Spontaneous Spine Growth in Senate Dems.

[SirNitram]

Link

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats said Sunday that they were fleshing out plans to pass health legislation, particularly the option of a new government-run insurance program, with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes that would ordinarily be needed to overcome a filibuster.

After consulting experts in Senate rules and procedure, the Democrats said they were increasingly confident that they could legislate creation of a public plan in a way that would withstand challenges expected from Republicans.

Appearing Sunday on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said a public insurance plan was “essential to getting the costs down, which is our No. 1 problem.”

Proponents of a public plan say it would drive down costs because it would not have a profit motive and would have lower overhead costs and lower executive salaries than private insurance companies.

In Colorado on Aug. 15, President Obama said people had become “fixated” on the public plan option, which he described as “just one sliver” of efforts to overhaul the health care system.

Mr. Schumer said it was “looking less and less likely” that Republicans would support Democratic proposals to subsidize coverage for tens of millions of the uninsured. And Senate Democratic leaders said they had little hope that the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, would be able to forge a bipartisan compromise.

In the last week, Democrats have begun to talk openly of using a procedure known as budget reconciliation to pass a health bill in the Senate with a simple majority, assuming no Republican support. To do that, under Senate rules, they would probably need to show that the public plan changed federal spending or revenues and that the effects were not “merely incidental” to the changes in health policy.

Democrats believe they could clear this hurdle by demonstrating that the public plan would save money or cost money.

“If a public plan is shown to have a cost to the government that affects outlays or revenues, it could be included in a health care bill using reconciliation procedures,” said Martin P. Paone, a former Senate aide who has been consulted by Senate Democrats.

Republicans object to both the idea of a new government plan and the use of expedited procedures to push it through the Senate on a simple majority vote.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said that using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass a health bill would be “an abuse of the process,” which was meant to focus on spending and tax policy. Moreover, Mr. Hatch said, “every Republican says that they will not be for a public option.”

Mr. Hatch said a new public insurance program could “bankrupt the country.” He said it made no sense to “throw out a system that works for 85 percent” of the population so Congress could take care of the 15 percent who were uninsured.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said Mr. Obama should take a more gradual approach. “We morally, every one of us, would like to cover every American with health insurance,” Mr. Lieberman said on “State of the Union” on CNN. But, he noted, “that’s where you spend most of the $1 trillion” in expected costs over 10 years.

“We’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy’s out of recession,” he added. “There’s no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost, health delivery reform and insurance market reforms.”

The administration continued on Sunday to wrestle with questions about planning for medical care at the end of life.

Senator Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania, called for hearings to investigate a guide used by the government to counsel veterans with critical or terminal illnesses.

On “Fox News Sunday,” H. James Towey, the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush, said the guide seemed to encourage people to “hurry up and die.”

The booklet, “Your Life, Your Choices,” asks people to consider whether life would be worth living if, for example, they were in severe pain, relied on a feeding tube or a breathing machine, lived in a nursing home or imposed “a severe financial burden” on family members.

In addition, the booklet asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” It then explains that people have different ideas of what it means to be a vegetable or to “pull the plug.”

In a bulletin last month, the Department of Veterans Affairs recommended the booklet as a tool to help veterans with “advance care planning.”

Tammy Duckworth, an assistant secretary of veterans affairs, said it was being revised.

But Mr. Towey said, “The document is so fundamentally flawed that the V.A. ought to throw it out.”

First the House Dems write a damn ultimatum that makes clear they both have the votes and will to kill any bill in the House without a robust public option, then Reid saying 'Any Means Necessary', then this! I'm so confused! Hatch hypocritically reversing his position on Reconciliation for policy items(See 2001 tax cuts, 2003 tax cuts, Tax Increase Prevention And Reconciliation Act of 2005, and a farcically named deficit reduction plan, which cut funding to programs that 50 GOPers + Cheney hated, and merged the banks of the FDIC(No danger there!), jacking up insured funds, etc), at least, is normal.

[PeZook]

Well, this had to happen. Even the most spineless moral weakling will push back when abused for a long enough time: the way Republicans have behaved recently was reminescent of an overconfident bully certain that the guy he's victimizing will not hit back, no matter what.

The democrats just had to see, if nothing else, that their own voters were becoming utterly fed up with the constant bullfuckery.

[Prannon]

I can already hear my various relatives and family friends now. "Now the Democrats are ignoring the will of the people!" I've been debating a lot of my family and their friends on health care lately, and they are fixated on rationing, waiting lists, the costs of implementing the program, socialism, communism, inefficiency, and a load of other things. I argue against these things and I get accused of not listening and being immovable, having my head "stuck in the sand," and a bunch of other bullshit.

There is a strong belief on the right that most everyone in the US is very much against this sort of reform, although it seems to be more of a rumor taken as fact to me. No one has actually posted any source to me proving that. Still, if the Democrats go forward with this sort of ballsy action - which receives no complaints from me - then we can expect people on the right to get a lot noisier than they already have been. And the message will be that the people in Washington are no longer listening and that they no longer have any sovereignty over them. Something along those lines.

[bobalot]

Well, this had to happen. Even the most spineless moral weakling will push back when abused for a long enough time: the way Republicans have behaved recently was reminescent of an overconfident bully certain that the guy he's victimizing will not hit back, no matter what.

The democrats just had to see, if nothing else, that their own voters were becoming utterly fed up with the constant bullfuckery.

The Republicans were stupid. They should have accepted after the Democrats basically gave them everything they wanted, instead they refused to give their support after demanding (and receiving) many concessions. They have backed the democrats (even the those who normally don't have a spine) into a corner. If they don't deliver something with substance, it will look very bad for the entire party. Even the the most "blue dog" democrat knows it.

If I were a cynic, I could imagine a smart democratic tactician could have planned all this out from the beginning, to whip the pussies in the party into line.

1. Go along with the pansies in your party to the negotiating table while whispering "these current Republicans are nutters, they will NEVER support you, no matter how much you concede, but I'm a nice guy, I will support your approach"
2. Wait the shitstorm generated by the Republican party and their nuttiest supporters (Which seems to be almost their entire base at the moment)
3. The pansies in the party say "But we gave them many concessions! They promised bipartisanship! They aren't supporting anything!"
4. Turn to them and say "Weeeeell, I told you so, didn't I? There is no negotiating with them. You have to come up with something or look like the biggest pussies ever. Screw this Bipartisan bullshit, let's go with my plan."

[Invictus ChiKen]

Awesome, we shall see how this develops in the coming months, I and other activist have a lot of work ahead of us but a good sign, a good sign.

[wautd]

Quick question, what's a "blue dog" democrat?

[Chris OFarrell]

Republican lites who flew under the Democrat flag to get in.

I frankly would have refused and kept them out of the place, at least you then know who your allies are. Now, every move to the left is stopped by people shouting 'Oh no, you can't do that, the Blue Dogs will go nuts!'

[Force Lord]

Quick question, what's a "blue dog" democrat?

An euphemism for a conservative Democrat. They're basically the pro-bussiness wing of the party and happen to suck Republican cock agree with the Republicans on many issues.

[SirNitram]

Quick question, what's a "blue dog" democrat?

As a more complete response than Force Lord:

The Blue Dogs are a Coalition in the House. Publically, they are centrist-to-conservative Democrats who are liberal except on money, where they are strict watchdogs of improper or excessive spending.

Reality: They're a bunch of conservatives with a hardon for defeating popular measures because they love the power they have in most situations to boss around the entirity of the Democratic Party. They are, I believe, the smallest Coalition not based on race. As for their attitude on spending, go into the Political Cartoons thread: They happily supported tax cuts for the rich, the bank bailout, massive military spending increases, and the Iraq War.

It's an example of the way things work: Deficits and their dangers ONLY exist for Democrats.

[RedImperator]

To be fair, the Blue Dogs ran as conservative Democrats in conservative districts, primarily on anti-war platforms that had nothing to do with health care reform. I don't know why anyone would expect them to willingly vote like liberals just because they have a "D" after their names. The real problem is that the Democratic leadership is too incompetent to effectively control its own caucus. Could you imagine McConnell and Boehner getting pushed around by a handful of liberal Northeastern Republicans if the situation were reversed?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Could you imagine McConnell and Boehner getting pushed around by a handful of liberal Northeastern Republicans if the situation were reversed?

No, because they'd get railroaded to the prison like Don Siegelman.

[Pablo Sanchez]

This probably comes down to two events that happened in the past couple of weeks.

First, the conservative Democrats who were working to gut the bill under the false auspices of bipartisan compromise were fatally embarrassed by the Republican Party's open admission that it had no intention of agreeing to a compromise not matter what the bill contained. The Republicans made a pretty stupid decision by publicly announcing that they would vote no on any bill. I think they got themselves into that mess by unleashing those reactionary know-nothing deathers, who are too worked up and too insane to countenance anything but total refusal from Republicans. The practical effect of something like Grassley's "I will vote 'no' even if I think the bill is great" or Hatch's ludicrous demand for a bill that can get 80 votes is to stick a big fucking knife right in the back of every conservative Democrat. They look like prize assholes, because they've been delaying and delaying the bill and kissing GOP ass, and they've got nothing to show for it. Their approach didn't just fail, it was publicly disowned by Grassley, the very senator who they're supposedly negotiating with.

Second, the fierce reaction of progressives when the White House appeared to be backing away from the public option took a lot of people by surprise and has emboldened liberal Democrats. The inane, self-serving villager garbage that some anonymous White House sources have been dropping about the "left of the left" being stupid for deciding that the public option will be its "Waterloo" shows that people in D.C. did not actually know how bad people wanted this. They were shocked and evidently a little angry that the progressives were not staying in their seats this time, which meant that finally they would have to worry about real consequences for selling out their base. So, very abruptly, D.C. gets notice that (A) the negotiations were a sham and the people who thought they were worthwhile are losers--the worst thing a politician can be--and (B) progressives want the public option and they expect their representatives to, you know, actually represent them this time.

The DailyKos/Research 2000 polls, I think, are showing promise as a tool for promoting progressive politics, because this time there were numbers on hand to demonstrate that the dip in approval ratings for Obama and Democrats was actually due to disappointment over the way he was folding on health care. Typically the media narrative would have been that Obama was losing ground because he was trying to do too much, but this time people could point to polling results that showed he was suffering for doing too little.

There's also the X factor of the tea-party deather know-nothing protests going too far, which I'm not sure can really be accounted for but might have been important. There could have been some legislators on the fence, but then while they were on vacation for the recess they saw some footage of nutbars raving about how the government wanted to murder the elderly, displaying guns up the street from the president, and yelling Heil Hitler at Jews. This kind of thing has the potential to solidify resolve.

[Surlethe]

The DailyKos/Research 2000 polls, I think, are showing promise as a tool for promoting progressive politics, because this time there were numbers on hand to demonstrate that the dip in approval ratings for Obama and Democrats was actually due to disappointment over the way he was folding on health care. Typically the media narrative would have been that Obama was losing ground because he was trying to do too much, but this time people could point to polling results that showed he was suffering for doing too little.

Could you point me to that source, please?

[D.Turtle]

Could you point me to that source, please?

Here is their weekly tracking poll:
http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends

Look at the "Favorables by Party ID".

And here is the write-up of the last one that showed the downturn.

To quote:

Across the board, the drops among Obama and the Democratic Party have come not from the loyal opposition, nor have they come from dismayed Independents.

They have come from Democrats.

A cursory look at the graph for Obama's favorability, broken down by party, shows that after a long period of relative stability among Democrats, there was a sharp drop this week:



Looking at the raw numbers, the drop in Democratic support is even more notable:

Net Favorability Ratings For President Obama, By Party (Last Week in Parens)
DEMOCRATS: +72 (+78)
REPUBLICANS: - 86 (- 84)
INDEPENDENTS: +35 (+39)

As you can see, the needle barely moved among Republicans (with 6% favorability, there wasn't a whole lot of ground to concede). Independents moved, but it was Democrats that saw the sharpest drop.

This effect was even more magnified when looking at the perception of the electorate towards Congressional Democrats:

Net Favorability Ratings For Congressional Democrats, By Party (Last Week in Parens)
DEMOCRATS: +55 (+65)
REPUBLICANS: - 90 (- 90)
INDEPENDENTS: - 20 (- 15)

Anyone who thinks the protracted arguments over health care aren't frustrating the Democratic base need look no further. A ten-point dip in net favorability, in a single week, is a pretty solid statement.

[RedImperator]

Could you imagine McConnell and Boehner getting pushed around by a handful of liberal Northeastern Republicans if the situation were reversed?

No, because they'd get railroaded to the prison like Don Siegelman.

Oh yeah, I remember how they set Lincoln Chafee up in a cocaine sting. Or...wait, no they didn't, actually. What does a former Democratic governor of Alabama have to do with hypothetical liberal congressional Republicans in a hypothetical Republican majority?

[Haruko]

The DailyKos/Research 2000 polls, I think, are showing promise as a tool for promoting progressive politics, because this time there were numbers on hand to demonstrate that the dip in approval ratings for Obama and Democrats was actually due to disappointment over the way he was folding on health care. Typically the media narrative would have been that Obama was losing ground because he was trying to do too much, but this time people could point to polling results that showed he was suffering for doing too little.

Just to add to your citing of the DailyKos/Research 2000 polls for that particular point, there was also this by Glenn Greenwald:

UPDATE III: It's not just the Research 2000/Kos poll that shows a significant decline in Obama's approval ratings among Democrats. According to Greg Sargent, the ABC News/Washington Post poll released this week shows the same and even worse:

• A major factor in President Obama’s slide in today’s big Washington Post/ABC News poll, which is preoccupying the political classes today, is his surprisingly sharp drops among Democrats and even liberals, according to crosstabs that were sent my way.
  
  Much talk today has focused on Obama’s difficulties with independents. But the drop among Dems and liberals is also a key driving factor in the President’s skid, according to WaPo polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta, who graciously provided the additional data.

Even for those of you who are willing to justify anything and everything in the name of "political pragmatism," betraying clear campaign commitments and constantly exhibiting contempt for core progressive values doesn't seem to be working very well as a political strategy, to put that mildly

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, I have never had much optimism in the likelihood that health-care reform will pass in America. We're talking about a country which is so monumentally fucked up that even the "reasonable" people ask for stupid things like a promise that health insurance companies will remain profitable, as if anyone should give a fuck how profitable health insurance companies are. And of course, we don't even have to get into the flag-waving gun-toting crazy-eyed fear-mongering fucktards who seem to be dominating the news cycle.

In other words, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm skeptical that a majority of Democrats even want health-care reform.

[Duckie]

Frankly, I have never had much optimism in the likelihood that health-care reform will pass in America. We're talking about a country which is so monumentally fucked up that even the "reasonable" people ask for stupid things like a promise that health insurance companies will remain profitable, as if anyone should give a fuck how profitable health insurance companies are. And of course, we don't even have to get into the flag-waving gun-toting crazy-eyed fear-mongering fucktards who seem to be dominating the news cycle.

In other words, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm skeptical that a majority of Democrats even want health-care reform.

Theoretically, the beauty of the situation is that with the progressive base enflamed, the Democrats- even if they were planning on betraying us as usual- can't. Or they'll be committing electoral suicide, since progressives control the election campaigns. I'd like to see an insurance company CEO regardless of how much money he has go door to door to talk about the issues, or wave voter registrations in disinterested college students' faces.

That said, I'll believe health care reform when I see it. Democrats don't seem smart enough to avoid electoral suicide here.

official psyduck prognosis: Public option will be passed, but will have all the juice stripped out of it by the democrats and be a bandaid that covers practically nothing and merely is a label that says "Insured" stamped on the 60 million people in america who can't afford to go to the doctor's office unless the options come down to going or dying [like my insurance, for example, which amusingly would ikick me out immediately if I revealed I had a pre-existing condition they don't cover due to the fact it is an inherently non-profitable illness].

[Pelranius]

Well, even a half baked public option plan is a start, as it allows us room to build on it in the future.

[Duckie]

Well, even a half baked public option plan is a start, as it allows us room to build on it in the future.

Yeah, it will, but it'll also let people think they've fixed the problem for another decade, so the imperative and the political will won't be as strong.

[Count Chocula]

If health care "reform" consisted solely of making non-employer plan contributions tax deductible and allowed out-of-state plans (just like is allowed with every other form of insurance), reform would have already passed in a bipartisan landslide. Fuck tort reform (which will be killed by the ABA's lobby group), just make it portable and deductible under the same rules as Part 125.

A bill to enact the above wouldn't have to be more than 20 pages in length. The current HR 3200 (IIRC) is a bid for central control, not reform.

[Guardsman Bass]

Well, even a half baked public option plan is a start, as it allows us room to build on it in the future.

Yeah, it will, but it'll also let people think they've fixed the problem for another decade, so the imperative and the political will won't be as strong.

You have to start somewhere. Social Security in its original form wasn't that hot, either - it excluded domestic service and agricultural workers (aka blacks and hispanics, particularly in the South and Southwest), as well as a whole host of government positions, including teachers (aka women, although there were provisions for assistance for children and so forth).

If health care "reform" consisted solely of making non-employer plan contributions tax deductible and allowed out-of-state plans (just like is allowed with every other form of insurance), reform would have already passed in a bipartisan landslide.

Unless you brought in a series of federal regulations and so forth on health insurance, allowing the purchase and sale of out-of-state plans is basically just a fancy way of allowing insurance companies to do end-runs around state regulations (in fact, that's more or less explicitly what that's about) and regulation in general without actually changing state regulations. Good for states that will race to the bottom to get the insurance companies to charter there - not so good for states that actually try to regulate insurance.

[Patrick Degan]

If health care "reform" consisted solely of making non-employer plan contributions tax deductible and allowed out-of-state plans (just like is allowed with every other form of insurance), reform would have already passed in a bipartisan landslide. Fuck tort reform (which will be killed by the ABA's lobby group), just make it portable and deductible under the same rules as Part 125.

Neither of which does anything to address either the problem of those who cannot afford insurance in the first place, or won't be able to if they lose their jobs even if plans are portable, nor addresses the problem of administrative overhead or a the lack of a guaranteed standard of service through the lack of universal rules. And tort reform is hardly the most important cost-driver: medical malpractise costs account for only 10% of total healthcare expenses in the United States. Administrative costs were already three times that in 1999.

A bill to enact the above wouldn't have to be more than 20 pages in length. The current HR 3200 (IIRC) is a bid for central control, not reform.

Nothing in HR3200 mandates the nationalisation of the health insurance industry or the medical profession in the United States.

[SirNitram]

Chocula read a passage to standardize electronic payments to insurance companies as 'GOBMINT IN MY BANK ACCOUNT'.

Oh wait. He DIDN'T read that. He recited a cherry-picked sentence out of context from a 'fact sheet'.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I'll start showing a little hope in the dems when some form/advancement of socialized health care is actually signed into law and not a moment before. I've seen too many cases of them showing a glimmer of backbone just to crumple and back down when actually called on their bluff to trust them this time.