Great post, I just heard someone say Americans a the people of giving - unfortunately not everyone and not health care.God Bless the left.

It seems to me, and I'm quite biased, that the teabaggers and the GOP come out of this looking horrible.

I even heard Dick Morris praising the exchanges.

Like every good comic, K-Thug stole the "sanity clause" line:

Groucho: "That's in every contract, that's what you call a sanity clause."
Chico: "You can't a fool a me there ain't no sanity clause"

Turns out that Joe Lieberman also steals from the masters:

Groucho: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Steve, I believe the "sanity clause" line is from the Marx Bros "A Night At The Opera."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-zR2pM_S5U

Republican coal in every sock

Wow...
Good story.
Lucky for Tiny Tim and his republican parents.
I am sure the young man will grow up to be a fine young anti-government teabagger...

There's a touch of irony, as Tiny Tim, would be exactly the one who would run afoul of the' complete
lives system' that is how we are going to save money
right

The tea baggers exist for one reason and one reason only: the President is black. As long as Obama is in office we will have the tea baggers. That the media gives them any attention, and in fact lavishes so much attention that the GOP has picked up their agenda is a disgrace.

The American public are lemmings. The tea baggers are the shiny object capturing their attention. I really hope people realize how important this healthcare reform bill is. It's flawed, but its a start and is a first step that can be expanded. My fear is that a handful of loud screeching bigots are more entertaining, and that's the direction the public will be lead.

I hope I'm wrong.

Jane Hamsher seems determined to turn teabaggery bi-partisan.

C'mon, guys. Krugman knows I know the origin of the "sanity clause" line. What's original is the combination of that with the "Yes, Virginia..." line.

Actually, the whole point of the joke is that the audience has the Marx Bros routine in their minds.

The American public are lemmings. The tea baggers are the shiny object capturing their attention.

tea is just the flavor of the month. america has had its share of crazies, some much more dangerous than these clowns. you might recall the klan back in the 20s. they rise, they fall and then they crawl back under the rock from which they came.

This is my first visit to your blog - I am a leftie handually and politically [smiles smirkily]. Since I'm new, I apologize in advance if this request has popped up before, but as one of the lemmings that has veered away from the precipice since Obama popped up, I have a request:

I dare speak for my fellow inspired lemmings, as follows:

Please use your influence to notify the dems, righties, mad hatters and anyone else we elect to office:

"We the People" [WTP] do not care whether you [elected officials - EO's] get re-elected. Really. WTP are interested in smaller EO Egos. And term limits so the chronically self-absorbed EO's can join the chronically paranoid lemmings in their race to the precipice of fear-based idiocy.

WTP want elected officials who are knowledgeable, and willing to consult Experts (what a concept!) if they aren't well-informed on a topic. You EO's need to go back to kindergarten and learn to share. And talk nice. And quit wetting your pants in public when something scares you.

Thank you for your help, Mr. Benen, in spreading this message. Now stop peeking at your blog, and go have a great holiday.

The fly in Krugman's ointment is that the democratic party leadership would have people believe that tripe. They'll have it believed the party stood tall and achieved an unadulterated, once-in-a-generation legislative victory (if that generation is lucky).

That, rather than admit that the GOP, corporate America, and the insurance industry pinned their ears to the wall- so just ignore the commie loving, dirty stinking hippie ingrates, who say otherwise. That their 2008 mandate was wielded like a scapel, that the best that could be accomplished was accomplished.

"...a system of subsidies to help families pay for coverage. Even so, insurance doesn't come cheap."

And, therein lies the rub. You see, if Mr. Crachit doesn't buy the expensive insurance policy from the monopoly with the anti-trust exemption, he pays a fine and/or goes to jail.

As it is, the high deductables, high co-pays and high cost of Tim's meds mean Mr. Crachit has to choose between buying heating oil or paying for his medical expenses.

As a consequence, his credit is poor and he can't buy Tim the G.I. Joe action figure with the kung-fu grip for Christmas.

How ironic ...I went to the Catholic Mass with my wife last night (me agnostic) and low and behold there was a request for some additional donations to fund a free clinic for the areas poor. This is a predominantly republican area (Johnny Mac and the witch of Wasilla did 60%) Just think , the public option could have helped them. You pay at church or pay through taxes to do the right thing. I will never in my life figure out the disconnect between the "christian right " and helping those among us who have the least. I often wonder how they sleep at night with their 20 pieces of silver from the insurance lobby clanging in their pockets.

one opponent he missed was col. edward house in the chief of staff's office with a candlestick holder

Taxing the rich to pay for HCR? Yes Virginia...

From an article in today's Arizona Daily Star:

Question: How much is all this going to cost? Will it increase my taxes?

Answer: Both bills hit up the wealthy, but in different ways. The House would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surtax on individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples who make more than $1 million. The Senate would increase the Medicare payroll tax rate from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for people who se income exceeds $200,000 a year and families with incomes above $250,000.
To raise money to pay for the legislation, the Senate would impose a 40 percent tax on the portion of most employer- sponsored health coverage that exceeds $8,500 a year for individuals and $23,000 for families. The Senate also would raise the threshold for deducting medical expenses to 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent.
Both bills would place new fees on the medical-device industry, and would limit to $2,500 a year the amount you could place in flexible savings accounts. Overall, the financing provisions could spur a pitched battle; the House hates the Senate tax on high-cost policies, while the Senate opposes the House's income-tax surcharge.

Taxing the rich to help poor and old folks?
Oh my. That is gonna piss off a lot of teabagging hamsters...

The Cratchits in this story may be grateful as long as they aren't hoping for future "improvements" to the health insurance system, now made impossible because of the enhanced clout of an insurance industry enriched by an individual mandate and $476 billion in public subsidies, by which the public is forced not only to buy private policies at inflated prices, but to subsidize other citizens' purchases as well.

They can also be grateful that Scrooge didn't offer employee health care in the first place -- because if Scrooge had provided a cut-rate and unreliable plan, they would have had to stick with it.

They can be grateful as long as the eldest Cratchit daughter is not impregnated by rape, because her access to reproductive choice is curtailed in these "reforms."

They can be grateful so long as they have no relatives or loved ones dependent on the nearby safety-net hospital, often the last option for the 23 million people who remained uninsured by the "reform." Because $43 billion in Medicare payments to these hospitals were drained by the "reform," many had to close.

Meanwhile, in another part of town, while the Cratchits celebrated a questionable victory, the real victors drank champagne from crystal flutes in much grander houses.

Kaiser Health has a useful health reform subsidy calculator here:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Be sure to read the results carefully and pick up the correct figure of amount you may owe.

Ah. A pun. If you hadn't said anything I wouldn't ever have realized.

Well, did Scrooge turn good (enough) or did we get scrooged? Debatable ... I had a dream last night, which I describe with no tweaking for effect:
Had been followed by a wolf (then turned into a punk) for awhile, which I kept at bay with a knife. Then I saw Barack Obama, handing out to a line of people a CD/DVD with title like "My Plan for America." Well ... Was my SC ruminating about insurance companies, and hoping BHOpe was going to save us with this problematic Christmas present? Again, debatable - but he's got to try really hard, you know?

In any case, it is historic. My mother sent the following poem to a SE VA newspaper, which hasn't printed it (and now likely won't.) She's mostly supportive but knows to tease the iconography. So here it is:

With Regards to Rudolph

by Joanne Bates

Barack, our first black President,
Figured he was Heaven sent.
Vowed not to follow the norm,
But to pull off Health Care Reform.

Obama, with your brain so bright,
Won't you lead us in this fight?

On a snowy winter's night
Flakes were falling fast and light.
Demos snagged the 60th vote,
Now Repubs can't rock the boat.
But will the abortion concession
Reconcile with House legislation?
A final vote on Christmas Eve
May decide what gifts we'll receive.

Obama is happy but wary,
Hoping to finish work in January.

We are weary of this drama
But one thing is sure, President Obama.
With Health Care Reform victory
You'll go down in history.

I hope that those responsible for the security of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al., understand that this is a time of maximum danger from the nutters among the Republicans, inflamed by the hyperbolic language of their sore loser leaders in Congress.

Republicans once again show their lack of class in their bitter kvetching and gracelessness in defeat. No class.

I sincerely hope that Dr. Krugman's revision of Dickens becomes both a scene from Christmas Present and, eventually, Christmas' Past.

Good thing the parable involving a Ghost of Christmas Future for Tiny Tim is set in 2014 (assuming an insuffient number of Republican Ghost-Busters are elected between now and then). For Tiny Tim's brother who has the same health problem in 2010, the ending of his parable is much sadder. There is no hope and he unless the Ghost of Christmas Present can quickly alter the Senate (and House-for that matter) bill within months after it is passed in time to see much more reform of heath care to save him(and the Democrats), preferably by November of 2010 --- or 2012 at the latest.

The only real hope to see such changes to save Tiny Tim's brother, the Democrats --and perhaps even Tiny Tim (those nasty Ghost-Busters could intervene)-- is for the Senate to eliminate the parliamentary maneuver known as the filibuster. The dirty secret that no major politican or pundit like yourself has yet been willing to openly and consistently say is that the filibuster can be eliminated AT ANY TIME using the nuclear option or several other parliamentary maneuvers that need only 50 votes plus the VP. It means ending a Senate "tradition" that helps make the Senate an "old boys club". Something like a US House of Lords 60 years ago. It takes 50 Senators willing to give up "tradition" for the good of their Party and Country. We could have elected 70 Democratic Senators, and unless the culture of the Senate and Democrats is changed, we could easily be posting the same columns and comments.

You think the Republicans would not have used the nuclear option if what they wanted wasn't handed to them by an earlier "Gang of 14?? [ They wanted a set of right-wing judges approved for Federal bench positions -- and they got most of what they wanted by threatening the nuclear option.] You think they wouldn't use it again to pass whatever once they again become a majority? Get Real.

If 50 Democratic Senators and the current VP don't have the spine/ cajones to do so, then in all likelihood forget fairy tales with happy endings for this Senate and Chief Executive -- and Democratic control of US Government. If there are not 50 votes to end a filibuster, bills or amendments in 2010 to really improve health care reform, climate change, whatever, are essentially exercises in "pass inadequate bills and pronounce those bills as ground-breaking". And hope the American voters don’t notice. Voters on average may be generally uninformed, but their not THAT dumb.

In health care and other issues, Obama and Senate Democrats constantly reinforce a meme that Democrats are easily rolled by those making intransigent demands. This reinforces a long-standing meme that they are wimps, wusses, chumps-- pick your term. McCain, Coker, deMint and most Republicans may be batshit bonkers pushing insane ideologically-based solutions, but they appear willing to take a lot of flack to push their agenda. Voters consistently reject candidates they view as weak wimps, no matter what their ideology or personal heroism (Google McGovern, Carter, Kerry, Dukakis, etc).

Why did the Dems create a maze vis-a-vis health care? Dems are bumblers and the bumblers are seeking to reproduce. People bumbling around in a health care maze are likely to become bumblers. First of all the health care maze isn't going to lower costs by much and is only going to be marginally better than the current system but the maze isn't a bug but rather the maze is a feature. It isn't about having to deal with the crazies. The bumblers are trying to build mazes. Why? As I said the bumblers are after more bumblers. It is a Darwinian imperative

Someone above said, "As it is, the high deductables, high co-pays and high cost of Tim's meds mean Mr. Crachit has to choose between buying heating oil or paying for his medical expenses."
leading me to wonder... This is worse than the current system how?

Of course Krugman assumed that his literate audience wd recognize both Virginia and Sanity Clause. Educated people make such casual references all the time, though wingnuts may not know it. Typically stupid complaint-- like the person who referred to some phrase like "the compleat shopper" as having a misspelled word, or the guy who corrected a speaker for saying "the world in which we live in."
This week I saw the new Patrick Stewart
"Christmas Carol," followed shortly afterwards by the conclusion of "La Boheme," where Mimi, like Violetta, dies of conspicuous consumption-- more consequences of unaffordable health care.
(No, sorry to say, that pun is not mine.)
And, fwiw, credit for Groucho's famous line in "A Night at the Opera" presumably goes to screenwriters George S. Kaufman and Morrie Ryskin.

You know, I'm having a hard time telling the right-wing blowhards from the left-wing blowhards anymore, especially with regard to this bill. If you don't think that this bill will do any good, then you a) have health insurance, don't pay for it, and don't know how much it actually costs, or b) are an ideological fool with delusions of grandeur about fighting the big, bad Federal government. Either way, you're not operating with any sense of reason or reality. I clear around 70 grand, after taxes, and even I'm going to see a pretty significant subsidy under the Senate version of the bill (family of four), according to the Kaiser Family Foundation calculator:

http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx

ONNA, enjoy your subsidy but what does that have to do with *how much the insurance costs, period?* Even though I am OK with taxing the truly wealth more, I don't want even their money going to pay for equally or more expensive premiums/care charges as before. There is some cost control - maybe not enough - so the most bitter critics are exaggerating. But they have a point regarding the basics.

(BTW, we should tax financial transactions, and raise the capital gains rate to equal that for earned income. What have the Democrats as a whole, done to accomplish that?)

"ONNA, enjoy your subsidy but what does that have to do with *how much the insurance costs, period?*"

My point was that many of the critics on the far left are railing against the bill on the basis that it will be unaffordable. My situation is just one glaring example of why such beliefs are false. I don't need the subsidy, and I'm paying more for insurance right now (own my own business), but that is beside the point.

"Even though I am OK with taxing the truly wealth more, I don't want even their money going to pay for equally or more expensive premiums/care charges as before. There is some cost control - maybe not enough - so the most bitter critics are exaggerating. But they have a point regarding the basics."

So, basic cost controls vs. no cost controls at all, is a step in which direction ? This is a perfect example of the problem at hand here: the inability to see even a sliver of good when the bill does not meet some impossible ideological standard that exists only in the mind of each person holding it.

"(BTW, we should tax financial transactions, and raise the capital gains rate to equal that for earned income. What have the Democrats as a whole, done to accomplish that?)"

And what exactly does that have to do with health care reform or my comment ? I happen to agree, but again, it is beside the point.

OK, ONNO... I hope the minor cost control is there as you say. Not everyone even agrees with that, and I don't mean just "nuts" like Howard Dean, Glenn Greenwald, etc. (Because of the forced and captive customer base, still having the anti-trust exemption, etc.) I you're right though, then sure some CC is better than none as an almost syllogistic truism.

Also, would you and others please stop referring to my kind of objections as "ideological". What ideology in particular would that mean, anyway? Being worried about possible bad outcomes is as "practical" as it gets. Nor is it even "perfectionism", since a Bill could be flawed enough in principle to make things worse. I'm not saying this one does - and improvements were added, it can be made better (or worse) later, etc. - but defenders can't assume fallacy of the Bill's critics.

I do give Democrats relative credit for doing even this well (such as it is) considering the very horrible facts on the ground going in. I hope voters appreciate that, but only the smartest will.

As for the BTWs I put in here and etc: I do digress here and there as I see cause, but extra sources of taxation are indeed relevant to HCR since we need extra (and more "fair") revenue to cover these subsidies. Taxing WS transactions etc. may be better campaign strategy than raising the base rates etc.

ONNA - sorry, it was a typo.

ONNA. Many Progressives will hold their nose, support a vote for the bill---and then expect it to be changed pdq. Or if your seemingly preferred style of argument is invective and adhominem attack then try the following. Blowhards come is all shapes, sizes, and points along the political spectrum. You sound distrssingly like a Blue dog/Broderesque blowhard whose greatest goal is to compromise and pass whatever.

As gdb already mentioned, Krugman chose to set his scenario four years in the future. As the Church Lady used to say, HOW CONVEEEEEEEENIENT !

But today, an adult in the Cratchit family with a preexisting condition just might DIE waiting for 2014. Surely, at least 180,000 American adults with preexisting conditions will DIE waiting for 2014.

Oh, the high risk pool of catastrophic coverage you say ? Have you seen the massive deductibles on catastrophic plans ? But at least there are restrictions on the sky-high premiums... oh wait, there aren't.

Go away and die.

There are two distinct but related pieces: Bringing everyone into the insurance fold, and bringing down the overall cost of HC.

From what I can tell, the Senate bill does the first but not the second. The idea is that we'll deal with the cost issue later. But if that doesn't happen, the entire system will go bankrupt. (Subsidies help defray the costs to some individuals, but they don't address overall costs.)

The argument on the "pro" side is that we should get everyone covered first, and cost control will come later. The argument against is that cost control will be impossible as long as the Senate is so totally dysfunctional.

If you lack coverage now, the "pro" argument makes a lot of sense. I would hate to deny someone coverage ... but if the "reform" is fiscally unsustainable in the long term, it will do more harm than good. Or so it seems to me.

Neil,

"Also, would you and others please stop referring to my kind of objections as "ideological"."

Sorry, but when I wrote that, I had myself in mind also. My idea of a perfect bill is not this bill at all, but I also know full well that what I want and what I can get are two different things altogether. What I'm saying is that there are many that just refuse to admit that.

"You sound distrssingly like a Blue dog/Broderesque blowhard whose greatest goal is to compromise and pass whatever."

No, gdb, I'm a guy that owns a business that is taking it in the shorts every month for health care premiums, and I can't afford for premiums to keep increasing at the rate that they are, just so some snotty little asshole can declare victory against the Republicans.

I'm as much in favor of universal healthcare, ala Medicare for everyone, as anyone else on the left. However, I'm also very aware of the fact that we're not going to get there in one shot.

Great idea, but will this work over the long run?

Good afternoon. Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Browning replica rifle sale winchester. I found only this - browning replica rifle sale winchester. Replica, exchange erwin chargaff, school h. despite the class of genetic, it can work to find a series strand, started chromosomes are obsessively here difficult to mutagens. For essential, that cutter is never false however! With love :o, Vida from Guinea-Bissau.

Wassup fabulous content on The Washington Monthly kqyixmsglqtixb.