Elizabeth - the link isn't working - at least not for me.
But - in answer to your question - I don't think so. Oh how it pains me to say this. Liberals (cough - choke - DEMOCRATS) are in a terrible position with this bill, I think. By backing it they are buying into the notion being spun by the white house that it is historic legislation blah blah and WHEN it doesn't work - as many experts are predicting such as in the video you posted earlier -they are going to be hung out to dry, so to speak.
Also - my very real fear is that if this bill gets signed - putting a bandaid on a gaping wound - then washington will pat itself on the back and move onto other things without finding a way to plug the frightening holes of this legislation. In other words - I fear that this will be a huge set back in the long run.
No - I am NOT being a cynic - I am angry as hell because of the reality to the situation that I sense - but a realist does not a cynic make.
There was a great line on MASH years ago about Hawkeye spoken by the character Sidney Freedman, the psychiatrist - something about making a distinction about anger turned inward versus anger turned outward. Wish I could remember it exactly, Elizabeth - but I believe the point was that one was a positive force for good while one was a destructive force - both of them coping mechanisms in the midst of hell.
Came to mind when I read your comment from before.
I have had it up to here with progressives sounding the retreat.
Reform is further along than it's ever been, it still has time to get better, and last November was not a referendum on corporate personhood or health care as a human right. Our republican democracy just doesn't work that way.
1) For the public option to work, it needs all the stuff that's still in the bill: the exchanges, the regulations, etc. NONE of that can be passed via budget reconciliation.
2) This is not the last and final bill. For crying out loud, America ratified three amendments to end slavery and still didn't solve the problem of integration until 1965 with TWO civil rights acts -- everyone please stop acting like it's The Highlander and "there can be only one."
3) The sausage is not yet finished. Right now the conference process is trying to strengthen several provisions, so can we stop making the same mistake we made with the Senate Finance Committee bill. That didn't have a public option either, but Reid inserted it in the final Senate bill before presenting it to the Democrats. "kill the bill" is the absolute WORST thing you could POSSIBLY do right now because you WOULD NOT get a "do-over" on the process; there is simply too much on the Congressional plate right now.
4) Reconciliation is a good "and" strategy, but not a workable "or" strategy. You can pass a public option later through reconciliation because it's a deficit-reduction measure -- but only if we show up and demand it.
So instead of complaining about impoverished dialectics, I saw we reclaim the Democratic showcase, show the teabaggers what a crowd of 150,000 actually looks like, and demand a public option on the National Mall.
I think a better question might be, would this person vote for it?
Matt Osborne has it right. Most reforms of this magnitude have come in incrementally, because at each stage there was too much resistance to do more. If we take the best we can get now, we can build on it to get more later. If the current bill is rejected, they will not go back to the drawing board and come up with something better. We, and more importantly the uninsured, will get nothing.
If the current bill were just a sellout to the insurance companies as some are saying, the Republicans wouldn't still be standing rock-solid against it. Do you really think something that every Republican in Congress opposes can be all bad?:-) The insurance companies and the Republicans are thinking several moves ahead. They know that if this first step goes through, it will be followed by more.
I have to admit, I have been disgusted with all the caving in that has been going on in regards to healthcare reform...
But then I sit back and realize that this is the first time since NAFTA that I remember our government actually debating legislation that will totally transform our society and the legislation was right there out in the open....
Obviously something of this magnitude is NOT going to be achieved in one swooping step...
Squid, I hope you were able to access the video -- the link works for me. If not, Bill Moyers' Journal is on the "Links" sidebar on the right, you can watch the whole program, which is a must-see, I think.
As I said elsewhere, the problem with this bill as is and the so-called reform is that it adds on the fundamentally dysfunctional system, rather than change it in any way. But you know it.
There are good things in it, however, and I agree that we have come too far -- further than any time in history -- to abandon it now. Additionally, the political fallout from such a move would be a Repubs' vindication, which would not make our situation any better. I would hold my nose and vote for it, hoping for future improvements.
BTW, many people count on the conference with the House as the time when we could reinsert the public option. I very much doubt that will happen. This is as far as the health insurance reform will go -- and this is, BTW, what the White House wants: not to piss off the industry too much. You may have noticed that we have not heard anything lately from Karen Ignagni, the spokeswoman for the insurance industry, who is always very vocal whenever something surfaces that would remotely threaten the mafia's profits. There is a reason for that -- and it's not that she's lost her voice all of a sudden. And, if there was any doubt, the Senate primadonnas like Lieberman and Nelson have already said that they would oppose any stinking public option in any form. In fact, Nelson bragged about his tough stance on it yesterday, the hero that he is.
Obama dangled PO in front of our noses to get the left on board and exert pressure on the cartel, but all the while kept telling us not to get too attached to the idea and stressed his own "flexibility" on the matter.
As to Republicans opposing this bill -- they would oppose anything that 1. comes from Obama, and 2. does not have a tax cut in it. Their job these days is amazingly easy: just say no. :)
BTW, Infidel, I and many, many others are in the same situation or similar to that of the person whose story you linked to. I don't feel abandoned by those on the left who advocate to "kill the bill" -- I understand them perfectly well and totally agree with their objections. In an ideal world, I too would say kill it. But then, in an ideal world we would not have the health "care" we have in the US and we would not be having this conversation.
As it happens, Chicago Tribune today has a piece describing how the insurance lobbyists influenced the bill (as if we didn't know) and how they made out on it like bandits.
Insurance -- a business that finds it hard to lose money, I should think. They sell access to a service, and so long as they are mostly or entirely in charge of the rules determining who can be denied access, they really can't lose.
As for this bill, little as I like how it has gone down, to me there's no point in scrapping it now. For one thing, it's unlikely that there will be more Democrats in the Congress in 2010, and for another, the bill is a foundation upon which to demand further improvements. To get more thoroughgoing reform would require a change in the Senate rules or a genuine super-majority of Democrats in the Senate, one that would be able to bypass the coalition of so-called Democrats who have been weakening the bill all along.
In future, I would like to see the Democratic Party take a strong stand in favor of Medicare expansion, perhaps when the economy picks up and seems to be going strongly: expansion of the program, if pushed hard as a single issue, seems like a pretty difficult thing to come out against, doesn't it?
My trip to Washington DC is delayed on account of blizzard. I promised myself a brief respite from blogging, but here I am ... catching up with all the posts contributed by all my friends.
I am octopissed about the outcome of this latest legislative sausage, as stinking as it is, but I must admit that abandoning a little progress would be abandoning a lot of deserving people.
I intend to store my pent-up anger and unleash it at the ingrates who sabotaged us, who stabbed us in the back, at a time and place of my choosing.
Squid: "... something about making a distinction about anger turned inward versus anger turned outward. Wish I could remember it exactly ..."
Here is a cephalopod's distinction: Anger and depression are two sides of the same coin. Anger turned outward helps rid oneself of aggressive emotions by externalizing it; when anger is turned inward and has no place to go, the result is depression.
We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.
Elizabeth - the link isn't working - at least not for me.
ReplyDeleteBut - in answer to your question - I don't think so. Oh how it pains me to say this. Liberals (cough - choke - DEMOCRATS) are in a terrible position with this bill, I think. By backing it they are buying into the notion being spun by the white house that it is historic legislation blah blah and WHEN it doesn't work - as many experts are predicting such as in the video you posted earlier -they are going to be hung out to dry, so to speak.
Also - my very real fear is that if this bill gets signed - putting a bandaid on a gaping wound - then washington will pat itself on the back and move onto other things without finding a way to plug the frightening holes of this legislation. In other words - I fear that this will be a huge set back in the long run.
No - I am NOT being a cynic - I am angry as hell because of the reality to the situation that I sense - but a realist does not a cynic make.
There was a great line on MASH years ago about Hawkeye spoken by the character Sidney Freedman, the psychiatrist - something about making a distinction about anger turned inward versus anger turned outward. Wish I could remember it exactly, Elizabeth - but I believe the point was that one was a positive force for good while one was a destructive force - both of them coping mechanisms in the midst of hell.
Came to mind when I read your comment from before.
There's a post in there somewhere . . .
I have had it up to here with progressives sounding the retreat.
ReplyDeleteReform is further along than it's ever been, it still has time to get better, and last November was not a referendum on corporate personhood or health care as a human right. Our republican democracy just doesn't work that way.
1) For the public option to work, it needs all the stuff that's still in the bill: the exchanges, the regulations, etc. NONE of that can be passed via budget reconciliation.
2) This is not the last and final bill. For crying out loud, America ratified three amendments to end slavery and still didn't solve the problem of integration until 1965 with TWO civil rights acts -- everyone please stop acting like it's The Highlander and "there can be only one."
3) The sausage is not yet finished. Right now the conference process is trying to strengthen several provisions, so can we stop making the same mistake we made with the Senate Finance Committee bill. That didn't have a public option either, but Reid inserted it in the final Senate bill before presenting it to the Democrats. "kill the bill" is the absolute WORST thing you could POSSIBLY do right now because you WOULD NOT get a "do-over" on the process; there is simply too much on the Congressional plate right now.
4) Reconciliation is a good "and" strategy, but not a workable "or" strategy. You can pass a public option later through reconciliation because it's a deficit-reduction measure -- but only if we show up and demand it.
So instead of complaining about impoverished dialectics, I saw we reclaim the Democratic showcase, show the teabaggers what a crowd of 150,000 actually looks like, and demand a public option on the National Mall.
I will not surrender this ground we have gained.
I think a better question might be, would this person vote for it?
ReplyDeleteMatt Osborne has it right. Most reforms of this magnitude have come in incrementally, because at each stage there was too much resistance to do more. If we take the best we can get now, we can build on it to get more later. If the current bill is rejected, they will not go back to the drawing board and come up with something better. We, and more importantly the uninsured, will get nothing.
If the current bill were just a sellout to the insurance companies as some are saying, the Republicans wouldn't still be standing rock-solid against it. Do you really think something that every Republican in Congress opposes can be all bad?:-) The insurance companies and the Republicans are thinking several moves ahead. They know that if this first step goes through, it will be followed by more.
I have to admit, I have been disgusted with all the caving in that has been going on in regards to healthcare reform...
ReplyDeleteBut then I sit back and realize that this is the first time since NAFTA that I remember our government actually debating legislation that will totally transform our society and the legislation was right there out in the open....
Obviously something of this magnitude is NOT going to be achieved in one swooping step...
Squid, I hope you were able to access the video -- the link works for me. If not, Bill Moyers' Journal is on the "Links" sidebar on the right, you can watch the whole program, which is a must-see, I think.
ReplyDeleteAs I said elsewhere, the problem with this bill as is and the so-called reform is that it adds on the fundamentally dysfunctional system, rather than change it in any way. But you know it.
There are good things in it, however, and I agree that we have come too far -- further than any time in history -- to abandon it now. Additionally, the political fallout from such a move would be a Repubs' vindication, which would not make our situation any better. I would hold my nose and vote for it, hoping for future improvements.
BTW, many people count on the conference with the House as the time when we could reinsert the public option. I very much doubt that will happen. This is as far as the health insurance reform will go -- and this is, BTW, what the White House wants: not to piss off the industry too much. You may have noticed that we have not heard anything lately from Karen Ignagni, the spokeswoman for the insurance industry, who is always very vocal whenever something surfaces that would remotely threaten the mafia's profits. There is a reason for that -- and it's not that she's lost her voice all of a sudden. And, if there was any doubt, the Senate primadonnas like Lieberman and Nelson have already said that they would oppose any stinking public option in any form. In fact, Nelson bragged about his tough stance on it yesterday, the hero that he is.
Obama dangled PO in front of our noses to get the left on board and exert pressure on the cartel, but all the while kept telling us not to get too attached to the idea and stressed his own "flexibility" on the matter.
As to Republicans opposing this bill -- they would oppose anything that 1. comes from Obama, and 2. does not have a tax cut in it. Their job these days is amazingly easy: just say no. :)
BTW, Infidel, I and many, many others are in the same situation or similar to that of the person whose story you linked to. I don't feel abandoned by those on the left who advocate to "kill the bill" -- I understand them perfectly well and totally agree with their objections. In an ideal world, I too would say kill it. But then, in an ideal world we would not have the health "care" we have in the US and we would not be having this conversation.
As it happens, Chicago Tribune today has a piece describing how the insurance lobbyists influenced the bill (as if we didn't know) and how they made out on it like bandits.
ReplyDeleteInsurance -- a business that finds it hard to lose money, I should think. They sell access to a service, and so long as they are mostly or entirely in charge of the rules determining who can be denied access, they really can't lose.
ReplyDeleteAs for this bill, little as I like how it has gone down, to me there's no point in scrapping it now. For one thing, it's unlikely that there will be more Democrats in the Congress in 2010, and for another, the bill is a foundation upon which to demand further improvements. To get more thoroughgoing reform would require a change in the Senate rules or a genuine super-majority of Democrats in the Senate, one that would be able to bypass the coalition of so-called Democrats who have been weakening the bill all along.
In future, I would like to see the Democratic Party take a strong stand in favor of Medicare expansion, perhaps when the economy picks up and seems to be going strongly: expansion of the program, if pushed hard as a single issue, seems like a pretty difficult thing to come out against, doesn't it?
My trip to Washington DC is delayed on account of blizzard. I promised myself a brief respite from blogging, but here I am ... catching up with all the posts contributed by all my friends.
ReplyDeleteI am octopissed about the outcome of this latest legislative sausage, as stinking as it is, but I must admit that abandoning a little progress would be abandoning a lot of deserving people.
I intend to store my pent-up anger and unleash it at the ingrates who sabotaged us, who stabbed us in the back, at a time and place of my choosing.
Look out!
Squid: "... something about making a distinction about anger turned inward versus anger turned outward. Wish I could remember it exactly ..."
ReplyDeleteHere is a cephalopod's distinction: Anger and depression are two sides of the same coin. Anger turned outward helps rid oneself of aggressive emotions by externalizing it; when anger is turned inward and has no place to go, the result is depression.