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

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, September 14, 2025 23:09
VIEWED: 6482
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:18 PM

Sometimes your only power is in saying "no" and walking away.

Walk away, and tell your Senators to do the same!

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:52 PM

Heh, if only he'd displayed some spine when his own party threw him under the bus instead of crawling to them begging, I might not find the guy so despicable - but yeah, he's gotta point, I just don't trust him to stand to it when things get rough, cause when it really counted he not only rolled over, he went sucking up to the very folk who rolled him.

So you cannot trust him.

-F

PARTICIPANT

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:57 PM

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:05 PM

Maybe I should post a picture of Cheney giving everyone the one-fingered salute? Would that be about as topical?

KWICKO

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:07 PM

Pay no attention to PN's alter ego "Piraticipant". He's never had anything relevant to offer.

And yes, I wish the Senate WOULD vote this pig of a bill down, or Obama would veto it. It offers nothing to the average American now, and everything to the insurance companies.

I'm not condoning it or endorsing it, but I'll tell you this for a fact: If this bill passes into law, there 100% absolutely WILL be homegrown "terrorist" attacks against insurance companies and their offices and headquarters. There are going to be people (like Wulfie, maybe, or SergeantX) who are going to decide that the insurance companies might be able to make us pay, but we can make THEM pay even more.

Mark my words, it will happen. At some point, when a group of people are pushed so far, there's nothing left for them to do BUT react violently. And this is what happens when you go to your elected representatives to seek redress of grievances in regard to the raping we've all taken at the hands of the insurance lobby.

Like I say, I don't condone it or endorse it, but I understand where they're coming from, and I understand how they feel, and I can see it coming.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:27 PM

I agree.

What I can't figure is how the pols don't "get it". There is an undercurrent of rage and desperation, and one more good fucking over - like we've had for the past nine years- might let it loose. Trillions for the banks, billions for war, but nothing for health care? WTF??? I don't think Americans are going to be satisfied with pretty words and ambiguous statements and politics as usual anymore. Americans that I know are hurting.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:09 PM

Sent to my senators:

NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO BILL.

You need to understand that true desperation exists outside of the Senate's backrooms. Many working people that I know are desperate... desperate for jobs, for homes, and for healthcare. Trillions have been shoveled at banks with no questions asked, billions wasted on endless wars, but nothing for healthcare? Why doesn't the Senate just say "let them eat cake"?

That desperation may very well turn to rage if Americans feel that they have- once again- been bled. Mandated insurance without some form of government option is - AND WILL BE SEEN AS - a giveaway to the insurances. The Senate will be- AND WILL BE SEEN AS- beholden to rapacious big businesses. Even with so-called regulations in place, health insurance will remain unaffordable for the many working people I know. You politicians in Washington need to come to grips with the real world and with real Americans. This is the Democratic Party's defining moment. Come though for the American people in a real way, and you will be in power for the foreseeable future. Waffle on this, and you will be swept away in a torrent of disgust.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:33 PM

After 6 months of this endless debate and political posturing you're willing to just throw it all away? I almost fell off the couch last night when I heard Dean say it on MSNBC. Don't you know how bad Obama needs this to pass, politically speaking that is? Supporters of the House version say pass this watered-down Senate bill, and then add on later. I liked the Medicare at age 55 concept. I think the country could have accepted that because it's already in place. It's quite amazing to see Mr. Dean now on the same side as the "knuckle-dragging neaderthals". If his new position causes just a couple of votes to change, then this thing is dead.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:42 PM

Quote:
If his new position causes just a couple of votes to change, then this thing is dead.

GOOD. As written, the bill is worse than nothing. And that's saying something. Because what happens if you're mandated to buy insurance, you can't be refused for pre-existing conditions but it winds up costing you $1200/ month?? This bill will prolly wind up hurting far more people than it helps.

The "kunckle-draggers" were fighting health care reform. The peeps who don't want THIS bill are fighting FOR reform.

Here's the deal, as I see it: If the Dems don't pass something effective NOW... and I don't mean a waffling placeholder bill that does "something" for Obama but a bill that HELPS PEOPLE in 2010... then the Dems won't be around after that to "add" to the bill.

But if they HELP PEOPLE NOW, then by the time the Senate elections are in play people will have had a chance to experience- and hopefully appreciate- what was done, without all the fear, uncertainty and doubt (the FUD factor) that was roiled up in this past summer.

And right now, who give a frak about Obama's standing? He's not running for office at the moment.

KWICKO

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
After 6 months of this endless debate and political posturing you're willing to just throw it all away? I almost fell off the couch last night when I heard Dean say it on MSNBC. Don't you know how bad Obama needs this to pass, politically speaking that is? Supporters of the House version say pass this watered-down Senate bill, and then add on later. I liked the Medicare at age 55 concept. I think the country could have accepted that because it's already in place. It's quite amazing to see Mr. Dean now on the same side as the "knuckle-dragging neaderthals". If his new position causes just a couple of votes to change, then this thing is dead.

THIS thing - the thing they've got now - rightly deserves to die. And if it takes down the Senate majority, then they'll learn that they should have voted something THE PEOPLE wanted, not what the insurance companies wanted.

Funny thing is, none of them seemed ready to put their job on the line for it. Nobody wanted to make a stand, and say "The people need THIS, and nothing less!" They feared that doing so would result in them being voted out in the next election cycle.

My question to them is this: If you're going to be voted out anyway (and always assume that you are), wouldn't you rather be voted out for doing THE RIGHT THING, rather than for doing NOTHING or THE WRONG THING? I know I would.

Mike

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

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:57 PM

Obama is almost a lame duck right now, especially after his Afghanistan speech. Reid & Pelosi, by virtue of their own ineptitude and stubborness, are just adding to Obama's problems. Obama's approval rating, while slipping, is still more than double that of Reid's and Pelosi's. He has to step in and hammer out a Bill with Congressional leaders of both parties that is shit simple, yet effective. I believe his personal power and charisma can pull it off.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:12 PM

Obama's been bleeding on healthcare reform from the beginning. A constant slow adjustment downwards from "actually helpful" to "gotta keep them lobbyists happy."

I like some of the regulations being proposed the insurance industry, because they've been running wild and the denial of claims have been hurting a lot of people, and I don't think it's right to make a profit at the expense of hurting your customers. But these improvements aren't worth the crap shoot of the rest of it. Opening up the insurance plan already available for government workers to the twelve big pre-existing private insurance companies does not create any new competition. It doesn't create any sort of Co-op for people who want to get around insurance companies.

RUE

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:18 PM

"Don't you know how bad Obama needs this to pass, politically speaking that is?"

The first thing that comes to mind - is that like passing gas ? Or more like a kidney stone ?

But anyway - this is going about like I expected. As I posted over a year and a half ago - the real fight will be AFTER the election. Obama needs to be pushed. WE will HAVE to do the pushing. The big difference between him and McCain is that he is pushable, while McCain was not.

But I expect that as only a few 'progressives' will at this point be making some noise about this (btw, Al Franken as junior member, is for the Senate version), and as only a very few of the electorate seems to care, this will move forward like a steamroller.

FUCK.

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

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

The "kunckle-draggers" were fighting health care reform. The peeps who don't want THIS bill are fighting FOR reform.

I don't think it's that simple. "Reform" has many definitions. Sen. Mary Landreau was given $300 million tax dollars for La. for her one holdout vote just to move the thing forward to allow a vote. Others were "bribed" as well. I guess that's how things work in DC. Pretty disgusting stuff. Does reform to you mean a Govt. option? What about just setting some new laws to abolish the most objectionable practices of private insurers? That's a start. Allowing co's to sell it across state lines would increase competition within the states and lower costs. Tort Reform capping lawsuits against doctors and hospitals...Why not? Or just some type of Govt. credit so that poor people not on MedicAid can get some private insurance at a moderate cost. Going for the whole enchilada at once was doomed for failure. And sorry you Dems have had to discover your own DINOs...we Repubs have had our own RINOs to suffer with for a long time.

RUE

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:33 PM

"What about just setting some new laws to abolish the most objectionable practices of private insurers?"

Like astronomical rates ? Because that's the biggest issue of all, and the reason WHY so many people don't have insurance to start with. To people who can't afford insurance to start with, recission and denial of care are moot.

"Allowing co's to sell it across state lines would increase competition within the states and lower costs."

It hasn't worked for other items like - oh, gasoline. Market forces in the face of collusion ? They're nothing.

"Tort Reform capping lawsuits against doctors and hospitals..."

Texas did that - and it has an area with THE MOST EXPENSIVE health care in the country. Tort reform is a non-issue.

"Or just some type of Govt. credit so that poor people not on MedicAid can get some private insurance at a moderate cost."

And shovel tax dollars to private profit ? I would have thought that you would be against that.

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

Silence is consent.

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Mark my words, it will happen. At some point, when a group of people are pushed so far, there's nothing left for them to do BUT react violently.

I've noticed it's the successful wealthy people who freak out violently most often. The economic fall is more shocking to them, they have more resources, and more to lose, plus the deadly sin of pride. And they're more brainwashed that all is perfect, so the truth is more fo a shock to them.

Ft Hood "lone nut" was paid $130,000/year govt salary. Not even govt bribes were enough.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"What about just setting some new laws to abolish the most objectionable practices of private insurers?"

Like astronomical rates ? Because that's the biggest issue of all, and the reason WHY so many people don't have insurance to start with. To people who can't afford insurance to start with, recission and denial of care are moot.

"Allowing co's to sell it across state lines would increase competition within the states and lower costs."

It hasn't worked for other items like - oh, gasoline. Market forces in the face of collusion ? They're nothing.

"Tort Reform capping lawsuits against doctors and hospitals..."

Texas did that - and it has an area with THE MOST EXPENSIVE health care in the country. Tort reform is a non-issue.

"Or just some type of Govt. credit so that poor people not on MedicAid can get some private insurance at a moderate cost."

And shovel tax dollars to private profit ? I would have thought that you would be against that.

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

Silence is consent.

Rue, aren't you being a tad unfair with your responses? All those points are debatable to some degree, aren't they? And tax dollars going to the private sector is Obama's forte....clunker cars, banks, etc. etc. I have to go. to be continued.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:43 PM

Sand in the gears, folks, sand in the gears.

Doesn't matter WHY the Rethugs are opposing it and being obstructionist jackasses if the bill itself is such a horror that it needs to die, does it ?

And consider this:
Sometimes the best way to use a dangerous and unpredicatable, unwanted resource, is to use it up.

Call it a two fer one special.

-F

RUE

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:45 PM

If you wish to debate them, I will be happy to read your post.

And when I get the time, I will find the specific FACTS that back up my post, and show that they ARE a matter of fact, and not merely personal opinion.

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

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Sand in the gears, folks, sand in the gears.

Doesn't matter WHY the Rethugs are opposing it and being obstructionist jackasses if the bill itself is such a horror that it needs to die, does it ?

And consider this:
Sometimes the best way to use a dangerous and unpredicatable, unwanted resource, is to use it up.

Call it a two fer one special.

-F

I'm intrigued by this plan in that it's something the Glenn Beck followers would WANT to do, and because it's actually for their benefit. These health care bills are seeming more and more like something that need to be shut down. Good for them, good for us. I like it.

KWICKO

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Obama is almost a lame duck right now, especially after his Afghanistan speech. Reid & Pelosi, by virtue of their own ineptitude and stubborness, are just adding to Obama's problems. Obama's approval rating, while slipping, is still more than double that of Reid's and Pelosi's. He has to step in and hammer out a Bill with Congressional leaders of both parties that is shit simple, yet effective. I believe his personal power and charisma can pull it off.

One thing I think you're overlooking, Jongsie - The only approval numbers that matter for Reid and Pelosi are the numbers in their own state and district, respectively. I think you're looking at NATIONAL approval numbers on them, not the numbers within their own electorate, which is really all that matters come election time.

It's funny, because seemingly EVERYBODY hates Congress; polls routinely show their numbers at around 17-18%. But oddly enough, when you ask individual people about THEIR Representative or Senator, they tend to think they're doing a GREAT job, with ratings usually around 75% or better. So according to most Americans, ALL of Congress sucks, but MY guy (or gal) is doing great in spite of that. Yes, it's a paradox.

Mike

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:39 PM

It's how incumbents get elected over and over.

KWICKO

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Sand in the gears, folks, sand in the gears.

Doesn't matter WHY the Rethugs are opposing it and being obstructionist jackasses if the bill itself is such a horror that it needs to die, does it ?

And consider this:
Sometimes the best way to use a dangerous and unpredicatable, unwanted resource, is to use it up.

Call it a two fer one special.

-F

I'm intrigued by this plan in that it's something the Glenn Beck followers would WANT to do, and because it's actually for their benefit. These health care bills are seeming more and more like something that need to be shut down. Good for them, good for us. I like it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For now. :)

Mike

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

RAHLMACLAREN

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Heh, if only he'd displayed some spine when his own party threw him under the bus instead of crawling to them begging, I might not find the guy so - but yeah, he's gotta point, I just don't trust him to stand to it when things get rough, cause when it really counted he not only rolled over, he went sucking up to the very folk who rolled him.

So you cannot trust him.

-F

"Trust no one, Mr. Mulder."

*enters RWED in a Hannibal Twin-8*

I mostly just read the RWED, but have to ask, since I was a Deaniac (and not a FFF.net lurker yet, in 2004). What EXACTLY did Howard Dean do to make him "despicable".

I remember the "scream heard around the world" (Dumass sheeple, he was trying to pump up the crowd! Although, he didn't really need to at that point), and the Dems, Repubs (they were deathly afraid of Dean), and the media blowing it waaay out of proportion. Afterward, Dean toned down, maybe too much, but he just (arguably) mistakenly believed the lie (that the yell was ultra terrible and he brought it on himself), because he feared it was true.

And Fremd, want is so great in the healthcare bill that the Repubs don't want it, 'cause I don't trust the Repubs enough to play reverse psychology with them. Anything that's MANDATORY (aren't we supposed to like "NOT MANDATORY"? Fruity Oaty Bars anyone?) I can't afford.

Fremd, just so you know, you're on my short list of people I agree with +95%, on this site.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

RUE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:42 AM

BUMP for a REAL world event.

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

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:49 AM

What set me off at Dean was after they sold him out, pulled the rug out from under him, and they threw him under the bus like that - not the opposition, mind you, but HIS OWN PARTY...

He went *crawling* back to them begging for approval instead of cutting loose and going either independant, or breaking with them and causing a schism that would have led to some very needed reforms of the party itself - he had the power to do that and he squandered it for a pat on the head from the very same folk who stuck the knife in his back.

That was the end of any support Dean or that party ever got from me, and it's funny, the first time I tore into Conyers for being a nutless pansy (to the RIAA, at the time, before the DMCA was even written) was at a Dean rally, and he was ever so pissed at me for correctly stating his wife had more balls than he did - she stood up, too, and paid for it with her political career, but at least she TRIED.

I got a big laugh at when Conyers ran outta here to avoid the wrath of his angry wife and ran smack into Cindy Sheehan down in washington waiting on the other end, always had a few suspicions about how she mighta known he was en route...

Anyhows, I don't trust Dean, not after that mess, no.

As for the Rethugs, we can not only manipulate them into killing the bill, when the media mourning parade over it's demise starts with the pissing and moaning, we can even BLAME them and degrade them and their stupid backwater neanderthal party just that much more without tipping our bloody hands to the Dems (who are so gonna be next) just yet, you see ?

I call that a win-win situation, sink em both in one hit.

-F

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:31 AM

You prbably know more about Dean than I do. He did continue to work within the democratic party, but he didn't exactly do things their way after the election. The DLC wing of the party never liked how he was allocating resources, or anything else. They wanted it all spent on the most conservative choices, in the bigger fights, if I remember correctly(though this might just be a lot of chatter I was hearing over the last four years on other blogs).

He can be credited in a lot of ways for envigorrating a grass-roots liberal environment, and a retaking of a lot of government seats at local and state levels...

of course the end result is that he got us all marching to the polls for a progressive cause that was then promptly dismissed by the Presidency and the Senate, and in large part, the Congress. I suppose that in that way, he could just be carrying water for the status quo...

..................

By the way, in my fantasy world, and man does my brain get tired suspending this kind of disbelief, I keep pondering the possibility of the senate ratifying this crappy ass bill for the good that it does(one step forward, five steps back), getting the Nelson's and lieberman's and Lincon's on board for the vote that needs 60,

and then going straight to reconciliation to add a public option. Without getting into the talk about whether Democrats are engaged in political policy or political theater for their base, does anybody know if something like this would be possilbe, if entirely unlikely?

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Obama is almost a lame duck right now, especially after his Afghanistan speech. Reid & Pelosi, by virtue of their own ineptitude and stubborness, are just adding to Obama's problems. Obama's approval rating, while slipping, is still more than double that of Reid's and Pelosi's. He has to step in and hammer out a Bill with Congressional leaders of both parties that is shit simple, yet effective. I believe his personal power and charisma can pull it off.

One thing I think you're overlooking, Jongsie - The only approval numbers that matter for Reid and Pelosi are the numbers in their own state and district, respectively. I think you're looking at NATIONAL approval numbers on them, not the numbers within their own electorate, which is really all that matters come election time.

It's funny, because seemingly EVERYBODY hates Congress; polls routinely show their numbers at around 17-18%. But oddly enough, when you ask individual people about THEIR Representative or Senator, they tend to think they're doing a GREAT job, with ratings usually around 75% or better. So according to most Americans, ALL of Congress sucks, but MY guy (or gal) is doing great in spite of that. Yes, it's a paradox.

That is a very good point, and it's just another reason why term limits are needed badly.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:36 PM

The punditry out there is predicting the Senate bill will pass. Then Pelosi will present it as is to the House for a vote. They will not even try to reconcile with the House bill that has a public option. Obama wants a bill passed asap. Pelosi will deliver the House votes to pass, and it will be on Obama's desk to sign before the State Of The Union speech. Count how many times he calls it "historic."

JKIDDO

Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:30 PM

Jong, you hard-bitten realist, you... you're prolly right about the bill.

I'd like to add a "however" tho, about term limits: IMHO they've do more harm than good. Look at California- we've had Legislator term limits since 1990... that's a LONG time to see changes (if any). From my humble citizen's standpoint, California is an even bigger clusterf*ck than before. But it was interesting to see tis written about it:

Quote:
The authors find that term limits altered—but did not revolutionize—the type of legislator who comes to Sacramento. Specifically, Proposition 140 accelerated trends of increasing female and minority representation that were already under way in California. Rather than representing a new breed of “citizen legislator,” however, new members after term limits behave a great deal like their precursors. Many have local government experience and run for another office—for an Assembly or a Senate seat—when their terms expire. Careerism remains a constant in California politics.

The effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes have been more profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of “hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. The authors’ interviews with members and their staff revealed a widespread sense in Sacramento that something needs to be done soon to provide more stability and expertise to the Legislature’s policymaking process. Yet there are continuities in the Legislature’s internal operations as well. For example, leaders remain central to the process, and term limits cannot be blamed for Sacramento’s intensifying partisan polarization.

Term limits have had a mixed effect on the Legislature’s policy products. The authors find no effect on the breadth and complexity of bills passed into law, although this continuity may be the result of the Senate’s increased propensity to amend Assembly bills. Using simple measures of legislative performance, they also find that recently instituted programs to train members and staff do not appear to improve a legislator’s “batting average”—that is, his or her chances of passing a bill or seeing it signed into law —although legislators who receive that training tend to write shorter bills that change more code sections...

Many veteran legislators and staff members regret Proposition 140’s effects, which include a decline in the Legislature’s research capacity. (The Legislative Analyst’s Office, for example, lost a large portion of its staff, with the sharpest drop coming immediately in the wake of Proposition 140.) Even the measure’s major proponent, former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, recently voiced his discontent with the results

With less research capacity, Legislators are more likely to simply take a lobbyist's proposal and write it into law.

Term limits SOUND great, but it doesn't do what supporters hope it will do. IMHO the only way to get legislators to represent the will of the people is to remove MONEY from the equation of running for office, because MONEY is the sieve through which candidates must pass. That includes barring legislators (termed-out ones) from taking jobs with companies they "represented" during their term. (Example, Lieberman getting a cushy job with a big insurance company.)

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:05 PM

Money is a problem, an important one, because it restricts the educated middle class from running for office and gives all the advantage to rich local business men (who are likely to just use their new power to help other rich friends. I suspect this is what's really behind a lot of stupid development ideas that get approved) or local rich family dynasties (the aristocracy, with obvious problems and consequences).

I think the bigger problem may be WHO is running for office. I'm not sure if these people just have natural inclinations for ambition, power, and corruption, or if they gain a taste for it through their party affiliations, but either way the result is people who don't have the interests of the public at heart.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
Jong, you hard-bitten realist, you... you're prolly right about the bill.

I'd like to add a "however" tho, about term limits: IMHO they've do more harm than good. Look at California- we've had Legislator term limits since 1990... that's a LONG time to see changes (if any). From my humble citizen's standpoint, California is an even bigger clusterf*ck than before. But it was interesting to see tis written about it:

Quote:
The authors find that term limits altered—but did not revolutionize—the type of legislator who comes to Sacramento. Specifically, Proposition 140 accelerated trends of increasing female and minority representation that were already under way in California. Rather than representing a new breed of “citizen legislator,” however, new members after term limits behave a great deal like their precursors. Many have local government experience and run for another office—for an Assembly or a Senate seat—when their terms expire. Careerism remains a constant in California politics.

The effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes have been more profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of “hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. The authors’ interviews with members and their staff revealed a widespread sense in Sacramento that something needs to be done soon to provide more stability and expertise to the Legislature’s policymaking process. Yet there are continuities in the Legislature’s internal operations as well. For example, leaders remain central to the process, and term limits cannot be blamed for Sacramento’s intensifying partisan polarization.

Term limits have had a mixed effect on the Legislature’s policy products. The authors find no effect on the breadth and complexity of bills passed into law, although this continuity may be the result of the Senate’s increased propensity to amend Assembly bills. Using simple measures of legislative performance, they also find that recently instituted programs to train members and staff do not appear to improve a legislator’s “batting average”—that is, his or her chances of passing a bill or seeing it signed into law —although legislators who receive that training tend to write shorter bills that change more code sections...

Many veteran legislators and staff members regret Proposition 140’s effects, which include a decline in the Legislature’s research capacity. (The Legislative Analyst’s Office, for example, lost a large portion of its staff, with the sharpest drop coming immediately in the wake of Proposition 140.) Even the measure’s major proponent, former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, recently voiced his discontent with the results
With less research capacity, Legislators are more likely to simply take a lobbyist's proposal and write it into law.

Term limits SOUND great, but it doesn't do what supporters hope it will do. IMHO the only way to get legislators to represent the will of the people is to remove MONEY from the equation of running for office, because MONEY is the sieve through which candidates must pass. That includes barring legislators (termed-out ones) from taking jobs with companies they "represented" during their term. (Example, Lieberman getting a cushy job with a big insurance company.)

This so-called hard-bitten realist has never been more messed up than on this subject of Govt healthcare. I've been on both sides of the issue, flip-flopping from week to week like Sunday pancakes. At this current moment in time I guess I feel that eith

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This so-called hard-bitten realist has never been more messed up than on this subject of Govt healthcare. I've been on both sides of the issue, flip-flopping from week to week like Sunday pancakes.

I'm flopping too. More of another crisis of faith than anything else, as in if it doesn't pass then there will be nothing, again, which means INSURANCE wins big, and Obama's effectiveness as a President will be forever damaged. Another version of this bill will not happen if he's a lame duck prez as mentioned.

If it does pass, as sorry a piece of shite as it is, it at least has a chance of being upgraded in the next version, and any hope that O. will be effective making ANY positive changes remains a *possibility,* however remote that may feel now.

This is Politics, this is why I despise them: sometimes the best choice is what sucks the least.

I wonder if people think that this group of Browncoats, if opposing sides were equal, would do a better job?

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

RUE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:15 PM

"... something needs to be done soon to provide more stability and expertise ..."

On a limited scale, as a former (dropped out last year) long-term union steward and contract negotiator (we got good ones in hard times, I do have to say) I have seen this in action.

It takes a while to learn the ropes: You have to know what to expect in a given situation. You have to develop some expertise on the players. You have to be aware of your resource limitations and judge where best to spend them. Even WITH the best intentions, without these tools forged from experience, you will be floundering at best, sucker punched at worst.

As a result of the inevitable learning curve of everyone, the most organized and experienced players - generally private business - will win.

I don't know WHAT people were thinking with term limits. Shuffling people through faster is not a way to screen them up front to make sure they are better. It just puts those who are able to get the most money quickest in front. In fact, AT THE TIME, the most cogent argument AGAINST term limits was that it would make the influence of money on elections even more pronounced.

And IF you are by some chance lucky enough that those in power have good intentions, they are less likely to be able to carry them out.

Putting people in a position to not be able to carry through a plan, and then expecting things to go better is simply the most stupid idea around.

If you want to guarantee better results, get rid of terms limits - but YES ! remove the corrosive effects of money on who gets the job in the first place.

And then let the VOTE decide if people are happy with the results. After all, isn't that what it's there for ?

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:17 PM

Jong- I flip-flop in terms of my support for the various versions making their way thru the Senate and House. It's not me that's changing tho, it's the bills. You may be flip-flopping for the same reason. I don't think of it as flip-flopping. I think of it as "responding to a changing situation".

RUE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:21 PM

I've been avoiding the whole topic as much as possible. It's too painful to watch.

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

Silence is consent.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:30 PM

I don't have a lot of time, but I just hadda chime in here. I often think, these days, that Americans actually want a dictator for Pres. Last I checked it was the congress that made laws and the exec. that enforced 'em. Seems to me, Obama is doing his job, as far as that goes. Oh yes, I know, y'all want the Pres. to wrangle the several hundred cats in congress to do HIS (and by our fascist logic, OUR) bidding--twist arms, hold men and women's carreers over their heads, back room intimidations, you name it, all in the name of "the people." Oh, the fuck, well. Next time elect Idi Amin.

No one's argument gains any credibility with this talk of Obama being a "lame duck." Hello, the guy's barely been in office a year. He still has 3, no matter what. "Lame duck" is reserved for the guy's last month after an election he loses. If all the fight goes out of Obama after his first difficult year, then he's in the wrong line o' work.

I think losing this p.o.s. bill would be very good for Obama's Presidency. We all want Obama to stop playing and start fighting, and I see the failure of this particular process as quite possibly doing just that.

Am I the only one here who thinks so?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:39 PM

Right with ya, HK.

My issues right now are with Senate Dems and Joe (Insurance Man) Lieberman. I think Joe needs a huge bitch-slap, and he needs to be tagged with the reform failure. I know that he's not running next year, which nearly eliminates any leverage the Dems have over him, but maybe they can twist his arm over some favorite program or funding.

NIKI2

Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:27 PM

Long thread, so didn't get through it. Besides, I'm sick to death of the assininity around the public option/healthcare reform being the most discussed item on the news and in politics. It's been such a ping-pong game and so many games have gone on, that I stopped listening.

So maybe someone else has said what I feel...INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BUT NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO BILL! It's what I wrote to my representatives. The fuss about the public option, while nobody has been talking about the individual mandate, has sickened me no end. Without SOME form of control, the individual mandate is an incredible gimme to the insurance companies/pharma. I'm hearing it more now that the public option/Medicare buy-in is a dead duck, and I want to hear MORE of it.

I actually have less problem with the bill if they pulled the individual mandate. It has SOME valid aspects, puts SOME curbs on the ins. cos. and it would be a starting point at least. Nothing at all speaks to total failure, and if we made a start, maybe we could go somewhere from there. "Nothing" means a loooong time before anyone gets the guts to try again, I think. Given the Clinton failure, another such dramatic failure would have to scare the pants off anyone trying to do it again.

But if it's passed WITH the individual mandate, it's far, far worse than nothing at all! And asshole Lieberman should take a VERY long walk off a VERY short pier, may he rot in hell.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:45 PM

Rue: I think actually what probably needs to be done is three fold.

The first is we need to remove the influence of money on politics. People may cry that this limits the expression of free speech, but, no, this is actually more of a bribe in practice.

The second is we need to get rid of the parties.

Now, I'm actually for getting rid of the who elected official/representative republic system, but maybe something you could do WITHIN the system that might work is change the PEOPLE running for office. One possibility is to elect one issue ponies, people who are really passionate about fixing one thing or getting one thing done. And the moment the sign their name on the finished piece of work, they step down. The public is given a few months to read and discuss the proposition, they vote on it, and at the same time vote to 1) elect the guy back if they vote against it but they think it just needs a little more work, 2) vote no on the bill but elect someone else to fix it, or 3) vote yes on the bill and elect someone with a new issue.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:
No one's argument gains any credibility with this talk of Obama being a "lame duck." Hello, the guy's barely been in office a year. He still has 3, no matter what. "Lame duck" is reserved for the guy's last month after an election he loses. If all the fight goes out of Obama after his first difficult year, then he's in the wrong line o' work.

I thought you could ALSO be a lame duck President if you have a hostile Congress? But granted, neither is the case here. It's just government, ineffective as usual.

KWICKO

Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

This so-called hard-bitten realist has never been more messed up than on this subject of Govt healthcare. I've been on both sides of the issue, flip-flopping from week to week like Sunday pancakes. At this current moment in time I guess I feel that either the Govt Option, or Medicare Option, or doing nothing at all would be infinitely better than this terrible Senate Bill.

On term limits...based on what you posted it seems I need to do some research on the subject.

Shit, Jongsie, you're in good company there. Flip-flopping on this bucket of turds isn't "flip-flopping", as Signy pointed out - it's just waking up to the reality of this nightmare.

I'm torn on term limits. They SOUND good, but think of them in presidential terms. Since term limits were enacted after FDR's four terms, there have been precisely TWO times in American history (maybe three, which I'll get to) when a term-limited President could have won at least another term: Eisenhower and Reagan. Personally, I don't feel that another term of Ike would have been a bad thing, especially given what Kennedy did with getting us involved in Vietnam... And there are LOTS of Americans who just love the idea of a third Reagan term (I'm not one of them, but they are allowed their opinion, and sometimes they're even allowed their vote!). It could be argued that MAYBE Clinton could have won a third term, and that might have been much better for the nation than Dubya, or could have been an absolute disaster, depending on who you're listening to.

Thing is, under all of those guys, there was at least a pretty strong impression that things were going pretty damned okay under their stewardship. And if such is the case, WHY would you want to force them out?

I'm with Rue and Signy in that getting the money advantages out of incumbency would be a great equalizer, but I think you should really WANT to keep strong, good people in their positions as long as possible, as long as they're doing a good job and have the support of their constituents.

If you could remove some of the incredible advantages that an incumbent has, you'd do a great job of making sure that if they're still in office, it's based not on money-rasing efficacy, but on RESULTS of a job well-done. I'd be happy enough with that.

As for what they do AFTER they leave public office, I'd say have something akin to a "no-compete" clause. It's not uncommon for people to have to sign a 2-, 3-, or 5-year no-compete clause when leaving an employer in the private sector (especially if they just sold their company to another business); let's expand that to representatives and senators, on a no-conflict-of-interest basis. That doesn't mean someone like Tom Coburn can't go back to being and OB/GYN when he leaves the Senate - it just means he can't take millions in campaign donations from Aetna, then leave the Senate to walk straight into a job with Aetna.

Mike

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

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

So maybe someone else has said what I feel...INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BUT NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO BILL! It's what I wrote to my representatives. The fuss about the public option, while nobody has been talking about the individual mandate, has sickened me no end. Without SOME form of control, the individual mandate is an incredible gimme to the insurance companies/pharma. I'm hearing it more now that the public option/Medicare buy-in is a dead duck, and I want to hear MORE of it.

Right Niki. How do you mandate broke people to buy something? "We need to curb Big Insurance from charging too much... by making more people give money to them."

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

KWICKO

Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
No one's argument gains any credibility with this talk of Obama being a "lame duck." Hello, the guy's barely been in office a year. He still has 3, no matter what. "Lame duck" is reserved for the guy's last month after an election he loses. If all the fight goes out of Obama after his first difficult year, then he's in the wrong line o' work.

I thought you could ALSO be a lame duck President if you have a hostile Congress? But granted, neither is the case here. It's just government, ineffective as usual.

You're considered a "lame duck" when you're term-limited, in a sense, and even more so if you have a hostile Congress, and even MORE so after any mid-term elections. Bush's last two years in office, he was a lame duck President. He couldn't run again, he had Democratic majorities in both houses, and everybody knew that he wasn't going to be around for long, so there really was no point in paying any attention to him. So we largely didn't. :)

If Obama doesn't get something done, it doesn't make him a lame duck. The only thing that makes him a lame duck is if he announces he isn't running for a second term.

For instance, NOBODY referred to HW Bush as a "lame duck" in 1991, even though he had a hostile Congress. He was soaring high on the HIGHEST approval ratings ever measured in the polls, in the aftermath of the "Hundred Hour War" in Iraq. There was no way he could lose his bid for reelection in '92.

And then the economy shit the bed, Clinton focused solely on the economy, and history was made. In that case, Bush wasn't a lame duck until after Election Day, and then he was one of the lamest of ducks.

We might THINK we know how the 2012 elections will go, but we don't honestly even know how the 2010 mid-terms will go. Kinda soon to be calling Obama a lame duck. It's an effort already building to paint him as such, in hopes of subtly undermining any support for him that some might have who are currently on the fence about which way to vote come 2012. Get in their heads early, and you can influence their votes later. It's the American Way! :)

Mike

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

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:36 PM

HK, Mike, etc. "Lame Duck" as an expression, not the literal sense. Maybe "Lame President" would have been better?
You guys think his waffling and back peddling on this will have no effect? Isn't this his first big fight on the Hill?
I'm an optimist - if he does lose, "get tagged," I also hope that it will give him greater resolve, but don't you think his losing will empower his detractors? Can you imagine the gloating they will do? If they already come from the place where it's ok to yell out "You Lie!" during one of his addresses, then a loss for him has to make that faint line of respect recede even further.
If he can't get HIS bill passed with the Dems "in control," how's a loss going to help?

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:02 PM

Right now, I don't care who wins or loses... except if its the American people. And if the American people lose in a major way (yet again!) then whoever was involved in the clusterf*ck deserves to lose too. Period.

RUE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:19 PM

"The first is we need to remove the influence of money on politics. People may cry that this limits the expression of free speech, but, no, this is actually more of a bribe in practice."

Definitely.

"The second is we need to get rid of the parties."

ON NO ! I LIKE beer ! (baaadumshhhh) I think that the reason why we are stuck with two is our system of government. If we could dissolve the ruling government at any time - if we had a parliamentary sytem - coalitions would be vital to holding power. That would give minority positions some real clout. I see it in practice everywhere there are parliamentary systems which have a multitude of vital parties. And I think the lack of that is the driving force for why we are the way we are. I suspect that unless the basic mechanisms change, we will devolve to two parties no matter what we call them.

"One possibility is to elect one issue ponies, people who are really passionate about fixing one thing or getting one thing done."

Ralph Nader ? I don't see that getting much traction except perhaps on a local level if there is a local problem that is really grinding on a lot of people. But in the national scheme the people (say, Texans) who will elect the sacrificial goat (the single issue candidate) will lose out on representation on other issues.

Unless I am missing what you are thinking ?

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

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for what they do AFTER they leave public office, I'd say have something akin to a "no-compete" clause. It's not uncommon for people to have to sign a 2-, 3-, or 5-year no-compete clause when leaving an employer in the private sector (especially if they just sold their company to another business); let's expand that to representatives and senators, on a no-conflict-of-interest basis. That doesn't mean someone like Tom Coburn can't go back to being and OB/GYN when he leaves the Senate - it just means he can't take millions in campaign donations from Aetna, then leave the Senate to walk straight into a job with Aetna.

There is, and as usual when the "rules" become inconvenient to THEM, it's universally ignored.

That being a major root of the problem, that you cannot trust the folk making the rules if they are also in charge of enforcing them, cause they won't - this is what makes the ethics committee a sham, really.

Believe me, if Congress had to put up with every little nitpick law we do without using immunity, exceptional clearance and other legal chicanery to weasel out of it, there'd be a lot LESS nitpick bullshit - same theme I've pointed out with police - if they hadda put up and comply with every stinkin nitpick petty little gun law and reg they enforce on us, most of em would go the way of the dodo bird in a hurry.

Your essential problem with Congress is that the folk tasked with making them behave... is Congress.

The Judiciary is supposed to have some influence there, but being that they're kinda bought and paid for prior to being installed - and it seems to require Congressional approval to begin impeachment, that check and balance was broken to begin with, as the AntiFederalists pointed out before the document was even ratified.

Oh, and Re: Begging Dictatorship ?

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.

-Frem

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:41 PM

Quote:
ON NO ! I LIKE beer ! (baaadumshhhh)

Heh. :)

Well, but parties aren't required in the constitution. The parties arose pretty early in in the system with the Federalists and anti-Federalists, so you're right, the two MAIN parties have probably always existed. But the only reason they're the main parties right now is because we never hear much about other parties. That's caused by the expectations drilled into us at a young age (us versus them) and by the media.

Quote:
I don't see that getting much traction except perhaps on a local level if there is a local problem that is really grinding on a lot of people.

All I really care about is the local issues anyway. I think people could come up with local workable solutions to health care and a lot of other problems. People in the same general geographic area tend to think alike on a lot of issues, so they might actually be able to reach some agreement on things they want to get done... Then actually GET them done.

EDIT: Well... Okay, that's not true. I care about a lot of national issues. But I think they COULD be solved locally is the thing... And I think we shouldn't be involved in international issues in the first place. Most of our stakes in them, most of the wars, we're given pretty sounding humanitarian reasons to go in, but what's really driving them is some economic/political interest or another.

RUE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:09 PM

"But the only reason they're the main parties right now is because we never hear much about other parties."

I have a different take on that. 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.

I see that especially in other systems that are parliamentary and don't have this problem. Some are very old (England), some relatively new (France), some very new (Israel). That they avoid this despite vast differences in the ages of their governments, their cultures and their histories, is why I think that common factor, the parliamentary system, is responsible. Add to it that I think I can deduce a mechanism and it seems like a fruitfull train of throught.

"I care about a lot of national issues. But I think they COULD be solved locally is the thing..."

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.

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

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:06 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.

RUE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:11 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:22 PM

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.

NIKI2

Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:57 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Friday, December 18, 2009 12:13 AM

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

KWICKO

Friday, December 18, 2009 12:39 AM

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

CITIZEN

Friday, December 18, 2009 12:52 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Friday, December 18, 2009 1:12 AM

Ah.

Hehe @ Shadow government

CITIZEN

Friday, December 18, 2009 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ah.

Hehe @ Shadow government

The official term believe it or not.

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

BYTEMITE

Friday, December 18, 2009 2:53 AM

Wow, they're not even hiding it!

(Kidding, but how strange)

KWICKO

Friday, December 18, 2009 5:02 AM

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

NIKI2

Friday, December 18, 2009 6:23 AM

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.

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:49 AM

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/

PIZMOBEACH

Saturday, December 19, 2009 3:20 PM

"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

CITIZEN

Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:03 AM

Now this is comedy:

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 20, 2009 1:36 AM

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

JKIDDO

Sunday, December 20, 2009 1:53 PM

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

NIKI2

Sunday, December 20, 2009 5:21 PM

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!

JKIDDO

Sunday, December 20, 2009 5:42 PM

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.

NIKI2

Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:13 PM

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!)

RUE

Friday, January 15, 2010 12:28 AM

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.

RUE

Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:35 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 19, 2010 1:52 AM

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!

KWICKO

Friday, February 19, 2010 2:27 AM

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

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, September 15, 2021 6:27 AM

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

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, April 6, 2025 2:58 PM

its a rich man's world?

A paralyzed patient has stayed at Mission Hospital for nearly 4 years. He refuses to leave. The hospital is suing him and his family for trespassing.
https://avlwatchdog.org/a-paralyzed-patient-has-stayed-at-mission-hosp
ital-for-nearly-4-years-he-refuses-to-leave-the-hospital-is-suing-him-and-his-family-for-trespassing/

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, September 14, 2025 11:09 PM

NY lawmakers must not let hospitals loot a program meant to help patients | Opinion
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/09/02/new-york-lawmakers-s
ave-340b-opinion/85892732007/

the bariatric surgeon and politics

NJ nurse suspended without pay for calling out doctor who ‘cheered’ Charlie Kirk’s death: suit
https://nypost.com/2025/09/13/us-news/nj-nurse-suspended-without-pay-f
or-calling-out-doctor-who-cheered-charlie-kirks-death-lawsuit/