorrent campaign tactic of all, although there were other things that might be just as horrible - the caucuses, Michigan/Florida, the Rules Committee - all of it.

    And sorry I could not condense this into two sentences, but I'm tired of being accused of being something and someone I am not, and never have been, just because you cannot find any other way to defend Obama.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:34:20 PM EST
    My experience as well. It's a shame to have to keep setting the record straight.

    Parent
    Well, er, no (4.00 / 4) (#117)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    You write:
    cult worship, but continue to revise everything Clinton for the sake of bashing Obama.

    Where is the "revision" in what I wrote?
    And what is even stranger is that that group appears to be substantially to the right of most who inhabited this site prior to the primaries.

    Well, maybe so. You offer no evidence, and I'm certainly not, so, as far as I'm concerned, you're addressing the air. There's nothing concrete here.

    That is the biggest irony for me. Most of the Hillary flock have views that are more in keeping with Obama's (and Hillary) tough on crime, etc policies than not. But nary a word of praise for the policies they support, because Obama evidentially was mean, sexist, and racist to poor innocent Hillary.

    Well, I don't know what the (infantilizing and dismissive) "mean" is. Evidentially, Obama was, in fact, sexist and and made false charges of racism. Whatever Hillary may or may not be innocent of, she was innocent of that.

    Parent
    lol (2.00 / 4) (#124)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    Whatever Hillary may or may not be innocent of, she was innocent of that.

    Rinse, repeat...  

    Parent

    Bye (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:29:56 PM EST
    I give evidence and reasoning, you got nuthin.

    Parent
    Test (3.00 / 2) (#131)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:40:10 PM EST
    Whatever Obama may or may not be innocent of, he was innocent of that.
    Rinse, repeat...  

    Does that make sense to you now? If so chances are that you are smitten.

    Parent

    Squeaky (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:58:59 PM EST
    You are grinding an axe.

    People that I have read posting here are talking about their views on issues.

    If Obama is taken to task, it has been because of the moves he makes that are all too reminiscent of Bush. This is, after all, TalkLEFT.

    Parent

    Not True (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:18:52 PM EST
    Although it true that I am grinding an axe. For example, many of the refugees champion right wing positions like victim rights, tough on crime, anti immigration issues that Obama has embraced.

    Hardly anything TL would support. You'd think that at least one or two of the refugees would clap their hands in support of positions they embrace. But anything Obama, for this group is eevil, because what he did to Hillary was unforgivable.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:35:42 PM EST
    Where are these "many"? Can you point to an example on this thread?

    Parent
    Please don't go there. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:52:08 PM EST
    No evidence, no reasoning (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    Not applicable to the posters squeaky's interacting with here. Sqeaky's got nuthin.


    Parent
    Yeah unlike (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:21:54 PM EST
    the rhetorical power of "we were called racists"; that so-pungent-that-it-cant-be-overused "thrown under the bus" metaphor; or the different applications of the marvelously sardonic "hopey changey" that you've been flogging to death for months upon months here..the bobbysoxers just cant get enough of those oldies but goodies.  

    Parent
    The Great Lambert Speaks (3.00 / 2) (#132)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:41:00 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    P*ssing contest (none / 0) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:44:15 AM EST
    between two skunks, as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent
    Good Call (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:11:14 PM EST
    Victim's Rights is a Right Wing (none / 0) (#148)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:43:10 AM EST
    thing? I didn't realize R's had a compassionate side, and never would have guessed that.

    The tough on crime attitude seems equally divided between the Obama and the former Clinton supporters, though.  

    Parent

    Give it up (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    Squeaks arguments will always include "I was a Hillary supporter", "but, but Hillary...", and "you are a cultists who can't get over the primaries" and she will always have the last word, even if it's just "LOL" or something just as intelligent.  It's like arguing with a 5 year old - they pretty much lose the argument when they stick their tongue out and say "Will not", but you lose when you continue to engage them - they wear you down until you stop arguing and then they walk away thinking they won.

    You must resist the invitation and just ignore.

    Parent

    it's about intellectual honesty (3.00 / 2) (#142)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:33:47 AM EST
    Most of the Obama supporters had a problem with it.

    Parent
    Now there's a non-baiting comment (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:57:12 PM EST
    that'll slide by Lambert the profound, Anne the Concise and all the rest of the even-handed, strictly issue-oriented types that showed up here in late 2008.

    Parent
    Aha (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    Now I understand why waldenpond arbitrarily called out kidneytstones in the other thread for using insults, even though there was no insult, only sarcasm.

    Trying to be evenhanded while carrying such a load must be awesome difficult.

    lol

    Parent

    There's a line in The Big Chill (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by mentaldebris on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:41:18 PM EST
    that really sums up my opinion of the rationalizations going on in the progressive Party hopping blogosphere:

    --I'd hate to think it was all just...fashion.

    Turns out for many of them it was just fashion; easily rationalized posturing. Get yer steaming hot talking points right here.

    You know what's really sad? Rahm was right. For too many it was nothing but ultimately meaningless progressive posturing. Call them names. lie to them, kick sand in their faces and they will eventually get right back on board the establishment train every time. You don't even have to apologize or give them an inch. It's...inevitable. That's why they can be ignored.

    He must be having a belly laugh at the expense of the reliably wilting segment of the "left of the left". He called it. From this point on I'm sure the party blogs are going to wield way scary influence on legislation and the WH.

    I mean, talk about insuring your own marginalization. By successfully fulfilling establishment prophecy they have essentially rendered themselves go along to get along impotent. The next time the progressive threats fly it will be met with a condescending smile, if it's even acknowledged at all.

    Establishment: The progressive bloggers want what? Oh, aren't they just so adorable when they stamp their wittle fingers on their wittle keyboards and make their wittle demands. Why, they may even make some fiercely empty threats and send us sternly worded letters! We're so scared!

    Party/politicians over good policy isn't progressive activism, it's establishment cheerleading and it's a real credibility killer. That is, unless these bloggers are basing their credibility on rollover party line "pragmatism" when push finally comes to shove. If that's the case - major props.

    For the fighters: Never surrender.


    To answer BTD's question (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    Why Did Progressives Support A Public Option?

    Two reasons:

    1. They got played; and/or

    2. They got funded.

    The vast majority of real progressives were behind door #1.

    What Obama thinks of us (progressives) (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by democrat1 on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:44:18 PM EST

    From the Fox Transcript of his interview:

     Now, we can fix this in a way that is sensible, that is centrist. I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are -- you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system.

    Centrist=Reaganite. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:50:34 PM EST
    Defending the system (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    Defending the broken, for-profit system so strongly does not bode well for the 'nose under the tent' theory of future improvements.

    Centrist.  The 1993 Republican health insurance tinkering is centrist.

    I know the guy is center-right but it's still frustrating to hear this stuff.

    Parent

    First, they came for... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    the "little single payer advocates"...

    And, quelle surprise, in about a year, they came for the public option advocates too!

    Parent

    Good to know (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by coast on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:50:07 PM EST
    that once this bill is signed and my son has to have another MRI, I won't be paying $4,000 for the procedure like I did last year....wait...what...this bill doesn't do anything to reduce the cost I pay for care.  OK then.

    Obama's backroom deal to drop PO? (4.75 / 8) (#90)
    by good grief on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:34:47 PM EST
    Maybe I missed it upthread or in BTD's earlier posts (or Jeralyn's) but is anyone on TL concerned about the NYT report from Aug 2009 about Obama's treachery in his deal with Pharma and AHIP to kill the PO while he kept on repeatedly speechifying about it as the best thing since sliced bread. The corruption and hypocrisy of that episode were breathtaking! Good thing Miles Mogulescu at Huffpo (also here and here) brought the Times article forth where I stumbled across it a few days ago totally by accident and Ed Schultz had NYT's Kirkpatrick on his show just this last Mon March 15 (which I missed but Miles helpfully reported on it).

    Jane Hamsher finally caught up with the story yesterday.

    There's something wrong with journalism and our newsmedia in general when a smoking gun like ObamaRahma's dirty deal to never let the PO see the light of day as long ago as last June 2009 has been floating around unnoticed -- even in broad daylight on the front page of the Times last August -- when the PO feature of the HCR was so popular with the public and Obama was raising money on it and moving along this corporate HCR boondoggle with the help of the PO ("to keep insurers honest") we all thought was contained within it -- but it wasn't! Except as a pretense that Obama knew all along would  disappear. Like watching a magician doing a shell game -- PO, PO, where's the PO? -- where's the outrage?

    Why is this not a major scandal at the core of the HCR drama? Is Obama being protected that much?

    Here's the sequence of stories since last Aug 2009:

    Original NYT piece + 3 Huffpo articles:

    1)  August 12, 2009: Obama taking active role in HCR talks
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=1&sq=Chip%20Kahn%20Baucus%20pub lic%20option&st=sce&srp=2&pagewanted=all

    2)  October 26, 2009: Who's killing the public option?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/whos-killing-the-public-o_b_334372.html

    3)  March 12, 2010: Obama, Durbin and Pelosi all point fingers at someone else for who killed PO
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/obama-durbin-and-pelosi-a_b_497359.html

    4)  March 16, 2010: NYT reporter confirms Obama made deal to kill PO
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html?view=screen

    I recommended reading it on (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 07:14:53 PM EST
    Greenwald's post this morning.

    I don't remember what time I came to the conclusion that Obama was not really in support of the pubic option (no matter what he was saying).

    Given the deals we knew he had made with the insurance and drug companies, it only makes sense that he also promised them 'no government run plan'.  It would not make sense to promise them mandates to buy insurance, and leave a PO hole open. Those companies are better negotiators than that.


    Parent

    Ugh - can't write today (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 07:17:44 PM EST
    I meant I recommend here that people read what Greenwald said about it. Did not have time this morning to go into your detail, but yeah, it shows what a total waste of energy it was. I stopped expending that energy in the fall some time, probably after reading one of those articles you link to.

    Parent
    What is your opinion on... (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    ...whether this bill makes future health care improvements more immediately likely?  

    (WOW Murray State!!!!)

    It seems to me that a one shot deal like ERISA waiver, or ending anti-trust exemption, or lowering Medicare eligibility age is more likely with passage of the bill, whereas any health care reform will be considered a political 3rd rail if it fails. But, I have no idea.

    I think it hinders (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    real reform in the immediate future.

    Parent
    You'd still vote for it though? (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    Medicaid expansion is a big deal.

    Parent
    Especially because everyone gets the (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:59:03 PM EST
    Nebraska deal now. Governors should actually love this.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    they won't. How much did they like the stimulus money?

    Parent
    In private or in public? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    A lot (none / 0) (#153)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    even guys who supposedly hated stimulus funds were more than happy to hand out novelty checks and cut ribbons.

    Parent
    2 Major Pharmacy Chains (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:08:40 PM EST
    The market will respond (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BTAL on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    as this shows.

    Parent
    of what to expect....

    Parent
    Only in Washington State, yes? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:22:42 PM EST
    Don't know (none / 0) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    I expect each state with Walgreens would have the news issued to them through their own media. And, this is only as/of today....who knows how many more will follow this lead.

    Parent
    Pffttt (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:01:22 PM EST
    It would have been a lot cheaper to just expand Medicaid.

    Whatdya think the next round of Repubs that this bill will usher into office are going to keep funding Medicaid?

    And what happens to the lower middle class who make $20-30k/yr but have to spend a huge portion of their income on forced insurance payments? Think they'll stick with those crummy jobs when they can make a little less and get totally free healthcare?


    Parent

    As a given (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salo on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:08:01 PM EST
    Why didn't they just double up the level  of Medicaid? That would have been easier and more transparent.  

    Parent
    That's exactly how the MA deforms (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by masslib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    worked out.  The majority of the newly enrolled are in Medicaid.  The Exchanges are for chumps.  They are expensive.  

    Remember though, initially they were talking about a 200% above poverty increase to Medicaid, that would have covered half the uninsured, and in the provision for 18-26 year olds to enroll in Mom's plan, and a Medicare buy-in for older pre-medicare people, and viola, you've covered nearly everyone, and it's cheaper and easier than ObamaCare.  But...but there was nothing in that for the insurers.  No guaranteed market.  

    Parent

    What do you do about (none / 0) (#154)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    Doctor's and pharmacies who refuse to treat medicaid patients- do you increase medicaids reimbursements to Private levels or what?

    Parent
    Well, first you assure pharmacies (none / 0) (#160)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:30:15 PM EST
    are not actually losing money on Medicaid patients.  That would be a start.

    Parent
    1993 Republicans more progressive than Clinton? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    Since mandates are now the lynchpin of progressivism, it should be pointed out that Charles Grassley and  other Republicans were the first to propose this idea in 1993 and Clinton did not support it.


    So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors . Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri . remain in the Senate today.

    So it does appear that 1993 Republicans HCR bill was more progressive than Bill Clintons.  Also from the article, the Obama HCR bill is very similar to the one Republicans proposed in 1993.  More evidence the Republicans in 1993 were more progressive than Bill Clinton.


    But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.
    Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments . something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.


    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:16:48 PM EST
    It is probably better to evaluate legislation that has passed. All the other stuff is part of a political games, postured for a variety of motives. In order to pass the bills are either quickly changed to muster a majority or, ejected.

    Parent
    You do not examine legislation (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Makarov on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

    Lyndon Johnson

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    I totally agree with you... (none / 0) (#39)
    by MiamiGuy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:29:59 PM EST
    But I think this is an important start.

    Costs to the middle-class are going to rise (none / 0) (#108)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:30:48 PM EST
    Before the provisions kick in and after. The insurance industry is ecstatic about getting getting billions from healthy young people who are quite unlikely to be a major drain on the for profit system, least likely in fact.

    The industry, as we'd expect, is going to fight the provisions it doesn't like. Their argument is going to be straight-forward: we can't afford the costs of insuring high risk individuals without increasing premium costs to the young and the healthy.

    We live in a place with a mix of private and public insurance, where having some form of insurance is mandatory. Costs are continuing to rise for public sector insurance faster than private sector insurance, mostly because of the government's commitment to providing fairly high quality services to people everyone, including dental.

    The gold standard for medical expertise is 'trained in the USA'. Other countries provide first class training and expertise. But the for-profit system in the US drives the innovation that keeps producing new drugs and procedures. More socialized systems copy the innovation of US private industry.

    The US continues to be the world leader in medical research. I don't know enough about the bill to say this innovation is at risk, but I can't see how the system is going to be cover low-income high risk clients without a major increase in costs.

    This legislation could be the best thing that ever happened to India's pharmaceutical industry. Cost if Dems think they can kneecap the health-industry and the insurance companies and try to compel businesses to cover the poor from corporate profit Dems really are delusional.

    HCR at the federal level was and is a big mistake. The first big bill likely to come due will be in November.

    excellent analysis (none / 0) (#143)
    by klassicheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:39:58 AM EST
    and a point not covered by many

    Parent