"...Democrats have no reason, no excuse, no coherent rationale for killing the best chance the United States has ever had to pass health care reform."

Unless they are corporately owned!

If only there had been some simpler, smaller bill, say...30 pages, that extended Medicare to all.

Democratic lawmakers who are thinking about siding with far-right Republicans to kill the legislation

This is a bullshit frame. They're not siding with the far right. Sorry votes are binary, but saying this is akin to saying anti-war folks side with terrorists. I expect better from you.

>>>I have no idea what's going to happen when the final roll call is held, but Democrats have no reason, no excuse, no coherent rationale for killing the best chance the United States has ever had to pass health care reform.

Hear! Hear! The ball is in the Dem's court!

But clearly if Obama TRIED harder we'd get PerfectPony Health Care instead, not this horrible horrible bill! If the people demand it, it just happens, it's so easy to work the process!!!! Power to the people, power to the people, yeah.

I'm still having a hard time believing that somebody could run and get elected as a Democrat, and then even consider voting against this legislation. Voting against this HCR bill would be bait-and-switch of the highest order.

Is it true that Obama made a secret deal last year to kill the public option? I guess that explains what happened to any progressive reforms in the bill.

It does seem ironic that we have to pass a flawed bill in order to fix the bill. I don't know why we couldn't have just passed a "medicare for all" bill to begin with.

This is a bullshit frame. They're not siding with the far right.

Really? Then who are they siding with? What is different about their opposition than the Party of No?

I'll give you the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; they have a legit issue. But now that the most notable hold-out from the left is voting 'yes' (Kucinich), I don't think the accusation is out of line.

Lynch certainly isn't claiming the Cadillac Tax is the problem out of some overwhelming pro-labor stance: the unions support a yes vote.

Any proof that the remaining holdouts you defend are somehow more noble than the Boehners and Cantors of the world?

Really? Then who are they siding with?

Siding with states that want to be able to establish their own single-payer systems without Federal interference, for one.

Any proof that the remaining holdouts you defend are somehow more noble than the Boehners and Cantors of the world?

I wasn't defending anybody specific. The frame has been around before DK switched, and it's still bullshit. People have different reasons and when there's a binary choice, it makes it easy for you to ignore the nuances and other ideas.

But clearly if Obama TRIED harder we'd get PerfectPony Health Care instead, not this horrible horrible bill!

I'd submit if we the people had collectively tried harder through escalating, strategic direct action, we'd have single-payer.

People have different reasons and when there's a binary choice, it makes it easy for you to ignore the nuances and other ideas.

Hypothetically speaking, yes. But these aren't hypotheticals, these are actual assholes. More than half of the non-Yes Dems that The Hill is tracking are still spouting unsupportable Republican talking points that are provably wrong (the anti-choice crowd) or unsupported by the best evidence (the "we cant afford it" crowd).

Although you didn't name names, even assuming someone is using your defense -- state freedom for single payer -- due to the pervasiveness of the federal hand through Medicare, Medicaid funding, regulations, etc. a state won't have any real autonomy to do single payer without this bill and arguably the best chance for state-based single payer programs would be through the pilot programs the HCR bill permits.

No, still not buying it. The preponderance of no-voting Dems are just being difficult, cowardly, Republican-esque pricks.

It's a horseshit corporate give away of a bill and the Dems are going to pay dearly for it. So will the true progressives and most of the rest of the country in the long run.

I'd submit if we the people had collectively tried harder through escalating, strategic direct action, we'd have single-payer.

And a pony? Please? Pretty please?

I'm 100% with you in terms of what would be desirable. I just think there's no way to get there without intermediate steps, and this is one of them.

I'd submit if we the people had collectively tried harder through escalating, strategic direct action, we'd have single-payer

Why do you act as if it's over? Who has given up here?

"Corporately owned" is a big load of bullshit.

It's about juggling chainsaws. On one hand, you have all the people who don't have health care/understand the problems inherent in the system/etc. On the other hand, you have the corporati...

No. Not really. On the other hand you have all the people who work for the current insurance industry, you have people who have real investments in the markets who rely on the status quo to continue (even if they don't realize it), all the people who believe that success should have certain rewards (like better health care).

This isn't "corruption". It's the fact that a good portion of the voting populace are selfish to a fault, and even if they say that maybe they prioritize health care, well look at the tantrums that occur if the Dow drops or their home value drops.

Are some people actually arguing that Obama, the Dems, the GOP, and the insurance companies are all engaged in some giant kabuki, and that they are all secretly on the same page in "handing over" the middle class to insurance companies?

And I thought the teabaggers who said Obama was born in Kenya were irrational conspiracy theorists..

"Really? Then who are they siding with?

Siding with states that want to be able to establish their own single-payer systems without Federal interference, for one."

Did they take that out? Too bad.

But I'll tell you what: California is still going to go for single-payer and then sue in federal court.

The fight is not over. It has just begun.

"It would also need to earn the blessing of Congressional Budget Office, the American Medical Association, the AARP, and the nation's largest labor unions."

Plus, it appears the drug companies -- and a few others. I think if this is successful, and I pray it will be, people will look at this as a victory of historical proportions where the Obama Administration, having learned the mistakes of the past (eg Clinton), succeeded in dividing the opposition.

That said, PTDB. No Dem (or liberal for that matter) can be against this.

I don't know why we couldn't have just passed a "medicare for all" bill to begin with.

Because they didn't have the votes.

I'd submit if we the people had collectively tried harder through escalating, strategic direct action, we'd have single-payer.

I'd submit that you are floating gently and euphorically in a reality-barring ether where legislation makes itself, free of the corporate influence, human frailties and cultural resentments that dog the system in which we're currently actually working.

Siding with states that want to be able to establish their own single-payer systems without Federal interference, for one.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Next.

Are some people actually arguing that Obama, the Dems, the GOP, and the insurance companies are all engaged in some giant kabuki, and that they are all secretly on the same page in "handing over" the middle class to insurance companies?

It's triple quadruple reverse psychology, real high level ninja stuff, you wouldn't understand.

Because they didn't have the votes.

But...we could get them. If we believed. You people just don't believe. You compromised away our belief while we were busily believing. Shame. Shame.

It's hard for me to oppose the bill when I go over to FDL and read how Stupak is a courageous man of principle, while Donna Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are corporate-whore sellouts. It's also hard for me to oppose it when they call it "fascist."

I hope the fight is not over. If we get Meg Whitman as governor in California she will veto single payer the same way that Arnold did. Arnold vetoed the bill twice! This nightmare would be over for California right now. I wish Jerry Brown would begin to campaign and not take his win for granted, because there is a very large "nut factor" in California.

It's also hard for me to oppose it when they call it "fascist."

You know, I was kinda defensive of the Senate bill's critics, because it's far from my ideal bill either. But this is the only way forward, and the folks on "our side" who are saying the exact same ridiculous things as those on the right deserve to be dimissed as "firebaggers". Totally disconnected from reality.

I'd submit that you are floating gently and euphorically in a reality-barring ether... -shortstop

Lake Michigan?

This bill, when it passes, will be the most progressive thing Congress has done in my lifetime. Period.

Things the bill doesn't do are totally uninteresting, unless the question is "those things the health care bill doesn't do, how can we do them next?"

My dear, either you don't know what "euphoric" means or you've been swimming in the lake less recently than I have.

People have different reasons and when there's a binary choice, it makes it easy for you to ignore the nuances and other ideas.
Posted by: NTodd on March 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM

And I'm supposed to give a flying duck about that non-binary nuance? My donut hole will be, somehow, more nutritious, because you had my best interests in your heart? My uninsured hell will be, somehow, less hot, because your intentions were good, when you were paving it, unlike those bad intentions of the right-wing? And all I have to do to die happy is to perceive the subtleties in the difference?

exlibra wins the thread.

(mental note: do not cross exlibra. . .)

Threading needles is very difficult if one lacks opposable thumbs.

Threading legislative needles is also very difficult if one lacks balls.

Public option would have saved everybody except the insurance companies.

"Think about the scope of the task -- Democrats were told they needed a health care reform bill that spends a lot of money on covering the uninsured, lowers the deficit, strengthens Medicare, helps businesses, eases government budgets, protects consumers, and controls costs, all at the same time. It would also need to earn the blessing of Congressional Budget Office, the American Medical Association, the AARP, and the nation's largest labor unions.

This is a needle that's almost impossible to thread. And yet, that's exactly what the White House and congressional leaders have done."

Yeah, except for the part about helping the uninsured, strengthening medicare, protecting consumers, and controlling costs. In short they managed to thread the needle for everything but the things the left actually wanted. But industry giveaways? Shit yeah they nailed that one. Meaningless regulations with giant loopholes and no enforcement. Yep, it's in there.

The only thing this bill is missing is anything worth actually voting for. But that's okay because "not worth voting for" is apparently the new dem mantra. We'll see how that works out for them.

"And I'm supposed to give a flying duck about that non-binary nuance? My donut hole will be, somehow, more nutritious, because you had my best interests in your heart? My uninsured hell will be, somehow, less hot, because your intentions were good, when you were paving it, unlike those bad intentions of the right-wing? And all I have to do to die happy is to perceive the subtleties in the difference? "

A perfect example of why you're an idiot. Your uninsured hell is going to be exactly the same after this bill passes (except you'll be paying for insurance you can't use) precisely because you can't distinguish between those who want the status quo and those who want something better.

Progressives want something better, and we damn well know this bill is something worse, and makes the better thing impossible to get to. But you're too busy being blindly self righteous to notice. And so you frankly deserve the hell you're in because you're trapping me in it as well.

"A perfect example of why you're an idiot."

Grow up. Name-calling and throwing up long-ago debunked nonsense do not win a debate.

And don't talk about what progressives want, because you clearly aren't one. We progressives want *progress*, rather than a poorly conceived excuse to simmer in our own self-righteousness.

And so you frankly deserve the hell you're in

I think I saw something like this already this week. . . oh yeah, it involved teabaggers and someone with Parkinsons. Its so hard to tell the difference.

"Grow up. Name-calling and throwing up long-ago debunked nonsense do not win a debate."

long debunked = "we don't want to hear it."

"We progressives want *progress*, rather than a poorly conceived excuse to simmer in our own self-righteousness."

Then why is simmering in self righteousness all you do? And why do you do it while championing a bill that takes us immeasurably backwards?

If you want progress why aren't you actually fighting for it instead of attacking us progressives who have?

Oh right. Because you're progressives in the same sense as Obama- when you want something from us...

"I think I saw something like this already this week. . . oh yeah, it involved teabaggers and someone with Parkinsons. Its so hard to tell the difference. "

Well that's hardly surprising, you guys suck at making distinctions. Oh and separating fact from fiction. You really blow chunks on that score.

Which is exactly why you are blindly supporting a bill that shits all over you. Authoritarian cultism is apparently just as strong on the right as left.

"Nobody expected" Corporate insurance salespeople like Steve Benen to have had such a pernicious influence on progressivism.

Selling US CORPORATE insurance and masquerading it as something progressive will set back the attempt at REAL healthcare by decades.

This is NOT 'healthcare', at best it's INSURANCE 'reform', except the 'reform' comes at the price of forcing millions to buy shtty CORPORATE insurance from the same predators that have been scrwing US for decades.

Corporate insurers will use their billions in MANDATED profits to pick off any politicians that keep insisting on real "change".

Those that think this will be 'fixed' later are either deluded or lying.

Tlaloc's correct: "Authoritarian cultism is apparently just as strong on the right as left."

It's NAFTA all over again: Bad policy and worse politics.

PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"And I'm supposed to give a flying duck about that non-binary nuance? My donut hole will be, somehow, more nutritious, because you had my best interests in your heart? My uninsured hell will be, somehow, less hot, because your intentions were good, when you were paving it, unlike those bad intentions of the right-wing? And all I have to do to die happy is to perceive the subtleties in the difference?"

Well, I didn't realize this massive health care bill was all about you. I thought it might attempt to be about the whole country, those of us with health care currently, and those without... Somehow, we have to figure out how to help the ones without insurance while not screwing over those with insurance, you selfish prick.

I don't know why we couldn't have just passed a "medicare for all" bill to begin with.

Not only because we couldn't get the votes but without the rest of the bill, the whole system goes kaplooey, Medicare and Medicaid first, then the US.

There really are many provisions to fix the awful system that is the worst of the "first world" countries. While people obsess about the 45,000 who die due to lack of care, they ignore the 198,000 who die each year from in hospital PREVENTABLE medical errors and the 30,000 killed by unnecessary ineffective procedures.

Thus, the provisions in this bill that work to reduce the medical errors and the unnecessary procedures will be of more (numerically) importance that the coverage provisions. True, but not obvious: improving quality reduces health care costs.

Changes in financing can be fast and quantifiable. Changes in provision of care will be slower and unquantifiable, but ultimately will impact the amount of financing needed from us all.

Fantastic post! This could aid lots of people find out about this matter. Do you want to incorporate video clips together with these? It could undoubtedly help out. Your reason was spot on and owing to you; I probably won't have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here