Here is the Keith Olbermann commentary on the Senate bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...55431#34455431

I would be interested in hearing the reaction of fellow Progressives after viewing it. I must say that the last 12 hours has turned me against this.

Earlier on the program they indicated that one of the new changes is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines by setting up in a state with little or no regulation and allowing the laws of that state to cover the contract. There are people in public life and on the internet whose opinions I absolutely loathe and have not an iota of respect for. They have long advocated such an idea. If this is true, its the final nail in the coffin for me.

Krugman weights-in, level-headed -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...nd-bitterness/

...Now, in a hostage situation there are times when you have to just say no — when giving in, by encouraging future hostage-takers, would be worse than letting the hostages perish. So the question has to be, is this one of those times? I don’t think so, given the history: as Kevin Drum points out, health reform has come back weaker after each defeat. I’d also point out that highly imperfect insurance reforms, like Social Security and Medicare in their initial incarnations, have gotten more comprehensive over time. This suggests that the priority is to get something passed.

But what’s happening, I think, goes beyond health care; what we’re seeing is disillusionment with Obama among some of the people who were his most enthusiastic supporters. A lot of people seem shocked to find that he’s not the transformative figure of their imaginations. Can I say I told you so? If you paid attention to what he said, not how he said it, it was obvious from the beginning — and I’m talking about 2007 — that he was going to be much less aggressive about change than one could have hoped. And this has done a lot of damage: I believe he could have taken a tougher line on economic policy and the banks, and was tearing my hair out over his caution early this year. I also believe that if he had been tougher on those issues, he’d be better able to weather disappointment over his health care compromises.

So there’s a lot of bitterness out there. But please, keep your priorities straight.

By all means denounce Obama for his failed bipartisan gestures. By all means criticize the administration. But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck — and, in some cases, dead — if it doesn’t.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Here is the Keith Olbermann commentary on the Senate bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...55431#34455431

I would be interested in hearing the reaction of fellow Progressives after viewing it. I must say that the last 12 hours has turned me against this.

Earlier on the program they indicated that one of the new changes is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines by setting up in a state with little or no regulation and allowing the laws of that state to cover the contract. There are people in public life and on the internet whose opinions I absolutely loathe and have not an iota of respect for. They have long advocated such an idea. If this is true, its the final nail in the coffin for me.

Take a deep breath and repeat after me:

THIS IS NOT THE FINAL BILL. THIS IS *NOT* THE FINAL BILL. THIS IS *ONLY* THE SENATE BILL. THE SENATE AND HOUSE MUST PASS THE SAME BILL, AND THEN IT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Take a deep breath and repeat after me:

THIS IS NOT THE FINAL BILL. THIS IS *NOT* THE FINAL BILL. THIS IS *ONLY* THE SENATE BILL. THE SENATE AND HOUSE MUST PASS THE SAME BILL, AND THEN IT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT.

But what if it is the final bill?
The past is prolouge.
Having seen the process so far, I have no faith in the United States Senate to do the right thing.
It is a failed institution.
Does anyone really believe that the Masters of the Senate, a.k.a. the insurance lobbyists, are going to let the individual mandate be taken out of the bill? To say nothing of allowing it to be strengthened in any meaningful way?

And it's becoming clear to me that the current administration has no better understanding of America outside of the beltway than the previous one. Today they had Gibbs critisize Dr. Dean for telling the simple truth that the Senate bill is hopelessly corrupt.
Next up will come Obama threatening the progressives in the house while continuing his supplication of the forces that are sabotaging his presidentcy in the name of a mythical post partisanship. He will continue to kick blue and kiss red if I may borrow the globally reversed partisan color pattern that corporate television assigned to us in 2000.
Simply put, if the HCR bill passes in its current Senate form, with individual mandates but no real protection for the people, then Obama will completely lose his base.

This means no netroots money or organization help for the 2010 midterms much less an election day turnout to counterbalance the enraged and energized rightist which is already a given.

It will also guarantee a primary challenger to him in 2012.
And if all of this comes to pass than the challenger will get my support.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Here is the Keith Olbermann commentary on the Senate bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...55431#34455431

I would be interested in hearing the reaction of fellow Progressives after viewing it. I must say that the last 12 hours has turned me against this.

Earlier on the program they indicated that one of the new changes is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines by setting up in a state with little or no regulation and allowing the laws of that state to cover the contract. There are people in public life and on the internet whose opinions I absolutely loathe and have not an iota of respect for. They have long advocated such an idea. If this is true, its the final nail in the coffin for me.

This is all I could find on this -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

and that was published just 4 hours ago.

This would end my support pronto unless there is something more to it. Let's see what shakes out tomorrow. This is at least as big as losing the PO or M-Extended.

Interesting times.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Draft Hillary? It's interesting that we haven't heard a peep out of her in the last year.

It wouldn't be Hillary. As Sec. of State, she has an historically good chance of taking another serious run before she gets too old to try again.
In terms of her being quiet, it's just what a smart Sec. of State with dreams of returning to the White House would do.

I don't know who I may find myself supporting for president in 2012, but I will add one thing.
I think that the core of our 4T will hit in the next decade as we confront a national government effectively paralyzed from taking needed 4T era actions.

We may get a gray champion president.
We may rebuild a workable patchwork America.
Or we may get an Orwellian nightmare that restores order by cracking the whip.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Draft Hillary? It's interesting that we haven't heard a peep out of her in the last year.

Don't worry, its a Progressive (Liberal) classic, 'Me and my shadows' routine. Its kind of funny, when they got the power and can you believe it, not everyone agrees. What a concept. I didn't see President Obama inviting 40 GOP as well to the White House. It was just 2 Independents and 58 Democrats. With only Harry Reid and a pen writing the legislation.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh I knew what you meant.

Oh, I see, just back to your silly gadfly role.
Okay.
Carry on.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

... when they got the power ...

How stupid and/or uninformed do you think this makes you look to anyone who isn't brain dead and doesn't now understand what "filibuster" means or that Lieberman is a jerkoff?

Are you trying to usurp Rani's role on this forum? She's a master; it might be better to just observe her and try her wares out on another forum.

On the other hand, the inevitable cat fight should be immensely entertaining.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Don't worry, its a Progressive (Liberal) classic, 'Me and my shadows' routine. Its kind of funny, when they got the power and can you believe it, not everyone agrees. What a concept. I didn't see President Obama inviting 40 GOP as well to the White House. It was just 2 Independents and 58 Democrats. With only Harry Reid and a pen writing the legislation.

The Senate is a failed institution because both parties have made it dysfunctional.
The Republicans believe that the blind obstructionism of a permanent filibuster is the best way to rebuild their party.
And the Democratic majority is complicit with them because many of them are shaking down their corporate masters in this time of easy picking.


In terms of the bill itself, there are plenty of amendments, including some good ones like the living will provision that were first proposed by Republicans. The committee process still works correctly. It is when a bill gets further down the line that the breakdowns occur.In terms of getting invited to the White House, only Olympia Snowe has indicated any willingness to make the presidents' bipartisan quest a success.

Originally Posted by playwrite

How stupid and/or uninformed do you think this makes you look to anyone who isn't brain dead and doesn't now understand what "filibuster" means or that Lieberman is a jerkoff?

Are you trying to usurp Rani's role on this forum? She's a master; it might be better to just observe her and try her wares out on another forum.

On the other hand, the inevitable cat fight should be immensely entertaining.

Now the entire Senate is corrupt because they do not agree with your Progressive values, nor should they. Its clear you are unhappy about the turn of events in this discussion. I have said since the beginning start with GEHA and go from there. Can you believe in the real world, there are other Americans out there that may disagree with your Progressive ideas. If not they are watching your way of governing and are now rejecting it. Rani has good ideas, don't insult her because she doesn't share your values as well.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

Without any public option, the plan effectively Massachusetts-izes the nation. Yes, there are additional things in there, and they're important, but the national plan looks more like Mass. than anything else.

When we would be infinitely better off Utah-izing the nation instead! Some of the core principles of which John McCain supported in last year's election (and were first thought up by Ira Magaziner in the early 1990s).

Make the Republicans try to defend a nationwide health-care system that is even further to the right of that of one the most right-wing states we have.

That is to say, make them try to defend the indefensible.

Originally Posted by playwrite

How stupid and/or uninformed do you think this makes you look to anyone who isn't brain dead and doesn't now understand what "filibuster" means or that Lieberman is a jerkoff?

Are you trying to usurp Rani's role on this forum? She's a master; it might be better to just observe her and try her wares out on another forum.

On the other hand, the inevitable cat fight should be immensely entertaining.

Bye, I just asked to have my account disable by the webmaster. You win Playwrite.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But what if it is the final bill?

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

You're right; the Senate process stinks to high heaven. There just aren't enough liberal/progressive voices in that chamber to push the best bill through under the current system.

I do want my half a loaf as opposed to getting nothing at all. Of course, I'll turn it down if there are indeed poison pills hidden inside. I agree with Playwrite that the change that Haymarket mentioned would count as one of the poison pills.

As far as the politics go, well, I still feel it's way way too early to handicap the 2012 race. Don't misunderestimate Mr. Obama. Many have, to their eternal regret.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

You're right; the Senate process stinks to high heaven. There just aren't enough liberal/progressive voices in that chamber to push the best bill through under the current system.

I do want my half a loaf as opposed to getting nothing at all. Of course, I'll turn it down if there are indeed poison pills hidden inside. I agree with Playwrite that the change that Haymarket mentioned would count as one of the poison pills.

While I emailed my representative and senators a while ago that a public option was a compromise (and not having one was unacceptable to me), I think now I'm going to email my senators now to pass what's there. If we just stop now we'll never get started again.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Bye, I just asked to have my account disable by the webmaster. You win Playwrite.

I had the same thought as you for a very similar reason, but I've come to a different conclusion: Just ignore him.

He doesn't want to talk policy (that's a circle jerk), he doesn't want to talk ideology (that's fantasy), he really just wants to let you know what Klein & Krugman and the rest of the party's PR people want you to know.

This seems to actually be pretty common among partisan 'moderates' who believe they can hold an intellectually secure position without applying intellectual rigor.

Its just these days, with the scam so visible, they're mostly being reduced to insults & name calling.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Now the entire Senate is corrupt because they do not agree with your Progressive values, nor should they. Its clear you are unhappy about the turn of events in this discussion. I have said since the beginning start with GEHA and go from there. Can you believe in the real world, there are other Americans out there that may disagree with your Progressive ideas. If not they are watching your way of governing and are now rejecting it. Rani has good ideas, don't insult her because she doesn't share your values as well.

This isn't about differences in opinions on issues. This is about establishing or propagating false memes (e.g., the Dem are in complete control) in order to bury the truth for political advantage. It is at the heart of what's wrong with what passes as political discourse in this country today.

I don't think Rani marks it as an insult my pointing out that her primary roll here is to offer up cynical snide remarks. I think she sees it as another earned merit badge - its an Xer thingee.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Nate Silver has some pinted questions for those Progressives now wanting to kill the Senate Bill.

I think you meant "pointed questions" but the alternative sounds pretty darn good right now.

Anyway, looks like Nate has gotten some interesting answers to his 20 questions.

Warning: long wonky discussion.

Indy, care to comment on any of it? Seems pretty intellectually rigorous to me.

Originally Posted by independent

I had the same thought as you for a very similar reason, but I've come to a different conclusion: Just ignore him.

He doesn't want to talk policy (that's a circle jerk), he doesn't want to talk ideology (that's fantasy), he really just wants to let you know what Klein & Krugman and the rest of the party's PR people want you to know.

This seems to actually be pretty common among partisan 'moderates' who believe they can hold an intellectually secure position without applying intellectual rigor.

Its just these days, with the scam so visible, they're mostly being reduced to insults & name calling.

Where we left off, Indy, -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1078
- had you equating insurers keeping 20% rather than only 10% of revenue as being equivalent to 300,000 more dead uninsured people and you’re using insurers' studies to support your arguments. If that's your currently choosen intellectual rigor, I'll pass.

And if you want play cozy feet with those wanting to propagate false memes, well that basically seals where your head is at these days - pretty dark in there, ain't it?

Too bad, you had shown glimmers of intellectual rigor in the not-so-distant past.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Here is the Keith Olbermann commentary on the Senate bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...55431#34455431

I would be interested in hearing the reaction of fellow Progressives after viewing it. I must say that the last 12 hours has turned me against this.

Earlier on the program they indicated that one of the new changes is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines by setting up in a state with little or no regulation and allowing the laws of that state to cover the contract. There are people in public life and on the internet whose opinions I absolutely loathe and have not an iota of respect for. They have long advocated such an idea. If this is true, its the final nail in the coffin for me.

Anyone find out more about this???!!!

CoS has this right - this could be the poison pill.

PW - I think the Post article you linked to earlier pretty much says it all. If you look at the end of it it details an amendment to the bill which pretty much places all states in the same straightjacket and will allow a national policy to supercede stronger state regulations if the company simply alerts the policy holder that they are screwed and there is no KY to go with the procedure.

To me, that is the poison pill.

Here is Howard Dean in todays Post:

Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform


By Howard Dean
Thursday, December 17, 2009
If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.


Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.



From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.

To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform -- which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

The writer is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and was governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

PW - I think the Post article you linked to earlier pretty much says it all. If you look at the end of it it details an amendment to the bill which pretty much places all states in the same straightjacket and will allow a national policy to supercede stronger state regulations if the company simply alerts the policy holder that they are screwed and there is no KY to go with the procedure.

To me, that is the poison pill.

Here is Howard Dean in todays Post:

I think it is there but I want to know the context, the limits that may (or, may not) have been imposed. I want an explanation from someone I can trust, and supports this or at least is okay with it. I can't find it - yet.

A good example of the type of context that can make a concern melt away actually comes from dissecting Dean's article. I'm very disappointed if this is the basis for Dean jettisoning his support. Although he may be playing some political game to help move the needle back - I just don't know. But on the face of it and from a policy standpoint, if you strip away all the unsubstantiated claims, what you're left with is that they dropped the PO and M-Extended and then this one paragraph -

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

As I've laid out above, I've come around to accept the political reality of losing PO and M-Extended mostly because these are exactly what could be taken up through rescission and I trust the gang of Senators mentioned about to do that - and for a lot of reasons.

So, lets go back to Dean's one paragraph with any substance and strip out what looks real, but explore in context of the whole effort. That comes down to 4 things -

But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage.

What does he think happens under the present system? Does he mention that incorporating everyone in the pool lowers not only the total costs but the differential in absolute terms. If before, the average youth was paying $50 and average old people paying (3x) $150, but after, average youth pays $25 and average old people pay (3x) $75, what the hell is the beef???!!!

Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company

Yea, $75 the first year and then a slow climb up from there with tons of exemptions for those where this would be a difficulty. Between kids covered under their parents plans until 26 and only idiots in their 30s not having coverage, and after the exemptions, the vast majority of people still covered under group plans, the subsidies given to people to pay, just who is left that will have to fork over their $75??? No country with universal health care, done either through government or by regulated insurers, gets there without requiring everyone to join in. The Senate Bill does it in the least possible intrusive way. Sure the teabaggers and Glibetarians are going to whine about any penny they have to fork over, but we grown-ups have to carry on.

which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders.

Here, he pivots from talking about percent of revenue towards costs to implying that it all goes to CEO salaries and shareholders. This would make the average teabagger blush! First of all, its 70% now; the Senate bill would make the 75/80% for individual/group insurance. Also, the actual profitability of the insurers is in the 3 -5% area and ranks as an industry in the mid 50s against other businesses in our economy. The insurance business may be as inefficent as hell, but it sure isn't a top line profit machine And let's just tax all the 0.1% income levels, CEOs or otherwise, at a 70-90% marginal rate, period!

Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014

This is perhaps the most disappointing from Dean. The fact that most benefits start in 2014 has long been the case and well know by Dean when he enthusiastically supported the Bill before M-extended got ‘liebermanned.’

I am very disappointed in Dean. I hate this kind of shit from teabaggers, but it is much much worst to have it come from a Progressive that I admire. I have no doubt his heart is in the right place, but this is very serious for our nation and he needs to step it up a whole hell of a lot more than what he's done to make his case. The benchmark to measure his disappointment and concern against is the thousands of deaths of the uninsured that will occur if we don't get something past that looks at least a lot like what's now offered.

I'd like to see him drill in and tell me what he thinks about the poison pills that might be there - like this x-state lines issue that has me ready to jettison my support.

He doesn’t make the case for me, but this x-state line issue could..

Still looking for it.

This is just a nitpick, but I find it irritating that some people are calling this a "bailout" for the insurance companies. It isn't at all clear to me that the insurance companies are in financial straits.

I guess if you use the word "bailout" enough times, folks will associate it with Wall Street and the auto companies -- then those knee-jerk emotions will kick in, and pretty soon it's all over for any type of bill.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Take a deep breath and repeat after me:

THIS IS NOT THE FINAL BILL. THIS IS *NOT* THE FINAL BILL. THIS IS *ONLY* THE SENATE BILL. THE SENATE AND HOUSE MUST PASS THE SAME BILL, AND THEN IT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT.

Exactly. The House and the Senate will get together and develop a "Conference Bill". The Conference Committee members (Senators and Congresspeople) will decide which parts of the final bill will come from the Senate and which from the House. Then the House and then the Senate will vote on it. Finally, if it passes the House and the Senate, the President needs to sign it.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

This is just a nitpick, but I find it irritating that some people are calling this a "bailout" for the insurance companies. It isn't at all clear to me that the insurance companies are in financial straits.

I guess if you use the word "bailout" enough times, folks will associate it with Wall Street and the auto companies -- then those knee-jerk emotions will kick in, and pretty soon it's all over for any type of bill.

Yglesias has a good take on that -
http://tinyurl.com/y8dbntt

I’ve seen Marcy Wheeler characterize the plan as an “industry bailout.” And, indeed, if I were a small government conservative one political tactic I would employ would be to start characterizing all initiatives involving government spending as a “bailout.” You could say that ARRA’s provisions funding K-12 education are a “bailout for teacher’s unions.” You could call ACES a “bailout for windmill makers.” And you can call the health care bill an “insurance company bailout.” But the mechanism by which insurers can get extra money under reform is that . . . more people get health insurance at a price they can afford.