Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[spaced]

(b) most of the things people have been complaining about in the last few posts are more attributable to our completely ineffectual Congress than to him.

Out of curiosity, which ones? My long-ish post was intentionally focused on Obama as president.

I wasn't really trying to respond to anything in particular, just the general feeling I got from the thread, but I think healthcare is a good example. There are probably things that Obama could have done better in terms of strategy (maybe you're right and he didn't do enough behind the scenes), but I think the way that Congress is set up right now makes large-scale political changes close to impossible, so the fact that something is getting passed is a pretty big achievement.

For one thing, the way the filibuster or the threat of the filibuster has been used lately means that there's a de facto 60-vote requirement for everything, whereas the filibuster was used relatively sparingly up until very recently. Look at this chart:



Even if the Senate still had all of the influence-buying problems, etc. that it has now, imagine what would have gotten passed if all we needed was 50 votes, which is the way the Senate is supposed to function, and usually did up until a few years ago. Can you imagine passing anything like Medicare or Social Security in today's Congress? It would be impossible.

I don't disagree with criticizing Obama, I just think that Congress is the main problem. It needs to be fixed in a lot of ways before we can expect to have a really well-functioning government again, no matter who's in the Executive Branch.

Oh, and as a general matter, I agree with everything Paul Krugman says here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/the-wysiwyg-president/#more-6157.

[PIE-GUY]

(b) most of the things people have been complaining about in the last few posts are more attributable to our completely ineffectual Congress than to him.

Out of curiosity, which ones? My long-ish post was intentionally focused on Obama as president.

I wasn't really trying to respond to anything in particular, just the general feeling I got from the thread, but I think healthcare is a good example. There are probably things that Obama could have done better in terms of strategy (maybe you're right and he didn't do enough behind the scenes), but I think the way that Congress is set up right now makes large-scale political changes close to impossible, so the fact that something is getting passed is a pretty big achievement.

For one thing, the way the filibuster or the threat of the filibuster has been used lately means that there's a de facto 60-vote requirement for everything, whereas the filibuster was used relatively sparingly up until very recently. Look at this chart:



Even if the Senate still had all of the influence-buying problems, etc. that it has now, imagine what would have gotten passed if all we needed was 50 votes, which is the way the Senate is supposed to function, and usually did up until a few years ago. Can you imagine passing anything like Medicare or Social Security in today's Congress? It would be impossible.

I don't disagree with criticizing Obama, I just think that Congress is the main problem. It needs to be fixed in a lot of ways before we can expect to have a really well-functioning government again, no matter who's in the Executive Branch.

Oh, and as a general matter, I agree with everything Paul Krugman says here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/the-wysiwyg-president/#more-6157.

It's fair to note, also, that Social Security and the GI Bill and almost every other major piece of legislation passed with at least some support from both sides of the isle. One of the main reasons congress is so broken is the fierce partisanship that has taken over where politics used to be about true compromise. Imagine what would have passed if even 3 or 4 repubs were on board from the start... This situation where every single Dem in the senate has the power to veto the entire bill over whatever ruffles his feathers is a mess.

[rowjimmy]

Obama shouldn't be speaking with Lieberman. Droopy looking son of a bitch is lucky they don't strip him of any power that he has. He's a traitor to his caucus and his only contribution to Obama's hopes of bipartisanship is that he's in both parties at the same time.

[sls.stormyrider]

Even if the Senate still had all of the influence-buying problems, etc. that it has now, imagine what would have gotten passed if all we needed was 50 votes, which is the way the Senate is supposed to function, and usually did up until a few years ago. Can you imagine passing anything like Medicare or Social Security in today's Congress? It would be impossible.

exactly. trying to get a "fillibuster proof" majority is nearly impossible, especially when one side going in vows not to cooperate.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Obama shouldn't be speaking with Lieberman. Droopy looking son of a bitch is lucky they don't strip him of any power that he has. He's a traitor to his caucus and his only contribution to Obama's hopes of bipartisanship is that he's in both parties at the same time.

LOL.  When did he betray his party pre-2006 exactly?  I'll allow everyone to paint Lieberman as the second coming of Francis Bacon when someone can show me how Lieberman acted as a traitor to his caucus before the Democratic party betrayed Lieberman in 2006.

[Poster Nutbag]

Obama shouldn't be speaking with Lieberman. Droopy looking son of a bitch is lucky they don't strip him of any power that he has. He's a traitor to his caucus and his only contribution to Obama's hopes of bipartisanship is that he's in both parties at the same time.

LOL.  When did he betray his party pre-2006 exactly?  I'll allow everyone to paint Lieberman as the second coming of Francis Bacon when someone can show me how Lieberman acted as a traitor to his caucus before the Democratic party betrayed Lieberman in 2006.

Just because He turned on his party out of revenge doesn't mean He didn't turn on his party... Not to mention when He was elected, He was elected as a Democrat... So he also turned on his electors, or the people... I don't see why we should defend his vengeful malicious actions... He just decided to put his own feelings above those of the people, and his party... He had an opportunity to get back into very good graces with his party or to stick it to them, and He chose the negative... Fuck him!!! He is a traitor...

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Obama shouldn't be speaking with Lieberman. Droopy looking son of a bitch is lucky they don't strip him of any power that he has. He's a traitor to his caucus and his only contribution to Obama's hopes of bipartisanship is that he's in both parties at the same time.

LOL.  When did he betray his party pre-2006 exactly?  I'll allow everyone to paint Lieberman as the second coming of Francis Bacon when someone can show me how Lieberman acted as a traitor to his caucus before the Democratic party betrayed Lieberman in 2006.

Just because He turned on his party out of revenge doesn't mean He didn't turn on his party... Not to mention when He was elected, He was elected as a Democrat... So he also turned on his electors, or the people... I don't see why we should defend his vengeful malicious actions... He just decided to put his own feelings above those of the people, and his party... He had an opportunity to get back into very good graces with his party or to stick it to them, and He chose the negative... Fuck him!!! He is a traitor...

In 2006, when he was elected, he was elected as an independent and not a Democrat.

I'm not defending him, I'm just pointing out that if the Democrats had wanted Joe Lieberman's obedience, they were idiots to attack his campaign in 2006.  You can't complain about what you created.

[spaced]

Obama shouldn't be speaking with Lieberman. Droopy looking son of a bitch is lucky they don't strip him of any power that he has. He's a traitor to his caucus and his only contribution to Obama's hopes of bipartisanship is that he's in both parties at the same time.

LOL.  When did he betray his party pre-2006 exactly?  I'll allow everyone to paint Lieberman as the second coming of Francis Bacon when someone can show me how Lieberman acted as a traitor to his caucus before the Democratic party betrayed Lieberman in 2006.

Just because He turned on his party out of revenge doesn't mean He didn't turn on his party... Not to mention when He was elected, He was elected as a Democrat... So he also turned on his electors, or the people... I don't see why we should defend his vengeful malicious actions... He just decided to put his own feelings above those of the people, and his party... He had an opportunity to get back into very good graces with his party or to stick it to them, and He chose the negative... Fuck him!!! He is a traitor...

In 2006, when he was elected, he was elected as an independent and not a Democrat.

I'm not defending him, I'm just pointing out that if the Democrats had wanted Joe Lieberman's obedience, they were idiots to attack his campaign in 2006.  You can't complain about what you created.

Your argument that Dems can't complain only makes sense based on two premises:
(1) The Democrats wrongly opposed Lieberman in the 2006 primary, and/or
(2) Lieberman's response to the primary challenge was and is justified.

Neither of those premises are correct. First, it made perfect sense for many Dems to support Lamont in the primary (although IIRC there were still a ton who stuck with Holy Joe until he lost). Lieberman was (and is) nothing but a mouthpiece for Bush and the Republicans on foreign policy. For example, in 2005 he said, ". . . in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril." I mean, WTF? Not only did he uncritically embrace the entire Republican foreign policy agenda, he actually said people couldn't even disagree with Bush. You can't seriously think that they were somehow obligated to unanimously support the guy at that point.

Second, even if Lieberman was somehow wronged by the Dems (he wasn't), how does that give him the right to become the unprincipled hack that he is now? After supposedly being a supporter of "universal healthcare" for his entire career (and probably running on that platform to get reelected), he's suddenly going to the mat to keep it from even being voted on. Three months ago he thought the medicare buy-in was a great idea, but as soon as it got into the bill he suddenly opposed it - not only that, but he was willing to filibuster it to keep it from even coming up to a vote. I don't see how it's unreasonable for people to complain about that.

EDIT: just to make the last part of my logic explicit here - Lieberman was a douche, he's currently even more of a douche, and even if his current level of douchiness was somehow predictable back in 2006, that doesn't mean that people forfeit the right to complain about it.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

How you don't see how this problem was exacerbated (if not created) by the lack of support Lieberman received in 2006 is beyond me.

Here is where I fault the Democratic Party.  When they decided to support Lamont, Lieberman should have been seen as betraying his party when he announced his independent candidacy and summarily stripped of all of his Committee positions by Harry Reid.  The Democrats should have fully supported Lamonts campaign and those who supported Lieberman during the election should have been outed as treasonists.  If Lieberman still won, do not allow him to caucus, strip him of his Commitee positions, treat him as though he is a Freshman independent senator.  This didn't happen.  As soon as Lieberman announced his candidacy Hill-dawg immediately announced her support for Lieberman (do you not remember she was the first to break the threshold?) and Harry Reid quickly added that the Senatorial Democratic Caucus was fully behind Sen. Joe if he should win.  This is where the Democrats fucked it.  They were not prepared to punish Joe for anything.  They gave Joe all the cards for nothing.  They might as well have never run Lamont in the first place.

If this had occured and not the flip flopping perpetrated by Reid et. al. in between 2006 and now, then Lieberman would have quickly been silenced, he would have fallen in line and would have lost his credibility.

This isn't what happened.  If the Democrats weren't entirely ready to completely lose control of Lieberman, than they shouldn't have supported Lamont AT ALL during the primary.  It was an all or nothing race with Lieberman in 2006.  The Democrats just didn't have enough balls and decided they wanted a win/win situation...however they were on the Lose/Lose side of that equation.

I am not saying we should have been easier on Lieberman.  What I'm saying is that we should be more honest in where we've fucked up with respect to Lieberman.

Also, I think it showed a lot more balls for Lieberman to actively support our foreign policy during the Bush Administartion than for him to have supported it privately, but acted as though he was anti-Bush doctrine during the administration.  A weird political dynamic that not all Democrats have been held accountable for.  I think the Democrats right now are benefitting from being "the lesser of two necessary evils".  I do not appreciate being sold idealism in a bottle with the fine print saying "really just the lesser of two necessary evils", that's unnacceptable to me personally.

[spaced]

OK, I guess I don't disagree with you as much as I thought - I thought you were saying that the primary challenge was unfair or that Lieberman was acting reasonably. I don't think there was anything objectionable about a primary challenge in the first place, given Lieberman's embrace of the other party's platform on the major issue of the election. But afterwards, you're definitely right from a strategic standpoint that they basically pissed him off without taking away any of his power or showing any spine, and that's a recipe for disaster (and it was obvious at the time).

But as I've said earlier in this thread, we wouldn't even have needed his 60th vote in the first place if our Senate weren't so fucked up.

[PIE-GUY]

Great piece from the New Yorker regarding the current bill...

Why the health care bill is worth passing : The New Yorker

Reforming America's health-insurance system was never going to be an easy task, given people's natural aversion to change (not to mention Republicans' aversion to doing anything that might help Barack Obama). But what's made the task even more difficult is that American politicians—as well as American voters—have a confused, and often contradictory, set of beliefs about how health insurance should work. The wayward, patchwork plan that we seem likely to end up with is probably a good reflection of the wayward, patchwork opinions that most legislators have on the subject.

Consider the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which went into effect in November. The law prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to set rates or deny coverage. At the moment, genetic testing for disease is still relatively crude and uncommon. That will change in the future. People who know that they are much more likely to get sick, and therefore much more likely to run up huge medical bills, will be able to get insurance at the same price as those with less risky genetic profiles. Everyone, it turns out, supports this: the bill passed unanimously in the Senate, and nearly so in the House.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly believe, likewise, that insurance companies should be prohibited from taking preëxisting conditions into account when setting prices or extending coverage. Both the House and the Senate reform bills include language banning this. Even Republicans have been vehement on the subject: Senator Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, has said that "everyone agrees" that we need to eliminate the use of preëxisting conditions, while Senator Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, declared that insurers have to be barred from "charging higher premiums to people who are sick." The insurance companies themselves have accepted that the only factors they'll be allowed to take into account in setting prices will be age, region, and whether or not someone smokes. The general consensus, then, is that even if you're already sick, and guaranteed to run up huge medical bills in the future, you should be able to get health insurance at the same price as someone your age who's perfectly healthy. Economists have a name for this: "community rating." And the fact that it has such strong backing in Washington is heartening. Americans, and American politicians, have decided that people should have guaranteed access to insurance, and that they shouldn't have to worry about losing it just because they get laid off or fall ill.

So where's the contradiction? Well, Congress's support for community rating and universal access doesn't fit well with its insistence that health-care reform must rely on private insurance companies. After all, measuring risk, and setting prices accordingly, is the raison d'être of a health-insurance company. The way individual insurance works now, risk and price are linked. If you're a triathlete with no history of cancer in your family, you're a reasonably good risk, and so you can get an affordable policy that will protect you against unforeseen disaster; if you're overweight with high blood pressure and a history of heart problems, your risk of becoming seriously ill is substantial, and therefore private insurers will either charge you high premiums or not offer you coverage at all. This kind of risk evaluation—what's called "medical underwriting"—is fundamental to the insurance business. But it is precisely what all the new reform plans will ban. Congress is effectively making private insurers unnecessary, yet continuing to insist that we can't do without them.

The truth is that we could do just fine without them: an insurance system with community rating and universal access has no need of private insurers. In fact, the U.S. already has such a system: it's known as Medicare. In most areas, it's true, private companies do a better job of managing costs and providing services than the government does. But not when it comes to health care: over the past decade, Medicare's spending has risen more slowly than that of private insurers. A single-payer system also has the advantage of spreading risk across the biggest patient pool possible. So if you want to make health insurance available to everyone, regardless of risk, the most sensible solution would be to expand Medicare to everyone. That's not going to happen. The fear of government-run health care, the power of vested interests, and the difficulty of completely overhauling the system have made the single-payer solution a bridge too far for Washington, and for much of the public as well. (Support for a single-payer system hovers around fifty per cent.) That's why the current reform plans rely instead on a mishmash of regulations, national exchanges, and subsidies. Instead of replacing private insurance companies, the proposed reforms would, in theory, turn them into something like public utilities. That's how it works in the Netherlands and Switzerland, with reasonably good results.

One could recoil in disgust at the inefficiency and incoherence of the process—at the fact that private insurers will continue to make billions a year providing services the government has shown, via Medicare, that it can provide on its own. But, messy as the reform plans are, they can still dramatically transform the system for the good. Reform would guarantee that tens of millions of people who don't have insurance will get it, and that people who have insurance now won't have to worry about losing it. And, by writing community rating and universal access into law, Congress will effectively be committing itself to the idea that health care, regardless of risk, is a right. If a little incoherence is the price of that deal, it's worth paying. ♦

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/04/100104ta_talk_surowiecki#ixzz0bIXF4eZc

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

OK, I guess I don't disagree with you as much as I thought - I thought you were saying that the primary challenge was unfair or that Lieberman was acting reasonably. I don't think there was anything objectionable about a primary challenge in the first place, given Lieberman's embrace of the other party's platform on the major issue of the election. But afterwards, you're definitely right from a strategic standpoint that they basically pissed him off without taking away any of his power or showing any spine, and that's a recipe for disaster (and it was obvious at the time).

But as I've said earlier in this thread, we wouldn't even have needed his 60th vote in the first place if our Senate weren't so fucked up.

Yeah exactly.  What I take issue with is the Democratic Parties current position of just saying "Fuck Joe Lieberman" when they are to blame for creating the monster... it's not all Joe's fault.

[antelope19]

MASSIVE election today in Massachusetts.

[sls.stormyrider]

MASSIVE election today in Massachusetts.

yea - Coakley has run a terrible campaign.

imo, of the candidates who ran in the dem primary, she was one of the weakest, if not the weakest, one in the debates. She has the best statewide organization and the support of the Clintons (who called their supporters before the primary).

It's gonna be close.

[Undermind]

If Massachusetts votes Brown in, Ted Kennedy is going to turn over in his grave and I will be extremely    Obviously Coakley has run a horrible campaign if the polls are so close in Massachusetts, a hugely Democratic State.