BACKBONE: Howard Dean says: Vote the Senate health-care 'reform' DOWN by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

BACKBONE: Howard Dean says: Vote the Senate health-care 'reform' DOWN

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 20:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4436
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:06 PM

Hmm. I'm not sure you could really say it's the US's bicameral system that's the problem.

Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, India, Mexico, Pakistan all have at least a semi-presidential bicameral system, can't be said to have a parliament, and yet have multiple parties. So it's not just the American system, and as far as I was aware, don't the Brits have two major parties with a few third parties no one takes seriously?

Multiple parties only work to varying degrees. Parties and individual causes tend to get absorbed by bigger parties or coalition governments, until you're back to two and us versus them. I think the American two parties (though there have ALMOST been three at times, I think there was a populist party movement sometime in the 19th century) are pretty firmly established to have been from the beginning, though I don't think it necessarily had to go this way. But that's mostly because the Federalists were douchebags who knew how to manipulate the public, and knew how they could use "us versus them" mentality.

EDIT: Brits were commonly divided between the Conservatives and the New Labour. The Liberal Democrats are a relatively recent upstart. I predict they'll be absorbed by or take over the New Labour, and then they're back down to two.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'll get back with you later today - I hope. Some of your facts are not quite right. But if I don't post today, which is a possibility - please put this back up top tomorrow.

THANKS !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:22 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I'd like to find out in more detail what are some of the things you have in mind, if you don't mind posting them.

When it comes to the actual implementation and how things would work of ideas, I don't have much experience. But, healthcare. One thing that could be done locally, if you removed or greatly diminished the power of the insurance industries, you could have something like cooperatives based on the model of small scale credit-unions.

And also charitable organizations to cover people who can't afford being in the co-op. There are such charitable medical organizations even now, within the U.S. borders, but they don't get much attention. It's a pity, really. They work a lot like doctor's without borders.

Maybe it's just because I live in Utah that I think charity could work. Say what you will about the Mormons (and I've said my share myself), but when one of their members are in trouble, they rally to incredible lengths. It's funny, because most of them are adamant Republicans, and you might hear them scoffing about welfare... Well, what was that dinner and all those cookies you took over to poor retired widow Mrs. Burton a few nights ago? Their religion is practically a state sponsored welfare program. *shake head* But, it works, and there really isn't a lot of lawmaking that goes into it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:57 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, what I heard a while ago is that the ins. co's monopoly status makes small co-ops or actually any OTHER insurance company start-ups virtually impossible. It's been long enough ago that I forget the reasons, tho' I do remember one was their influence in local government.

Bingo Rue!

Quote:
I think it's b/c in this 'winner take all' system being a third party candidate is almost like not being there. You will never ever have a chance to get your agenda through. So you pick one side, or the other, whatever you can stomach the best, and try to ride the wave.

I think, in other words, that's it's a structural property of our system, and not just a matter of habit.

and

Quote:
If we could dissolve the ruling government at any time - if we had a parliamentary sytem - coalitions would be vital to holding power.

That's exactly what I believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:13 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Byte, what I heard a while ago is that the ins. co's monopoly status makes small co-ops or actually any OTHER insurance company start-ups virtually impossible. It's been long enough ago that I forget the reasons, tho' I do remember one was their influence in local government.

That's why I said this:

Quote:
One thing that could be done locally, if you removed or greatly diminished the power of the insurance industries

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:39 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
That's part of the PLAN, to give the appearance nothing can get done unless "someone" goes and "takes matters in hand" - it's a piece of nice, juicy bait hanging out there waiting for useful idiots like baby wulfie with no sense to bite on.

OUCH! Frem, I get the distinct impression you've tried and tried with Wulfie, and are just about done with trying to teach him anything.

If it's any consolation, you've taught ME plenty! And I'm forever in your debt for it.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:52 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

EDIT: Brits were commonly divided between the Conservatives and the New Labour. The Liberal Democrats are a relatively recent upstart. I predict they'll be absorbed by or take over the New Labour, and then they're back down to two.

You've kinda got that backwards. The Lib Dems formed from a merger of the Liberal and Social Democratic party in 1988, but the Liberals predate Labour. Labour took over from the Liberals as the major left-wing party in the 1920's. New Labour is just branding from Tony Blair which let him abandon the party's core ideals.

The House of Commons currently seats 11 political parties, Labour has Majority and Conservative is the leader of the Shadow government with the next highest majority.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:12 PM

BYTEMITE

Ah.

Hehe @ Shadow government

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:14 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ah.

Hehe @ Shadow government

The official term believe it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_government

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:53 PM

BYTEMITE

Wow, they're not even hiding it!

(Kidding, but how strange)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:02 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Byte, what I heard a while ago is that the ins. co's monopoly status makes small co-ops or actually any OTHER insurance company start-ups virtually impossible. It's been long enough ago that I forget the reasons, tho' I do remember one was their influence in local government.

That's why I said this:

Quote:
One thing that could be done locally, if you removed or greatly diminished the power of the insurance industries

Yup, and their specific anti-trust exemption is shielded by the new bill, and codified into law. Of course it is. :(

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:23 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Shit, Mike, I didn't know THAT was part of it too!!! Damn and f*ck...

They've really got a good thing going with this bill, don't they? Couldn't have fixed it better themselves...and if they'd PROPOSED this initially, it'd have been laughed out of Congress...bastards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 18, 2009 6:49 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Howard Dean goes to war... against Obama in 2012
http://4wrdthnkndad.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/if-current-healthcare-ref
orm-passes-then-howard-dean-in-2012/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:20 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

"Democrats Say They Clinch Deal on Health Care Overhaul"

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/democrats-say-they-c
linch-deal-on-health-care-overhauls/?hp

"As the Senate convened in a driving snowstorm, Democratic lawmakers and senior officials said a breakthrough came when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, agreed after hours of negotiation Friday to back the legislation, making him the pivotal 60th vote."

"Mr. Reid’s amendment also includes a substantial increase in federal contributions to Nebraska’s costs of providing Medicaid coverage to the poor."

It's like a rug bazaar, Baghdad, circa 500 B.C...

Trying to get this through before Christmas - when everyone is busy doing other things - is pretty sh*tty too.

I think Byte made the suggestion: let's all just stop paying for insurance - A Nationwide "Eff The Insurance Companies Day."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:03 PM

CITIZEN

Now this is comedy:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 19, 2009 3:36 PM

DREAMTROVE

Re: the bill

It just looks like a very ugly tax on the poor that guarantees no extra medical care. Providedrs and insurance companies can still select what care you will receive, kick out people who are really sick, and include huge deductables so that care isn't actually free. This might very well be *worse* than what we have now, because at least now a healthcare provide can't refuse treatment, but soon, they won't have to, an insurance auditor can do it for them.

I'm pretty strongly RTL myself, but I find this stance just inherently absurd in its contradictions: The bill will charge families by the child, but will not cover abortion. I'm sorry, okay, you can't have the abortion *and* we will add the new child to your policy, which you will have to buy...

Argh. Dean is a dick, but I agree, even if he's just jumping on a bandwagon a la Kerry and Gore. Vote it down and try again later. It's not like the idea is dead forever if the bill fails. A bill can be tried every year, which means that if this bill dies in the House, they won't be able to float another universal healthcare bill that actually *does* contain the public option until 2010, which is less than two weeks from now. I wouldn't be panicking at this point. Just kill it, and write a new bill.

Citizen,

You'll notice a radical misuse of the term "Shadow Government" in the US.

Personally, I support the Shadow Govt. and hope that when they win in 2010 they actually do what they say... but that's another matter

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 20, 2009 3:53 AM

JKIDDO

BTW, that's a real phone number in the moveon.org ad. I suggest that you use it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree, DT, this bill is a sham and a gimme to the insurance companies. Without a public option and WITH the individual mandate, it's worsre than a joke, it's insane. But I'm not sure failure means it'll be tried again any time soon. I think having observed what happened this time will make any legislator shy away from tackling it again any time soon, which is a damned shame.

It's just proven to me that the ins. co.s and pharma are more powerful than our government, and how that makes me feel, well, I'll refrain.

And yes, Citizen, that prayer thing wasn't even a joke, it was a travesty...that ANY people should pray the way they did sickens me; that they would take it to this extreme leaves me speechless. While I don't want to see the bill survive as things are now, the use of religion, and the absolutely nauseating things I heard, nonetheless make me want to lash out...badly!

The Lieberman thing was all too right on to be funny...but it was all too right on!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:42 AM

JKIDDO

Niki, if the bill is voted down then progressive voters can look to unseating specific roadblocks in the Senate in 2010. (We're looking at YOU, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Birch Bayh.

). Don't you think that a lot of progressive rage can't be stirred up against them? It's time the Party purged itself of its right wing anyway... and replacing just one of these dickheads with a more progressive vote would be enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 20, 2009 8:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I absolutely agree, but whether outrage at the Dems not being able to accomplish anything can outweigh outrage at the repubs for not letting anything BE accomplished is bigger will determine the outcome.

Or perhaps I should say, the dems' ability to drive outrage v. the repubs' ability, since it's not about what IS SO, but what is MADE TO SEEM SO.

Sadly, I see the repubs (as they have always been) more adept at manipulation than the dems, but I'll hold out hope.

Yes, if they'd JUST had 60 real dems, or more than 60 with 60 with few enough blue dogs to resist them...but will that ever happen? Will 60 ever happen again in my lifetime? That's the question.

Dems have always been "like herding cats" while repubs like herding shep...the problem with a "big tent" that actually encompasses semi-dems...

(I'm posting a viral video representation of the repubs' ability to control their sheep on Talk Story; check it out just for the entertainment value!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If only they had just said NO.

F@(K.

"WASHINGTON -- After hours of negotiations at the White House, labor unions agreed Thursday afternoon to support healthcare reform legislation with a tax on expensive insurance plans, a provision they had opposed loudly for months. The deal is a big win for the administration, which managed to dodge a revolt by key allies on President Obama's top domestic policy priority.

So the reform bill inched along, one step closer to passage. "We believe we are going to actually implement a healthcare plan that is good for American families," said Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union. (White House officials confirmed the agreement not long after labor officials announced it.)

Quite a few more details need to be worked out to combine the bills passed by the House and Senate, but the excise tax was one of the bigger ones. Union leaders were able to soften the tax's impact a bit: it won't take effect until 2013; it will affect plans that cost more than $24,000 per family or $8,900 for individuals, up slightly from the levels in the Senate bill; those levels will be adjusted annually for inflation and adjusted additionally for plans that are expensive because they cover inherently expensive groups, and they won't include the cost of dental or vision plans after 2015; plans worked out through collective bargaining will be exempt from the tax altogether until 2018; and by then, unions in collective bargaining agreements would be able to buy insurance through a new exchange system the legislation would set up, instead of going through employers. (In the years in between, unions could try to renegotiate their contracts to get higher wages instead of so-called "Cadillac" healthcare plans.) The changes mean the tax won't raise as much money to offset the costs of the bill -- the tax would raise $90 billion over 10 years, instead of $150 billion as the Senate bill had it."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since this is the thread where I believe most of the useful debate on healthcare is located, though several threads have recently become healthcare threads, I will post here.

I have no problem with a government-run public option.

I have no problem with the richest people underwriting at least some of it with taxes. After all, if they get 95% of the benefit of this system, perhaps they should be paying 95% of the taxes to make it work.

But I understand the many calculations behind not doing it.

ONE is that by making PEOPLE pay into PRIVATE insurance plans the costs get hidden from view.

Politically, this is a good thing, b/c it doesn't increase the federal deficit (BIG no-no) OR taxes (even BIGGER no-no).

And it keeps the rich comfy - even gives them more than they already have, ensuring they will go along.

TWO is that by putting ALL medical care squarely onto private insurers, it keeps them from 'cherry-picking' the most profitable payers, while dumping the ones who really need expensive care onto the government - at public expense.

Most people have been assuming that government health care will be cheaper per person, which is what will drive the rates. But IF it is forced to pick up the worst cases without getting enough of the better ones, it may in fact be more expensive. And dumping expensive cases onto government while keeping the better ones could make private insurance even MORE profitable. And that would be one of those regrettable unintended consequences.

As to Obama's role on health care, I think he is playing an interesting game. He COULD be hammering the issue from the bully pulpit, stating what HAS to happen to make things right for the tens of thousands of people each year who are dying, literally, for medical care. Instead, he talks about bipartisanship, puts Baucus in charge in the Senate, compromises away anything of value in the reform ... ALL THE WHILE exhorting the democrats to get the job done.

How I read this: (Obama) "I need to be forced into this, literally, so that I can get credit for getting it done, while at the same time keeping my cred with business."

Signed,

The ever cynical and rueful
Rue

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There are TWO critical pieces to health care reform:

One is the public option: Allow people to buy into Medicare.

The other is to require that insurance companies take all applicants, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and require that the ratio between highest to lowest premiums not be any greater than a factor of two.

Then let the games begin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:27 PM

KWICKO

A lot is being made of "portability" by those on the right, and I know what they're getting at. They SAY they want you to be able to carry your coverage across state lines if you move for a better job, or whatever (which seems a laudable goal); what they MEAN, though, is that this portability would mean that insurance would only have to be as good as that in the states with the WORST insurance plans, and that you (as another state) couldn't require MORE than that, because it would be unfair. That's why conservatives keep bringing up portability, and what they mean when they talk about it.

So address portability, by all means. But let's step around the issue of that idea that insurance in all states must match that of the LEAST states. Hell, we can write it so that it must match that of the BEST states, if we wanted to. Hawaiian-style insurance reform, anyone? :)

And "tort reform"... The amount of money that's eaten up by tort lawsuits is on the order of 2 to 3 percent of their profits. So when the conservatives start saying that the solution to healthcare reform is tort reform, just remember their reaction to Obama telling us all to save gas by checking our tires. If you thought his suggestion was ridiculous, you should think theirs is, too.

Would Iike to see SOME kind of tort reform? Sure; wouldn't everybody? But they keep talking numbers like $100,000 lifetime payout for extreme malpractice events like taking off the wrong leg (and then having to take the other one, too, because it had to come off to begin with). And they want this tort reform to apply to EVERYTHING, across the board, it seems. That means Ford's Pinto debacle would have had a maximum payout of $100,000 for killing people with a design they KNEW to be faulty and dangerous. Hell, no wonder greed-heads want that kind of reform. It would leave them all but immune to ever having to pay for their fuck-ups.

So much for paying lip service to "responsibility", eh?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:27 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Former DNC Head Howard Dean Slams Gov. DeSantis As Bigger 'Lunatic' Than Even Trump

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/howard-dean-ron-desantis-trump-lunatic-
covid-msnbc_n_612abc91e4b0f562f3dec959

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE