Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Let the bastards filibuster. And make them actually stand up and do it in the chamber.

That's my dream, along with it eventually passing, after a week or so of drama, with all Dems on board and maybe Snowe and Collins. Then, into conference with even a stronger PO coming back out to be voted on by both Chambers - then, I want the Repugs to chicken-out with a second attempt of filibustering -- completley demoralizing their base that eventually results in a permanent split in the GOP between the 'true believers' and what's left of any rational element in that party.

A resulting 3-party split in all national elections for the next 20 years or so with the Dems never failing to win with less than 55% and the other two parties never getting over 30% each.

Then maybe we can get some real things done around here!

Oh to dream...

Originally Posted by playwrite

A resulting 3-party split in all national elections for the next 20 years or so with the Dems never failing to win with less than 55% and the other two parties never getting over 30% each.

It will be closer to low 40% for Democrats, but first the peasants will need to get in line with your thinking in 2010 and 2012 if a third-party entry. Senator Snowe will need to be coddled just like any Conservative Democrat hoping to hold his/her sent in 2010.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

Wow! While working on my parent's entertainment center I heard a surprising thing on Fox today. Anchor Shepard Smith was actually arguing with a senator for a public option, claiming that it was the only way to reduce costs! Fox News is now for a public option!? What happened?

He's an interesting guy. During and after Katrina, I just couldn't believe that Shepard was on Faux News.

However, a bigger shock, of course, was Bill O'Reilly backing the public option. That is on my lifetime list of "WTF moments"

Regarding a third party: every single current Republican office holder including the most conservative members of the House Liberty Caucus would sooner dye their hair green than join in a third party effort. It is the first duty of every organism to preserve its own existence. For elected politicians, that means continuing to get elected. Every Republican knows they cannot win office under some other party label.

If you question that, just ask your self this. Who is the most famous libertarian politician in the USA today?

If your answer is Ron Paul of Texas you will hear a loud buzzer telling you that you are incorrect and try again. Ron Paul is a Republican and has been so for all his successful elections to the House of Representatives. Even the sainted libertarian poster boy knows darn well on which side his bread is buttered. Right now his son Rand and wall street trader Peter Schiff are trying to raise money on libertarian message boards to run for the Senate next year. Only problem is that the party of their choice is the Republican Party. Surprise surprise as Gomer Pyle used to say.

The one person who could lead a rightist third party effort is Sarah Palin and despite my fervent hope that she will, I would bet against it.

For the modern Republicans to go the way of the Whigs of the 19th century it will take several Barry Goldwater 1964 style losses in a row combined with poor results in both houses of Congress, combined with loss of power in most state legislatures and governorships as well. Only when the label of Republican also translates into "sure loser" will they change.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

Wow! While working on my parent's entertainment center I heard a surprising thing on Fox today. Anchor Shepard Smith was actually arguing with a senator for a public option, claiming that it was the only way to reduce costs! Fox News is now for a public option!? What happened?

WOW, this was much more of a slap-down that I could have imagined -

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/

- this is almost exactly the way he came at Katrina with some Bushie idiot who was trying to poo-pooh the whole thing at the time.

Amazing, on Faux News?????!!!!

Originally Posted by Deb C

This must end; single-payer is the answer, a well-funded Medicare system is the model, greed is the obstacle. Eliminate profits as a factor in life and death decisions, run the entire system based on serving human needs rather than those of shareholders and CEOs, and the profiteers will go elsewhere for their money.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope..._s_this_he.htm

This just as the mobsters had to do when Prohibition was repealed. But this will not doubt be a larger and more intense struggle because the insurance execs are no doubt more heavily lawyered up than Capone and his ilk were. Confusing influences prevail here, making it difficult to settle on a plan that will work. And we don't know if it will work until it gets into law. On the suface Social Security and Medicare seem to have worked, but yet there have been plenty of doubts raised about both of these. This one could be a legal issue that will be in the courts for a while, but hopefully we can breathe a sigh of relief when something worthwhile passes. Then we can move on to other things, such as returning the country to full employment.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

... Then we can move on to other things, such as returning the country to full employment.

Given the impact that health insurance costs have on small businesses and the role small business play in employment, maybe we are working on that, no?

Originally Posted by Deb C

...This must end; single-payer is the answer, a well-funded Medicare system is the model, greed is the obstacle. Eliminate profits as a factor in life and death decisions, run the entire system based on serving human needs rather than those of shareholders and CEOs, and the profiteers will go elsewhere for their money. ...

There are already many doctors who will not accept Medicare patients because the payments are too low. And there are some proposals on the table now the further reduce Medicare funding. How can this be the soultion to our problem.?
-One of the fundamental issues is that we have never had a full national level system, and I am convinced that problems will remain until we start by putting everyone in the same insurance pool. Then no one if left out and the insurers cannot choose to leave any one out. This could allow the multiple approaches to be tried. I think that we need to develop a national health care system, but do not think that any single solution( eg, a 'single payer' ) is essenitial. There is not necessarily only one approach that would work.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

For the modern Republicans to go the way of the Whigs of the 19th century it will take several Barry Goldwater 1964 style losses in a row combined with poor results in both houses of Congress, combined with loss of power in most state legislatures and governorships as well. Only when the label of Republican also translates into "sure loser" will they change.

It will also take a better idea. I'm not even sure, whether Obama succeeds in pulling us through the crisis or not, whether people will see him as not doing enough or doing too much. Many on the left are criticizing Obama for not doing enough. While he has been working the economics problems, he has not put through much significant legislation. Others on the right are criticizing him for doing too much, ruling as a dictator and ruining the country. I'm of the not enough school. This is a crisis, a time for transformation, and at times he seems to be putting band aids on major problems. He is trying too hard for centrist compromise with an obsolete world view, not hard enough for the interests of the country.

I'm not thinking in terms of the next few election cycles. I'm concerned with the values of the awakening. By then it will be clear whether he did too little or too much. If the Democratic party is still feeding of the success of the crisis, will the opposition party be more or less progressive than the post Obama Democrats? And what policies will be called for to correct the problems at the core of the awakening?

If the Republicans go the way of the Whigs, it might be because the party that opposes the Democrats will be on the progressive side of the Democrats.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It will also take a better idea. I'm not even sure, whether Obama succeeds in pulling us through the crisis or not, whether people will see him as not doing enough or doing too much. Many on the left are criticizing Obama for not doing enough. While he has been working the economics problems, he has not put through much significant legislation. Others on the right are criticizing him for doing too much, ruling as a dictator and ruining the country. I'm of the not enough school. This is a crisis, a time for transformation, and at times he seems to be putting band aids on major problems. He is trying to hard for centrist compromise with an obsolete world view, not hard enough for the interests of the country.

I'm not thinking in terms of the next few election cycles. I'm concerned with the values of the awakening. By then it will be clear whether he did too little or too much. If the Democratic party is still feeding of the success of the crisis, will the opposition party be more or less progressive than the post Obama Democrats? And what policies will be called for to correct the problems at the core of the awakening?

If the Republicans go the way of the Whigs, it might be because the party that opposes the Democrats will be on the progressive side of the Democrats.

This Crisis could force or lead us to more European norms of political life (of a high-tax, high-service economy) -- perhaps with a new alignment of political forces. I can imagine the GOP becoming an increasingly-ideological party that wholly excites a shrinking base of racists, big landowners (especially in the South), and anti-liberal plutocrats and their stooges; after the Democratic Party becomes unwieldy it will split into something like "Christian Democrats" and "Social Democrats" because a single party in a democratic system tends to split.

This is especially likely should the Millennial Generation reshape American political life... and its political tendencies are so markedly different from those of older generations that it will force major changes in American life so long as it is seen as the heroic force in American life. Crises tend to thrust Civic generations into unusual power early and for long when such generations are in place, and those generations establish a more collectivistic society with which surrounding generations from the preceding Idealist generation to the following Adaptive generation concur.

Barack Obama could still be anything from an utter failure with catastrophic results for far more than his own sector on the political spectrum (which could have been said of Ronald Reagan if he provoked a death struggle with the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China) to an unqualified success who reshapes American politics so that what follows is an argument of whether he did enough or went too far (which is how FDR is seen). So it is early in any Presidency in recent decades. Dubya had too many foibles; Clinton had too little support; GHWB's achievements were slight outside of foreign policy; Reagan set the 3T tone that one of his successors drove into near-ruin. Obama has shown what he wants for a new America -- a Crisis Era with no apocalypse for America or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Let the bastards filibuster. And make them actually stand up and do it in the chamber.

And let them make fools of themselves. Let them show what they stand for, as did the southern racists of the mid-1960s. This time it is rich profiteers against everyone else.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It will also take a better idea. I'm not even sure, whether Obama succeeds in pulling us through the crisis or not, whether people will see him as not doing enough or doing too much. Many on the left are criticizing Obama for not doing enough. While he has been working the economics problems, he has not put through much significant legislation. Others on the right are criticizing him for doing too much, ruling as a dictator and ruining the country. I'm of the not enough school. This is a crisis, a time for transformation, and at times he seems to be putting band aids on major problems. He is trying too hard for centrist compromise with an obsolete world view, not hard enough for the interests of the country.

I'm not thinking in terms of the next few election cycles. I'm concerned with the values of the awakening. By then it will be clear whether he did too little or too much. If the Democratic party is still feeding of the success of the crisis, will the opposition party be more or less progressive than the post Obama Democrats? And what policies will be called for to correct the problems at the core of the awakening?

If the Republicans go the way of the Whigs, it might be because the party that opposes the Democrats will be on the progressive side of the Democrats.

Maybe we are in a prolonged 3T, and rather than FDR, Obama is the equivalent of -

wait for it,

wait for it...

Richard Millhouse Nixon!!!

In many ways, Nixon would not measure-up to the demands of the current conservative moment - his health bill looks a lot like the one that today's conservatives are going apoplectic over. For the love of the Almighty, he also started the EPA!

Maybe Obama is the reverse of Nixon, i.e. a liberal who actually has some strong conservative traits, those old style Burke conservative traits.

As Nixon set the stage for Reagan and the ushering in of the real 3T, Obama might set the stage for the real game-changer to come... and, somewhat frightening, the real 4T. If it holds, it would be some baby boomer in their 70s some time in 2016 or even 2020, if we have an equivalent Ford/Carter situation! I wonder who they might be....

Just a thought.

If you didn't happen to catch it, the link is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33213245...eith_olbermann . It will be well worth your time - and it reminded me just how 4T the health care system is right now, no matter how gleaming hospitals may look from the outside. (Part of the problem IMHO . . . )

Originally Posted by radind

There are already many doctors who will not accept Medicare patients because the payments are too low.

Really? I've spent many, many years selling outpatient laboratory tests to doctors, in their offices. There are a few examples of niche physicians I can think of who refused Medicare, and a few who specialized in "diseases of the rich."

Many doctors? Do you have any descriptive material on this? Like numbers by specialty, or by geography or whatever?

Does anyone have numbers as to how many of the 47 million uninsured owe their uninsured status to "pre-existing conditions"?

I'm postulating that the "progressives" are trying to get these people out front and center as much as possible - after all, they are, on aggregate, richer, older, and, yes, whiter, than the rest of the uninsured.

Back in the early '70s these public-service commercials used to air about how "even nice people get VD" (that's what they used to call STDs, if any late-wave Millennials or - who knows? - early-wave Homelanders are reading this). Isn't essentially the same point being driven home by trotting out all these pre-existing conditions stories; that is to say, that even "nice" people (read: middle-class, middle-aged, "Middle Americans" - and above all, U.S. citizens) can be uninsured too?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Does anyone have numbers as to how many of the 47 million uninsured owe their uninsured status to "pre-existing conditions"?

I'm postulating that the "progressives" are trying to get these people out front and center as much as possible - after all, they are, on aggregate, richer, older, and, yes, whiter, than the rest of the uninsured.

Back in the early '70s these public-service commercials used to air about how "even nice people get VD" (that's what they used to call STDs, if any late-wave Millennials or - who knows? - early-wave Homelanders are reading this). Isn't essentially the same point being driven home by trotting out all these pre-existing conditions stories; that is to say, that even "nice" people (read: middle-class, middle-aged, "Middle Americans" - and above all, U.S. citizens) can be uninsured too?

Uh, no, we're not really looking at race here, Anthony.

Snowe has indicated she will vote for the Finance Committee bill.

Also, Rockerfeller and Wyden have indicated ayes as well.

When the merged bill finally comes to the Senate floor, the filibuster may come down to Lieberman's vote, at least as long as the public option stays out at that point (Snowe indicated she won't vote aye on the floor if the PO is added).

One rumor is to close-out the fillibuster first, then amend the bill with a public option under a simple majority. I'm not sure that is possible, but some believe that it is.

The option for the public option most talked about is one that individual states can opt out of (confusing, hey? )

That would create a divide between Red and Blue states that could really test fundamental thinking. Over the coming years, it might be the route to really marginalizing the GOP particularly in the South - either people leaving those states to get good health coverage or the people remaining getting fed-up with the lack of government support when it counts. Interesting times are just beginning.

Breaking news -

After a five-hour hearing, the Senate Finance Committee voted 14 to 9 in favor of a bill overhauling the health care system. The only Republican on the panel to vote in support of the proposal was Senator Olympia Snowe, who cautioned that her vote today wasn’t a forecast of how she might vote later on.

This likely means that Collins will vote for it as well (again, if public option is not added). That will put pressure on Lieberman to vote for cloture as well.

This parliamentary trick of getting cloture first then adding the PO as an amendment becomes even more interesting. Any one know if this is possible?

Originally Posted by TnT

Really? I've spent many, many years selling outpatient laboratory tests to doctors, in their offices. There are a few examples of niche physicians I can think of who refused Medicare, and a few who specialized in "diseases of the rich."

Many doctors? Do you have any descriptive material on this? Like numbers by specialty, or by geography or whatever?

Only have anecdotal stories from old & not rich people I know.( one of these was a family member)
-Most of these from people who were turned down with explanation: “ Dr. not accepting any (more) Medicare patients.”
-I will look for some data.

This is very depressing because the rationale is pretty darn solid -

Fate of Healthcare Reform Is in Joe Lieberman's Hands

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-b..._b_315987.html

- because Lieberman is nothing, if not a self-serving snake.

Originally Posted by radind

Only have anecdotal stories from old & not rich people I know....-Most of these from people who were turned down with explanation: 'Dr. not accepting any (more) Medicare patients.'
-I will look for some data.

I haven't found a good summary article . Following is a limited sample from quick search:

Medicare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/bu.../02health.html
Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn’t Easy
..."The solution to this problem is to find doctors who accept Medicare insurance — and to do it well before reaching age 65. But that is not always easy, especially if you are looking for an internist, a primary care doctor who deals with adults. Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare, according to the hospital’s Web site...."

http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.0905/0062.html
OB-GYN-L Messages for May, 2009: Re: my thoughts on Medicare
..."that the majority of doctors refuse Medicare patients already, and they just might lose the rest of us? Or, perhaps, that is the plan to decrease the healthcare financial burden by limiting access so people die sooner because they cannot access quality care. I just don't understand the healthcare industry today. On the other hand, in the era of doublespeak, healthcare is a misnomer and healthcareless is probably a better term.

http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/736149.html
City doctors turn away new Medicare patients

ANCHORAGE: For the sick and old, public clinics often the only option.
By GEORGE BRYSON.Published: March 25th, 2009 02:22 PM
"Only 13 of 75 primary care doctors surveyed in Anchorage are willing to accept new Medicare patients, according to a study by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage."...

Medicaid:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...-chronic_N.htm
Chronic conditions crank up health costs
..."Medicaid, which covers poor children and the disabled, also discourages doctors from taking on new patients. The federal program, which is run by the states, pays doctors an average of 28% less than Medicare, says David Tayloe, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. So many doctors refuse to treat patients on Medicaid"...

Perhaps you have other data.

Whoa!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._with_the.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared before the Judiciary Committee today in an unusual capacity: as a witness. He was there to argue that the Senate should repeal the insurance industry's exemption from anti-trust statutes (an exemption that they share only with Major League Baseball).

.
.
.
But Reid isn't an expert on anti-trust law, and as Senate Majority Leader, he doesn't spur legislative action by testifying before Senate Committees. He was really there to send a clear and unmistakable signal to the insurance industry in the aftermath of Monday's assault on health-care reform: Attack us, and we'll hurt you. Badly.

Why (and HOW?) on earth did these guys get an anti-trust exemption in the first place?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Why (and HOW?) on earth did these guys get an anti-trust exemption in the first place?

What did you think the purpose of anti-trust law was/is, if not to protect entrenched interests?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Why (and HOW?) on earth did these guys get an anti-trust exemption in the first place?

The offensive piece of legislation is called McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Let the bastards filibuster. And make them actually stand up and do it in the chamber.

In a word, yes.
If "they" really don't think that healthcare is a pressing issue, let them press their kidneys and bladder into service of their cause.
At least a real filibuster would force them to wear a diaper under their thousand dollar suits and/or dresses while working in the ornate Senate chamber.
That would get old fast. ::