Dems to drop government-run option for healthcare

[The Yosemite Bear]

So... let me get this straight

We started with Insurance companies raping us with a little bit of spit to make it less bloody, but we had to go into a dark alley for it to happen to us (IE. choose to pay for insurance)

The compromise would have forced us into the alley, but at least they would have used a decent lube and left a bouquet of flowers.

Now we are forced into the alley and there isnt even any fucking spit. Lovely.

yeah were back in the old dark ages road wardens.....

[Surlethe]

Yes, it is still there.

They better get around to killing it then, if the bill passes with that clause still in there it's going to be open season on everyone under Medicare age. What a mess.

The whole "charging you if you don't have healthcare" stipulation would only fine people who were making 400% of the poverty level which would be $40k/single person or $88k for a family of four. See levels here

The other problem in this is the effective tax rate. As you move from 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level, the government phases out your insurance company handout channel subsidy to purchase insurance and phases in the fine / requirement to purchase insurance, which becomes an effective increase in marginal tax (the government is mandating that you pay either $x in insurance or $y in fines, and at the same time is withdrawing $z of subsidy to your income). That is not the way to encourage upward income mobility through the middle class; it's just adding another layer to the barrier between the middle classes and the upper classes.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

They should honestly just scrap the whole process at this point. Better to continue with the current system until it reaches a breaking point and completely collapses (which should only take a few years). Then even the bought-and-paid-for politicians won't be able to derail real reform. Slapping on a band-aid that allows a broken system to limp along for another couple of decades while the poor and middle class suffer would be much worse.

[Guardsman Bass]

They should honestly just scrap the whole process at this point. Better to continue with the current system until it reaches a breaking point and completely collapses (which should only take a few years). Then even the bought-and-paid-for politicians won't be able to derail real reform. Slapping on a band-aid that allows a broken system to limp along for another couple of decades while the poor and middle class suffer would be much worse.

But that could back-fire the other way as well, leading to a fragmented set of state-level and charitable efforts while the whole system just turns into an unregulated mess of private insurance and payment as employer coverage continues to decline.

I see your point, though - one of the reasons why health care reform is basically a maze through a land-mine field is because there are already a whole host of existing programs serving certain groups with their own constituencies, particularly Medicare. Unless you want to take one of those programs and have it eat the others (like if we in the US actually did "Medicare-for-all"), working around that is very difficult.

[ArmorPierce]

No one seems to have mentioned that they have scrapped lowering medicare age as well. So now, due to the compromise to lower medicare age in exchange of dropping the public option, the public option is gone, and liberman decided to reverse his stance on medicare and has forced the democrats to drop medicare as well.

[D.Turtle]

Yeah, this entire thing is showing quite well the problems with the American System: Since the Republicans unconditionally and completely oppose anything proposed by the Democrats, any singular Democrat can cause the whole thing to collapse - a form of Minority Tyranny.

The problem is that the public will only see the failure of the Democrats and punish them, giving the Republicans a chance of gaining lots of seats in the next election.

The only hope is that the Teabaggers split up the Republican vote, mitigating this potential damage (witness NY-26, a district that has been Republican since the Civil War going Democratic).

And if this thing does fail (or become useless) you will see a LOT of primary challenges on the Democratic side from more liberal/progressive people.

2010 will be interesting.

[ArmorPierce]

I really don't see where the compromise is. Is there any issue on the bill that the republicans don't like but are willing to grudgingly accept?

[Simon_Jester]

Not if they're smart. The Republicans can only benefit from a catastrophic failure of the Democrats to accomplish anything or change anything. Otherwise they stand to lose control of the political process in this country for the next few decades, and regain it only after making shifts in the party platform that are distasteful to the current leadership and much of the current core membership.

But if they can make the Democrats look weak, pitiful and stupid*, they might be able to make a comeback in a fraction of that time.

*Or rather hold fast while the Democrats make themselves look weak, pitiful and stupid

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Otherwise they stand to lose control of the political process in this country for the next few decades, and regain it only after making shifts in the party platform that are distasteful to the current leadership and much of the current core membership.

I think the real agenda for the Republicans for after the Democrats' seppuku is "No, you can't have clean food/water/air, healthcare, universal human rights, and constitution repair; so here's a heaping helping of institutionalized racism, homophobia, endless war, slavery in any form our corporate overlords want, and profit-protection for the same overlords instead, cuz it's ALL WE GOT AND EVER WILL HAVE! Have you licked your CEO's jackboots today, peon? You'll get a free license to take a baseball bat to your gay or colored neighbors' skulls and get them arrested for terrorism if you doooooo..."

Fuck 'em.

[AdmiralKanos]

Not if they're smart. The Republicans can only benefit from a catastrophic failure of the Democrats to accomplish anything or change anything. Otherwise they stand to lose control of the political process in this country for the next few decades, and regain it only after making shifts in the party platform that are distasteful to the current leadership and much of the current core membership.

But if they can make the Democrats look weak, pitiful and stupid*, they might be able to make a comeback in a fraction of that time.

*Or rather hold fast while the Democrats make themselves look weak, pitiful and stupid

I would argue that the problem here isn't the Republicans so much as the conservative wing of the Democrats. If the Democrats were actually unified about the need for genuine universal health care, you would see a completely different political landscape right now.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I would argue that the problem here isn't the Republicans so much as the conservative wing of the Democrats. If the Democrats were actually unified about the need for genuine universal health care, you would see a completely different political landscape right now.

Too many of these Democrats have accepted corporate bribe money, thereby counting themselves amongst the conservative wing or otherwise skewing their positions far enough to the right to take the teeth out of any threats to Big Business's cash register. That's why we're seeing compromises themselves repeatedly compromised to the point the Senate bill has been transmogrified from something that could actually help people into just a glorified Slave Auction. The bastards literally see people that could be just like themselves had their parents been richer as commodities to be bought and sold, harvested, and discarded, or as ammunition to be fired at the enemy!

Hilariously, the whole time I've been on N+P, foobar's random-order playback keeps finding every patriotic American song I have.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

And Dean sez Kill the Bill and the House Dems are pissed off at the Senate's dickery. Can't say I blame them.

House Dems: Senate is 'dithering'
By: Patrick O'Connor and Manu Raju
December 16, 2009 12:00 AM EST

House Democrats’ long-simmering frustration with the slow pace of the Senate has begun to boil over, with a broad swath of Democratic representatives accusing their Senate colleagues of failing both their party and their country.

The cross-chamber assessment is brutal:

• “There is a growing sense that we’re lifting more than our share,” says California Rep. Xavier Becerra, a member of the Democrats’ leadership team in the House. “Members are hoping the Senate will kick into gear because the public expects a lot more to get done.”

• “Sometimes I get the feeling that some of those guys [in the Senate] just like to see their names in the paper and see their faces on TV,” says Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern.

• “I talk a lot about the psychology of consensus,” says House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “Too often, it appears, that the psychology in the Senate is the psychology of one.”

• “When it comes to a jobs bill, the Senate seems more interested in dithering,” says first-year Rep. Tom Perriello, a Virginia Democrat whohas taken heat back home for tough votes on climate change and health care — two issues that remain bottled up in slow-moving Senate deliberations.

• “If you just take a look at the number of bills we’ve sent to the Senate and what they’ve done, I don’t know what they’re doing with their time honestly,” says Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Cal.).

• “I think the majority leader sometimes has to have the leadership to resolve these things,” says Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak, a Democrat challenging Sen. Arlen Specter, in a direct attack on Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “I understand it’s politically challenging, but we have the votes — and we should be doing much better than we are. I think this place needs a change, quite frankly.”

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said he understands the House Democrats’ frustrations but argues that their anger is directed at the wrong set of senators.

“We appreciate their concerns, but give me a break: The real concern is Senate Republicans,” Manley said.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the Senate is just a different place.

“You see, we have different rules here,” he explained. “It’s called the ‘filibuster.’ Maybe they haven’t followed the number of Republican filibusters here, which is an all-time record.”

Senate Republicans, in turn, say Senate Democrats are to blame: With 60 votes in their caucus — a number that includes independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders — Democrats have the votes they need to overcome Republican filibusters if they can just agree among themselves.

But they can’t — or at least they haven’t — and that makes House Democrats nervous that they’ve been left exposed heading into the 2010 midterm elections. They’ve taken the heat for tough vote after tough vote. And with the Senate having failed to act, they have little to show for their efforts.

House Democrats kicked off 2009 by passing a huge economic stimulus package — only to watch it whittled down to win over three recalcitrant Republican senators.

In June, they made a tough vote on climate change in the hope of setting the stage for a deal in Copenhagen — only to watch the bill slide to the back of the line in the Senate.

In November, they worked overtime to approve a health care reform bill — only to watch the Senate slow roll it through long committee deliberations and then an agonizingly slow ballet with Sen. Joe Lieberman and other moderates.

Last week, they passed sweeping reforms for the rules that govern the nation’s financial institutions — knowing full well that the bill won’t look much like the one they passed when — or if — the Senate gets to it.

And this week they’ll try to pass legislation to help address the nation’s unemployment crisis — even though they know there’s no chance the Senate will do its part until after the holiday break.

The Senate started 2009 at a faster clip. At the beginning of the session, it passed legislation to expand children’s health insurance, control tobacco and respond to a Supreme Court decision on gender pay discrimination. But things have slowed down drastically since; the Senate took four weeks to pass a widely supported extension of unemployment benefits when the House passed it in a matter of hours.

For House Democrats, the Senate health care debate has been particularly painful.

The fate of the Senate bill remains in doubt even after Reid made a series of concessions this week to appease Lieberman, who declared that he would join the Republicans in filibustering any bill that contained either a public option or a proposed expansion of Medicare.

Lieberman’s one-man act prompted Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro to call for his recall and another Connecticut Democrat, Rep. John Larson, to ask: “What gives a senator that right?”

The answer: The Senate rules, which give just about any member the power to stall legislation — especially when that member is the would-be 60th vote to invoke cloture.

On the House side, the speaker has the Rules Committee to help limit debate on the floor and keep the minority party - or her own upstarts - in check. In the Senate, an objection from a single senator creates the need for a procedural vote and a time-consuming process that can paralyze the chamber for days.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — a former House member himself — said there’s built-in tension between the two bodies, and that the tension leads to frustration among members of both.

“I understand that. I meet with them all the time — they are not happy with the pace of our deliberations,” he said. “But unfortunately, it reflects more on the institution than any given member ... [T]he rules here are designed to block. That’s what the founding fathers had in mind.”

Some House Democrats aren’t buying it.

“I know their rules are different over there,” McGovern said. “But like-minded people should be able to come together on this stuff. So it is frustrating. ... They’re definitely slowing things up.”

Of course, not all House Democrats are unhappy with the Senate’s slow pace.

South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin said she’s glad the Senate takes more time to consider “legislation [that] is overreaching in some cases.” Still, even she says the Senate has “broken down” as an institution with the use of the filibuster.

Should Reid get a health care bill passed before Christmas, party leaders will still need to decide how to pay for it — through either a tax on high-end plans or a surtax on the wealthy — and then figure out how to wrap up differences on abortion, immigration and cost containment.

But House Democrats aren’t in the mood to trust their colleagues in the Senate, and that will make the process more difficult — even as Democrats acknowledge that they need to start getting some of these bills wrapped up if they want to reap the rewards next November.

Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday that it’s been “a very productive Congress, or House term, but it won’t be productive unless we can get those bills through the Senate.”

[Knife]

If it weren't so damn important with lives on the line, it would be interesting political drama, because there is going to be some paybacks and some consequences after this all goes down. Personally, I think Liberman is hoping that the GOP gets a majority in 2010 and will cash in his chips with them, while still staying an 'Independent', retaining his chairmanship and all. I do think he might have some problems in his own election in 2010 though.

Lincoln and Baccus might have some serious problems too.

[D.Turtle]

Well, any normal party would have long ago kicked Lieberman out of the caucus or at least stripped him of all of his chairmanships/etc. This is a guy who campaigned against the Democratic candidate for presidency, openly admitted that he is only opposing the Medicare buy-in only because Liberals liked it, and is now openly thinking about switching parties.

But, nah, nothing will happen, because Reid is convinced that "he is with us on everything except the war" (in Iraq).

And Lieberman isn't up for reelection until 2012.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What I want to know is when did it magically becoming impossible to outlast a filibuster? Personally I think this entire thing is because Harry Reid is too fucking lazy to contemplate the horror of having to spend 100 hours in a chair on the Senate floor eating delivery pizza and drinking stale coffee, so he's fucking over the entire American public rather than force a filibuster.

[Elfdart]

What I want to know is when did it magically becoming impossible to outlast a filibuster? Personally I think this entire thing is because Harry Reid is too fucking lazy to contemplate the horror of having to spend 100 hours in a chair on the Senate floor eating delivery pizza and drinking stale coffee, so he's fucking over the entire American public rather than force a filibuster.

You assume Reid and Obama and the others really want some sort of health care reform when their actions show that they want no such thing. What they want is the vote of liberals in the election and in order to get them, they must appear to be trying to do something they promised to do. On the other hand, they don't want to piss off the drug and insurance companies, who give them money. So they pretend to be cock-blocked by Republitards (who, strangely enough didn't need 60 votes to pass their bills when they had the Senate), the Teabaggers (though they don't hesitate to call the cops when left-wingers show up at public meetings), and now Joe Lieberman (who they appease at every turn while simultaneously blowing off Russ Feingold, the liberal senator -who isn't a complete prick).

Like the bullshit about "bipartisanship", the filibuster non-threat is just an excuse. If they wanted real reform they would have done it and it would have been easy since most people are for it. Unlike say, giving phone companies immunity from prosecution and lawsuits for illegally wiretapping citizens. That gets passed immediately.

If I had slept through the last eighteen months and woke up this morning and you had told me that it's 2009 and we have a new President who:

a) not only refuses to prosecute known war criminals and torturers, but whose DoJ files legal briefs to stop all inquiries in the matter, AND promises to keep "terrorist" defendants locked up no matter what the results of their "trials" (including Bush's kangaroo military commissions) were

b) escalated the war in Afghanistan while continuing to occupy Iraq

c) let Republicans, right-leaning Democrats, and the Pentagon set the agenda for his four-year term

d) promised health care reform, but only offered a larger version of the incestuous insurance company/government circle-jerk enacted in Massachusetts

e) fired minor government employees at the behest of Glenn Beck

f) numerous other gifts to the Right and corporations, while slapping the liberals in the face at every opportunity

I would have thought "Well, maybe President Romney will only last one term."

[Simon_Jester]

Not if they're smart. The Republicans can only benefit from a catastrophic failure of the Democrats to accomplish anything or change anything. Otherwise they stand to lose control of the political process in this country for the next few decades, and regain it only after making shifts in the party platform that are distasteful to the current leadership and much of the current core membership.

But if they can make the Democrats look weak, pitiful and stupid*, they might be able to make a comeback in a fraction of that time.

*Or rather hold fast while the Democrats make themselves look weak, pitiful and stupid

I would argue that the problem here isn't the Republicans so much as the conservative wing of the Democrats. If the Democrats were actually unified about the need for genuine universal health care, you would see a completely different political landscape right now.

Yes. This is why the Republicans can simply hold fast while the Democrats make themselves look weak, pitiful and stupid. They don't actually need to fight health care reform; all they have to do is stand in the distance and growl menacingly at the Senate Democrats to create the illusion of a threat.

House Dems: Senate is 'dithering'
By: Patrick O'Connor and Manu Raju
December 16, 2009 12:00 AM EST

House Democrats’ long-simmering frustration with the slow pace of the Senate has begun to boil over, with a broad swath of Democratic representatives accusing their Senate colleagues of failing both their party and their country...

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the Senate is just a different place.

“You see, we have different rules here,” he explained. “It’s called the ‘filibuster.’ Maybe they haven’t followed the number of Republican filibusters here, which is an all-time record.”

But...but...

How long could the Republicans possibly filibuster this bill? There are only forty of them! How many days can they waste by standing there blabbering, compared to the number that have already been wasted in idiotic attempts to "reach out" to people who have no desire to be reached?

It's like they're so worried about the filibuster that they've lost the ability to evaluate the threat rationally...

...or, as Elfdart speculates, they never actually cared. Which is strange, because it's pretty clear that the House Democrats care, or are at least in enough fear of their reelection prospects to act like it. Is Obama actually less dependent on the popular perception that he's working on this problem than the House Democrats are? In the short term, yes, he's not up for reelection in 2010. But nobody likes a messianic political figure who screws up badly. Why vote for someone who turns wine into water?

“I understand that. I meet with them all the time — they are not happy with the pace of our deliberations,” he said. “But unfortunately, it reflects more on the institution than any given member ... [T]he rules here are designed to block. That’s what the founding fathers had in mind.”

[continues to bang head on wall]

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Is Obama actually less dependent on the popular perception that he's working on this problem than the House Democrats are? In the short term, yes, he's not up for reelection in 2010. But nobody likes a messianic political figure who screws up badly. Why vote for someone who turns wine into water?

Yes. And he has the hard-right swerve the GOP has taken to thank for that. The Republicans learned that pairing up a tired old guy with a woman who (in any properly run universe) is a parody of the very worst the reactionary right has to offer they could hold a Democrat in an election year they should've won by a popular landslide to a measly seven point victory margin. That's barely four percentage points more than the margin-of-error of the typical poll. Come 2012, they're very likely to run someone whose political platform will be summed up as Publically sodomize the liberal and progressive causes with a chainsaw.

The main trouble Obama would have in 2012 would be a strong primary challenge, but the most credible threats on the Democratic side are all loyal representatives of Big Finance and Big Pharma. And Obama, having done his duty for Big Finance and Big Pharma will be more than adequately funded to beat down a genuine liberal candidate. And Obama has quietly gotten things done that are of interest to anyone of an even mildly progressive bent. This will probably be enough to keep the left-of-centrists from taking their ball and going home, as the alternative will be to allow the Republicans to vote out Obama and elect an ultra-nationalist, jingoistic caveman in his place.

[Patrick Degan]

What I want to know is when did it magically becoming impossible to outlast a filibuster? Personally I think this entire thing is because Harry Reid is too fucking lazy to contemplate the horror of having to spend 100 hours in a chair on the Senate floor eating delivery pizza and drinking stale coffee, so he's fucking over the entire American public rather than force a filibuster.

Harry Reid would be perfectly characterisable by Theodore Roosevelt as a man with all the spine of a chocolate eclair.

[Uraniun235]

I heard some idiots on talk radio discussing invoking the "nuclear option" (revise the rules regarding filibuster). I mean, really? You're not even going to try and face one? What the fuck are they worried about? Is there a secret conspiracy that's alerted Harry Reid "if the repubs filibuster we're starting Civil War II"?

Some of it is unavoidable; they need Ben Nelson and Lieberdouche to get the bill past a filibuster unless they want to try Reconciliation.

I say fuck 'em. They want to shut down the Senate with a filibuster? Fine. Shut it down until they're ready to vote on a god damn proper bill. Let them run their throats raw.

Hell, the news media would have a field day.

[Darth Wong]

Apparently, while the average student thinks it's worth it to pull an all-nighter to pass an exam or get an assignment done on time, the Democrats don't think it's worth pulling an all-nighter to reform the nation's health care system.

[Mr Bean]

Apparently, while the average student thinks it's worth it to pull an all-nighter to pass an exam or get an assignment done on time, the Democrats don't think it's worth pulling an all-nighter to reform the nation's health care system.

For six years they "kept their power dry" when George W Bush was in office, not seriously fighting him on anything. Not pulling near the shenanigans the Republicans are. It's all the more striking but they do not but reinforce the Public perception that Democrats equal weak and Republicans are strong. Crazy as hell but still strong. Why? Only one of our two parties fights and I don't know how we got fifty weak knee get along to get along bastards at the same time.

They never make them filibuster, have you heard about the over a hundred twelve being used this year along. Breaking the previous one hundred ten of last year? No because the fact that ever single Senate Bill up for discussion that can be filibuster is filibustered is not mentioned. Why? Because Harry Reid never demands the continuous speeches clause and makes all forty Senator's stand their and filibuster, even on popular bills he does not make them stand up there and read from the phone book for thirty six hours.

Our current Senate Democrats are a large number of weak individuals who pull down the five real liberals we have. So legislation starts on the right and continues further right because of it. Oh sure the odd social issue gets passed but outside that the big important stuff keeps getting written by either lobbyists or Snow.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I'm still not convinced they're actually weak, so much as having been bought out by financial interests as Elfdart charges. I do believe that a large proportion of then would openly revolt if the leadership decided to take a stand and really push health care reform, because they've been bought out by the insurance industry.

[LMSx]

My understanding of the filibuster is that it is so fucked up, the majority is the group that has to stay in the Senate chamber while one member of the minority just talks for a while. As soon as anyone from the majority leaves, the filibustering minority member notes the lack of quorum and they can stop.

That noted, I think there's a lot to be said for the principle of just sitting down and grinding it out. It's easy for Joe Lieberman to make mournful remarks about he'd love to pass health care reform but can't vote for cloture, but harder to resist the pressure that would come from being nationally identified as the sole man responsible for grinding the government to a halt. But the recalcitrant 3 or 4 Democratic Senators responsible for gumming everything up know that they won't be forced to actually halt anything, and even if they are, the playing field is heavily tilted in their favor.

It's this sort of imbalance that makes me so dismissive of Harry Reid and Barack Obama's efforts. They knew all this beforehand. If they wanted really effective reform they would have prepared the Senate playing field by modifying the filibuster rules beforehand. Instead, we are told that they're helplessly locked into whatever the 60th man wants. It's all an excuse.

[Simon_Jester]

Nitpick:

For six years they "kept their power dry" when George W Bush was in office, not seriously fighting him on anything.

Power? Powder, I thought.

No because the fact that ever single Senate Bill up for discussion that can be filibuster is filibustered is not mentioned. Why? Because Harry Reid never demands the continuous speeches clause and makes all forty Senator's stand their and filibuster, even on popular bills he does not make them stand up there and read from the phone book for thirty six hours.

[by this point, my head has left a half-inch depression in a brick wall, and I'm still going strong]
_________

Our current Senate Democrats are a large number of weak individuals who pull down the five real liberals we have. So legislation starts on the right and continues further right because of it. Oh sure the odd social issue gets passed but outside that the big important stuff keeps getting written by either lobbyists or Snow.

I'm not sure it actually takes that many weaklings, though I'm not saying there aren't that many. The real problem may be a failure of leadership as much as anything else: what were Reid (majority leader) and Durbin (majority whip, as I recall) chosen for, anyway, if not their abilities to lead and whip, respectively?

Well, I'm still not convinced they're actually weak, so much as having been bought out by financial interests as Elfdart charges. I do believe that a large proportion of then would openly revolt if the leadership decided to take a stand and really push health care reform, because they've been bought out by the insurance industry.

Possibly. On the other hand, health care reform is popular enough that openly opposing it is dangerous for a lot of them. I'm sure they're just as happy to be in a situation where they don't have to do anything to annoy their backers to please their constituents. But I think they're probably also just as happy to be in a situation where they don't have to do anything to annoy their constituents to please their backers, because they can shuffle off blame.