Tonight Rachel Maddow talked to guest David Sirota about the trigger mechanism, the latest meme to bubble up from the depths of the health care debate. Sirota in his column and on the Rachel Maddow Show clarified for me exactly what a trigger mechanism actually is: it's a way to kill a bill while pretending that you're not killing a bill. For example, the prescription drug bill included a trigger mechanism that ostensibly would have allowed Americans to buy prescription drugs from overseas once the HHS secretary judged them to be "safe". The problem is that no HHS secretary has pulled the trigger. Once a trigger gets put into place, the corporacy just needs to make sure that the trigger doesn't get pulled, by bribing or intimidating bureaucrats. The trigger mechanism will appeal to obstructionist Democrats who want to appear to their constituents that they are in favor of reform, while not endangering industry contributions.
As much as 'trigger mechanism' is actually a way of killing a proposal while looking like you're in favor of it, it's funny that conservatives still oppose it.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Criminalizing Poverty
Via the AP, we get more details about the Max Baucus health care "plan" that his Gang of Six have been working on.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
Town Hall Protesters Hate on Disabled Woman
Featured on Countdown tonight, a crowd of protesters heckled and booed a woman who was trying to frame her question by relating her medical and financial struggles. "The copay for one of my medications is $389 every two weeks" the woman said as idiots behind her shouted, "What's your question?"
Later one of the protesters said, "I don't know how a handicapped woman in a wheelchair has more rights than I do."
For a long time now the town hall protesters have shown a lack of civility and respect for honest discussion and the democratic process. Now they've reached a new low, revealing a depressing and infuriating lack of humanity. Clearly they don't give a shit about how much suffering their fellow Americans have to endure as long as their ideological purity is maintained. Anything the government might actually do to make life easier for its citizens is called as socialism or even tyranny.
Can we please stop listening to the stupid people now?
Later one of the protesters said, "I don't know how a handicapped woman in a wheelchair has more rights than I do."
For a long time now the town hall protesters have shown a lack of civility and respect for honest discussion and the democratic process. Now they've reached a new low, revealing a depressing and infuriating lack of humanity. Clearly they don't give a shit about how much suffering their fellow Americans have to endure as long as their ideological purity is maintained. Anything the government might actually do to make life easier for its citizens is called as socialism or even tyranny.
Can we please stop listening to the stupid people now?
Obama Should Stop Chasing Republican Votes
Next week President Obama plans to give a speech to a joint session of Congress on health care reform. 538.com's Nate Silver expects that this may be the biggest moment of Obama's presidency, barring some unforeseen crisis in the future. He may be right. Obama's political future may very well depend on how well he is able to gather votes to pass a health care bill.
The public option remains popular among the public. However, there has been some suggestions by David Axelrod and others that Obama's speech is likely to outline a plan for reform that does not necessarily include a public option. This would be a mistake, particularly if the final bill includes an individual mandate without a public option. This would be a terrible result, forcing people into private plans or co-ops that are unlikely to be large enough to have significant bargaining power with healthcare providers.
Obama's mistake from the beginning has been to seek a "bipartisan" solution to this legislative puzzle. Time and time again the Republicans have made it clear that they will not vote for any bill, no matter how many concessions it contains. We should be talking about compromise in the sense of getting together the progressive and the Blue Dog wings of the Democratic party. Progressives also have the option of running strong primary challengers against Blue Dogs in the next election, and that fact should not be left out of the negotiation process. Max Baucus has a 'gang of six' that includes three Democrats and three Republicans. The 'gang of six' should have included three liberals and three Blue Dogs, since these are the only two parties that matter right now.
The strength of the Blue Dog caucus because of triangulation. I blame Bill Clinton.
The best thing Obama could say at his speech next week is, "on the issue of health care reform, several Republicans and a few Democrats have not been negotiating in good faith. That's okay. We can get this thing done without them. And the voters can let them know what they think about that at the next election."
But it doesn't seem like Obama's ready to play hardball.
The public option remains popular among the public. However, there has been some suggestions by David Axelrod and others that Obama's speech is likely to outline a plan for reform that does not necessarily include a public option. This would be a mistake, particularly if the final bill includes an individual mandate without a public option. This would be a terrible result, forcing people into private plans or co-ops that are unlikely to be large enough to have significant bargaining power with healthcare providers.
Obama's mistake from the beginning has been to seek a "bipartisan" solution to this legislative puzzle. Time and time again the Republicans have made it clear that they will not vote for any bill, no matter how many concessions it contains. We should be talking about compromise in the sense of getting together the progressive and the Blue Dog wings of the Democratic party. Progressives also have the option of running strong primary challengers against Blue Dogs in the next election, and that fact should not be left out of the negotiation process. Max Baucus has a 'gang of six' that includes three Democrats and three Republicans. The 'gang of six' should have included three liberals and three Blue Dogs, since these are the only two parties that matter right now.
The strength of the Blue Dog caucus because of triangulation. I blame Bill Clinton.
The best thing Obama could say at his speech next week is, "on the issue of health care reform, several Republicans and a few Democrats have not been negotiating in good faith. That's okay. We can get this thing done without them. And the voters can let them know what they think about that at the next election."
But it doesn't seem like Obama's ready to play hardball.
Disappointed and Disillusioned with Obama
Paul Krugman's op-ed from ten days ago describes my feelings about Obama fairly well. Obama seems to be stuck in a fantasy where some sort of post-partisan middle ground that he can stand on actually exists. For the past couple weeks now Obama's (and the Democrats in Congress's) popularity numbers have been taking a nose dive (although from a very high place so his numbers are still very high overall).
When Obama makes concessions to conservatives it gains him nothing - they aren't going to support him no matter what he does, and half of them think he wasn't born in the US anyway. These folks are too busy getting excited over the latest fake Kenyan birth certificate to care that Obama is sacrificing his principles in order to win their support.
Krugman also mentions the bank bailout. It seems like a lot of people are confused over the difference between the bank bailout and the stimulus package. Just so everyone's clear the bank bailout was $700B to rescue the financial industry while the economic stimulus package was $700B to help the rest of the economy. I think the bank bailout was too big, and the stimulus too small. The line we were given about the banks was that they were too big to fail, that their failure would have led to much worse problems in the rest of the economy.
Perhaps that was the case at the end of 2008. However even if it was true it should have represented a terrible outcome to everyone. Our entire economy is dependent on the health of a handful of banks? And these banks have to award their executives millions of dollars in bonuses, even when they fail miserably? Obama's unwillingness to take a harder line against bank executives receiving millions was disappointing to me. Also maybe some of those banks should have been broken up into smaller, non-too-big-to-fail companies.
On the bank bailout, on health care, on accountability for torture, and on the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Obama is going to have to start to walk the walk if he expects to hang on to the support of progressives like me. I know that it's not realistic to expect that we'll get everything done right away, but, as Krugman writes, "there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line." Aim big, Mr. President. Don't shy from the fights that need to be fought. Follow the example set by the late Senator Kennedy. That way if you only achieve half of what you wanted to, you'll still have accomplished a lot of positive change. That would be change I can believe in.
When Obama makes concessions to conservatives it gains him nothing - they aren't going to support him no matter what he does, and half of them think he wasn't born in the US anyway. These folks are too busy getting excited over the latest fake Kenyan birth certificate to care that Obama is sacrificing his principles in order to win their support.
Krugman also mentions the bank bailout. It seems like a lot of people are confused over the difference between the bank bailout and the stimulus package. Just so everyone's clear the bank bailout was $700B to rescue the financial industry while the economic stimulus package was $700B to help the rest of the economy. I think the bank bailout was too big, and the stimulus too small. The line we were given about the banks was that they were too big to fail, that their failure would have led to much worse problems in the rest of the economy.
Perhaps that was the case at the end of 2008. However even if it was true it should have represented a terrible outcome to everyone. Our entire economy is dependent on the health of a handful of banks? And these banks have to award their executives millions of dollars in bonuses, even when they fail miserably? Obama's unwillingness to take a harder line against bank executives receiving millions was disappointing to me. Also maybe some of those banks should have been broken up into smaller, non-too-big-to-fail companies.
On the bank bailout, on health care, on accountability for torture, and on the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Obama is going to have to start to walk the walk if he expects to hang on to the support of progressives like me. I know that it's not realistic to expect that we'll get everything done right away, but, as Krugman writes, "there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line." Aim big, Mr. President. Don't shy from the fights that need to be fought. Follow the example set by the late Senator Kennedy. That way if you only achieve half of what you wanted to, you'll still have accomplished a lot of positive change. That would be change I can believe in.
Government Bureaucracy Sometimes Sucks; Corporate Culture Much Worse
This story over at Pandagon says many of the things I've been thinking about the health care debate recently. She talks about recently proposed legislation that would legally limit the amount of time that an airline can force you to sit on a tarmac waiting for your flight to be able to leave. This legislation has been proposed before. The airlines killed it. What's interesting about this story is just how clearly it illustrates corporate culture: they're willing to allow their customers to suffer a lot if it will squeeze just a little bit more profit out.
Take this lesson to the health care debate. All the fictional horror stories that health care opponents are making up about the public option are in fact happening now. They're happening because the corporations that bring you health care care more about their bottom line than they do about you. Government can be annoying and inefficient, but at least their stated goal is not "maximize profit no matter the cost in human misery." A corporation's only responsibility is to the bottom line, and we hardly ever comment on how evil this system is.
Take this lesson to the health care debate. All the fictional horror stories that health care opponents are making up about the public option are in fact happening now. They're happening because the corporations that bring you health care care more about their bottom line than they do about you. Government can be annoying and inefficient, but at least their stated goal is not "maximize profit no matter the cost in human misery." A corporation's only responsibility is to the bottom line, and we hardly ever comment on how evil this system is.
No Public Option: No Bill
The prospects for a strong public option being included in a final bill have been looking weaker lately, especially as the White House is backing off the necessity of a public option. If it is the case that President Obama is giving up on Candidate Obama's pledge to work for a public health care option, then the onus is upon progressive congresspeople to refuse to vote for any "compromise" which does not include a public option.
And as for Obama, he should respect his words of barely a month ago when he said any attempt at reform must include a public option. To my mind, that means that he vetoes any legislation on this topic that crosses his desk that does not at least reach that mark of good policy. Incremental and half-assed change is not the sort of change I can believe in and it's not what I voted for last November. If the Democrats with huge majorities in the House and Senate cannot accomplish even this, then there may be little to recommend them over a third-party protest vote.
Finally, readers, I know that a lot of the content of this blog has been about health care recently and you may be getting tired of the same topic all the time. I apologize if it's been getting boring, but bear with me as there may still be a little more news about this in the future.
And as for Obama, he should respect his words of barely a month ago when he said any attempt at reform must include a public option. To my mind, that means that he vetoes any legislation on this topic that crosses his desk that does not at least reach that mark of good policy. Incremental and half-assed change is not the sort of change I can believe in and it's not what I voted for last November. If the Democrats with huge majorities in the House and Senate cannot accomplish even this, then there may be little to recommend them over a third-party protest vote.
Finally, readers, I know that a lot of the content of this blog has been about health care recently and you may be getting tired of the same topic all the time. I apologize if it's been getting boring, but bear with me as there may still be a little more news about this in the future.
Obama's Mistake
Obama's mistake in the health care debate was to not open the discussions up by pushing a single-payer bill out of the White House. So far Obama has been content to give Congress only a bare outline of what he'd like to see in a final bill and let the representatives and senators wrangle over the details. This has been a huge handicap for those of us who favor health care reform. When the teabaggers and industry astroturf people start saying crazy untrue things, the only response that Democratic congresscritters have is to say, "no bill currently proposed has that provision." What does it say, the protesters ask? "Well, there is no it, there are a lot of different bills under consideration, the details are still being worked out in committee etc etc."
It would be a lot easier to be simply for something at this stage, rather than simply for the generic promise of reform. Furthermore, the protesters already call the proposals for reform "Obamacare." Obama hopes to escape the blame/credit for specific provisions in the bill coming from congress, but it's not going to happen. He's the president, so everyone will assume that he approves of any and all portion of any bill he finally signs.
The other issue is single-payer health care. From the rhetoric coming from the teabaggers, we know that they assume they are protesting against single-payer health care. I saw one video where a congressman said to the crowd, "this isn't single-payer!" and the crowd responded in unison with a shout, "we don't believe you!" What does it benefit us to adopt a compromise position (a public option) when the other side assumes that the compromise is in fact single payer in disguise? The discussion needs to be about single-payer, not this mash of weaker proposals.
I've talked about bipartisanship before. Now I think that not only has the bipartisan ship sunk, it's sitting at the bottom of the ocean growing coral. While Senator Grassley was pretending to be working on a bipartisan compromise, he was he now admits only working to delay a bill appearing before the Senate before the August recess. Not only that, but the politicians who are perpetuating the lie about 'death panels' know better. They know that the proposal for end-of-life counseling does not in any sense constitute death panels and in fact they have been on the record in favor of end-of-life counseling in the past.
Obama should send a new bill to the congress and the senate, something that is much shorter than 1000 pages and includes single-payer health care. Once he does that we progressives will have something we can really be for. It isn't too late to reboot this conversation by pushing a new White House bill! In the meantime, all we can do is keep on pointing out the lies and logical fallacies and inconsistencies of the the opposition.
It would be a lot easier to be simply for something at this stage, rather than simply for the generic promise of reform. Furthermore, the protesters already call the proposals for reform "Obamacare." Obama hopes to escape the blame/credit for specific provisions in the bill coming from congress, but it's not going to happen. He's the president, so everyone will assume that he approves of any and all portion of any bill he finally signs.
The other issue is single-payer health care. From the rhetoric coming from the teabaggers, we know that they assume they are protesting against single-payer health care. I saw one video where a congressman said to the crowd, "this isn't single-payer!" and the crowd responded in unison with a shout, "we don't believe you!" What does it benefit us to adopt a compromise position (a public option) when the other side assumes that the compromise is in fact single payer in disguise? The discussion needs to be about single-payer, not this mash of weaker proposals.
I've talked about bipartisanship before. Now I think that not only has the bipartisan ship sunk, it's sitting at the bottom of the ocean growing coral. While Senator Grassley was pretending to be working on a bipartisan compromise, he was he now admits only working to delay a bill appearing before the Senate before the August recess. Not only that, but the politicians who are perpetuating the lie about 'death panels' know better. They know that the proposal for end-of-life counseling does not in any sense constitute death panels and in fact they have been on the record in favor of end-of-life counseling in the past.
Obama should send a new bill to the congress and the senate, something that is much shorter than 1000 pages and includes single-payer health care. Once he does that we progressives will have something we can really be for. It isn't too late to reboot this conversation by pushing a new White House bill! In the meantime, all we can do is keep on pointing out the lies and logical fallacies and inconsistencies of the the opposition.
Racist and Threatening Right-Wing Reactions
Cenk Uygur at The Young Turks covers the story of the man who showed up at an Obama rally with a visible gun strapped to his thigh and carrying a sign that reads, "It is time to water the tree of Liberty." This is in reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote which reads,
Timothy McVeigh also referenced this quote on the t-shirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The sign and the gun taken together send an unmistakable message: this man advocates advancing his political agenda through violent means, possibly even assasination. I cannot understand how he was not arrested. A commenter (padlok47) on the YouTube video writes, "and now everyone who quotes jefferson is a mcveigh?"
No. Everyone who shows up at a political rally packing heat quoting Jefferson or anyone else about the right to political violence is advocating the sort of political violence that McVeigh committed and should probably be arrested on charges of incitement and threatening the president.
Meanwhile Georgia Rep. David Scott's office sign was vandalized with a large swastika. I'm not quite sure of the intent here, but I assume that it means one of two things, both of which aren't good:
One more time I'd like to put the question out there to any teabaggers who might be reading this. When the left accused the former president of tyrrany we pointed to specific examples such as the suspension of habeas corpus and the declaration of unilateral and preemptive war and the ordering of torture as acts of tyrrany because they threatened the republican institutions of this country. You shout 'tyrrany' at the top of your lungs but I don't understand what it is that Obama has done that you think counts as tyrrany! Which of Obama's specific actions taken since he took office do you view as tyrranical, and why? Quick caveat: proposing to extend medicare-type benefits to essentially everyone over 18 doesn't count.
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Timothy McVeigh also referenced this quote on the t-shirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The sign and the gun taken together send an unmistakable message: this man advocates advancing his political agenda through violent means, possibly even assasination. I cannot understand how he was not arrested. A commenter (padlok47) on the YouTube video writes, "and now everyone who quotes jefferson is a mcveigh?"
No. Everyone who shows up at a political rally packing heat quoting Jefferson or anyone else about the right to political violence is advocating the sort of political violence that McVeigh committed and should probably be arrested on charges of incitement and threatening the president.
Meanwhile Georgia Rep. David Scott's office sign was vandalized with a large swastika. I'm not quite sure of the intent here, but I assume that it means one of two things, both of which aren't good:
- David Scott is being accused of being a Nazi. This makes no sense. Is David Scott the first black Nazi in history?
- The vandal is a Nazi and is putting this black elected official "on notice". Apparently David Scott should stop provoking the Nazi party?
One more time I'd like to put the question out there to any teabaggers who might be reading this. When the left accused the former president of tyrrany we pointed to specific examples such as the suspension of habeas corpus and the declaration of unilateral and preemptive war and the ordering of torture as acts of tyrrany because they threatened the republican institutions of this country. You shout 'tyrrany' at the top of your lungs but I don't understand what it is that Obama has done that you think counts as tyrrany! Which of Obama's specific actions taken since he took office do you view as tyrranical, and why? Quick caveat: proposing to extend medicare-type benefits to essentially everyone over 18 doesn't count.
Busy News Day
There's too much happening this week to cover all of it in much depth, so here are some more quick news stories.
- An city bus ad run by Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers got pulled by DART. This is a clear-cut case of religious discrimination and unconstitutional an illegal censorship. The existence of atheists and atheists groups is offensive? Get a hold of yourself, Iowa governor Chet Culver.
- Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to the Supreme Court after a noticeable period of relative quiet from the Republicans on this issue. Apparently after the confirmation hearings were over they decided they had ridden that horse as far as it would take them, but that didn't stop them from taking a few parting shots at her as she sailed through the Senate.
- Teabaggers think that the proposed health care reform plan really really is single-payer even though it's not. If they believe that this really is single-payer, so we're having to fight for it as if it were, why wasn't single-payer put on the table to begin with? I'm sick of Democrats pre-compromising things, it doesn't help.
- Right-wing protesters at health care town hall meetings are being supported aggressively by health industry companies and incited towards violence by the right-wing media. Once again we hear accusations of tyrrany and comparisons to Nazis but very little policy discussion. The teabaggers have a lot of anger, and little else.
- Over two hundred freethinkers led by PZ Myers and the Secular Student Alliance will gather to tour Ken Ham's creationist theme park tomorrow morning. I wish I could be there, I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures and reading the blog posts about it.
- George Sodini is a terrible human being who walked into a Pennsylvania gym and murdered three women and wounded ten more before ridding the world of his disgusting existence Wednesday. This is a clear case of violence motivated by mysoginy. Sodini targeted women specifically, blogging about his hatred for women before the attack. Pandagon writes,
George Sodini was angry at the entire world of "desirable" women for not up and volunteering to have sex with him, and every day anonymous men around the country and world beat, rape, and even kill women because said women were also considered insufficiently compliant, often to unstated demands that women were supposed to just anticipate and fill without complaint.
- Unscientific America is on the bookshelves now, and serious scientists are ripping it apart.
Results Are Better Than Bipartisanship
A while back I posted a conversation that I had with a friend about political compromise. Today my girlfriend and I were having a conversation about how the Obama Administration has been disappointing us lately. On the topic of health care in particular, the best position of single-payer health care (not health insurance) was taken off the table by the Democrats before the negotiations even began. Therefore the conversation has been between a weaker position (a public option) and the far-right crazy idea (do nothing).
In 2010 and in 2012 the public will not judge the Democrats based upon how many GOP or Blue Dog votes they managed to secure during the debate on health care. In 2010 and 2012 the voters will judge the Democrats based on whether or not we got change for the better. Obama was elected on a platform of change and change is what we expect.
Last night on Countdown Keith Olbermann outlined the issue: the American people overwhelmingly support health care reform while the health industry overwhelmingly supports the election finances of our members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. I share his outrage. The GOP and the conservative wing of the Democratic party are the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the health industry. No reasonable compromise is possible with the folks who are making money hand-over-fist under the current system.
There is only one path to reelection for the Democrats. Follow through on your campaign promises. Start showing real leadership and a real spine and get things done. If you show up to the 2010 election as the party that lost the health care debate twice then the progressive base that got you elected will not turn out for you again. In particular we will not show up to vote for obstructionist Democrats whose interests are transparently driven by corporate lobbying dollars. You weren't elected in order to build a Democratic majority, you were elected to get things done that help ordinary Americans. Gaining the White House and majorities in the House and Senate aren't the real victory, they're just the entry ticket to start working on it.
Wrapping things up, I'd like to mention a couple of the outright lies and distortions that have been thrown into this debate by the corporate interests and the do-nothings:
The government wants to take over medicare/medicaid. False. The government already runs these programs.
The government is going to kill senior citizens and ration medical care. False. The proposed public option extends coverage similair to medicare and medicaid to more Americans. Substantial changes to existing programs are not being seriously discussed right now. The government will no more ration care under the proposed plan than medicare does now (it doesn't now).
The government cannot run a safe and efficient medical system. False. Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all currently government run. They have lower costs and better outcomes than private insurance plans. Veterans are overwhelmingly happy with their VA plans and want to extend the benefits to their families. The proposed public plan extends this type of system to more Americans.
In 2010 and in 2012 the public will not judge the Democrats based upon how many GOP or Blue Dog votes they managed to secure during the debate on health care. In 2010 and 2012 the voters will judge the Democrats based on whether or not we got change for the better. Obama was elected on a platform of change and change is what we expect.
Last night on Countdown Keith Olbermann outlined the issue: the American people overwhelmingly support health care reform while the health industry overwhelmingly supports the election finances of our members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. I share his outrage. The GOP and the conservative wing of the Democratic party are the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the health industry. No reasonable compromise is possible with the folks who are making money hand-over-fist under the current system.
There is only one path to reelection for the Democrats. Follow through on your campaign promises. Start showing real leadership and a real spine and get things done. If you show up to the 2010 election as the party that lost the health care debate twice then the progressive base that got you elected will not turn out for you again. In particular we will not show up to vote for obstructionist Democrats whose interests are transparently driven by corporate lobbying dollars. You weren't elected in order to build a Democratic majority, you were elected to get things done that help ordinary Americans. Gaining the White House and majorities in the House and Senate aren't the real victory, they're just the entry ticket to start working on it.
Wrapping things up, I'd like to mention a couple of the outright lies and distortions that have been thrown into this debate by the corporate interests and the do-nothings:
The government wants to take over medicare/medicaid. False. The government already runs these programs.
The government is going to kill senior citizens and ration medical care. False. The proposed public option extends coverage similair to medicare and medicaid to more Americans. Substantial changes to existing programs are not being seriously discussed right now. The government will no more ration care under the proposed plan than medicare does now (it doesn't now).
The government cannot run a safe and efficient medical system. False. Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all currently government run. They have lower costs and better outcomes than private insurance plans. Veterans are overwhelmingly happy with their VA plans and want to extend the benefits to their families. The proposed public plan extends this type of system to more Americans.
The Time is Now for Health Care Reform
I've been meaning to do an extensive post on this topic. It's been very much in the news lately with bills appearing before Congress and the Senate and Barack Obama's press conference tonight. However, I don't think I can say it any better than Massimo Pigliucci. Except to add, as Rachel Maddow did, that there is no such thing as moving too fast on an issue that has been in the works for over 60 years. It's also worth noting as Nate Silver did that money from the health insurance industry has a huge effect on the voting patterns of Congressional and Senate Democrats.
This has been one of the moral failings of our country for too long. We can definitely do better.
This has been one of the moral failings of our country for too long. We can definitely do better.
Talking About Compromise
A buddy of mine and I were chatting on IM about the meaning of political compromise the other day. Before posting it here I fixed some but not all punctuation and spelling. In particular over IM I tend not to use capitalization or periods. I also cut bits out to make it more interesting and readable. MONSTRTRKMAN is not his real IM name.
Read more >>
Read more >>
Quick News Stories
Lots of little stories today.
- Reposted from my girlfriend's blog, Radioactive Quill:
So apparently you can be arrested for not appreciating it when a police officer shows up at your house and demands proof that you live there.
Provided you're a Black man, of course. I rather suspect that very few police officers would have the stones to do this to a white man.
Here is the statement by Professor Gates' lawyer. I'm really not sure why he didn't include a threat along the lines of, "I'm going to sue the city for $100 million." I would.
- Reposted from a friend's facebook page, a UF law student:
It's truly amazing that the erosion of racial and sexual bigotry is being accompanied by a revival of religious bigotry. Do people have an innate need to exclude and suppress the "other" that isn't being met now that racism and sexism have become fringe?
If we're discussing founders' intent, why did we include guarantees of religious equality in the First Amendment, while we didn't get around to race until the Fourteenth, or sex until the Nineteenth?
If we're discussing founders' intent, why did we include guarantees of religious equality in the First Amendment, while we didn't get around to race until the Fourteenth, or sex until the Nineteenth?
- A congressman from a district not far from where I live is a crazy birther.
- Good news: Obama is turning up the heat on obstructionist Democrats.
- Molecular developmental biology!
Talking About Compromise (Full Text)
A buddy of mine and I were chatting on IM about the meaning of political compromise the other day. Before posting it here I fixed some but not all punctuation and spelling. In particular over IM I tend not to use capitalization or periods. I also cut bits out to make it more interesting and readable. MONSTRTRKMAN is not his real IM name.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Politics. Bleh. Everybody's wrong because they think they're right. If people would compromise more and try to see eye-to-eye, it'd be a lot less stupid.
me: compromise is often a bad idea
at the start of this country we had a compromise that the North would have slavery and the South would not
MONSTRTRKMAN: I believe you mean that the other way around.
me: Indeed. See how bad a system it was?
MONSTRTRKMAN: And in any case, we got a country out of it. You can't just say it was a bad plan because it granted tacit approval to a morally-corrupt and terrible system and spawned the Civil War.
me: I think that the idea that the best solution is the midpoint between any two opposing ideas has a lot to be desired from the standpoint of logic
MONSTRTRKMAN: America would probably not even exist if that compromise had not been struck.
Best? Hah.
It's not the best solution. It's the one that worked. Compromises tend to work, because both sides have a say.
The best solution would be if England let go without any problems and southern plantation owners stopped being dicks.
me: but what if, knowing that compromise is the rule, one side moves their stated objectives further and further to the outside?
the optimal strategy becomes being as extreme as possible; your ideas don't have to make sense they just have to be more extreme than the other guy's and presto the compromise is closer to what you wanted
MONSTRTRKMAN: Then you stop doing business with them and stop appeasing their cheating asses.
me: Brilliant! Thank you!
MONSTRTRKMAN: Compromise works if people will work with it. If they don't actually want to compromise and they simply want to get their way under the flag of compromise, they can die in a fire.
…
[I bring up the issue of health care reform]
MONSTRTRKMAN: The people want free healthcare. They can't have it.
The insurance companies want no healthcare and all the money. They can't have that.
There has to be a compromise.
'Best' doesn't factor into this.
What will work in REALITY is what's needed.
me: the choice isn't between free healthcare and all moneys to insurance
right now it's between action and no action
MONSTRTRKMAN: No, it's not. But when you're talking about one side vs. the other, that's what each one truly wants.
And they're both insane, unachievable goals. That's why compromise is needed.
me: I'm not sure who you think is advocating free health care.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Nobody is - but you invoked 'the people' a little while ago, or at least 'the majority', and again, it's not what they're advocating - they'll never get it and they know it - but it's what they truly want.
me: I'm advocating having the government pay for more of it because of the increased efficiencies that are possible in this particular marketplace
me: the patchwork system we have now requires a lot of overhead costs and is a big burden on small businesses and discourages people from changing jobs to places they might be more efficient
MONSTRTRKMAN: A perfectly reasonable approach. I probably agree. But we're not arguing healthcare. We're arguing compromise and reality vs. black-and-white annihilation of the insurance industry.
Or black-and-white selection of any side over compromise.
me: I'm not arguing for black-and-white choices, I'm arguing that we should be less compromising on certain issues
MONSTRTRKMAN: Or are you? I believe "it's just what the people want: the industry can go screw" was posited not long ago as the 'best solution.'
As opposed to a compromise, that is.
me: I think that we should listen to what individuals and doctors and hospitals and political parties have to say: the insurance industry has shown itself to be a nasty cheater and should be cut out of the process
We can strike a compromise among the reasonable people.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Compromises - real, honest-to-God attempts by both sides to reach a decision that they both will support and attempt to champion - are needed in politics.
They need to be the rule, not the exception.
There's far too much vilification and 'GO TEAM! HA-HA, SUCK IT, OTHER TEAM!' in politics.
MONSTRTRKMAN: There is no magic bullet. Cut out the insurance agencies entirely and some bad stuff is gonna happen. Both sides need to work together.
me: I think if you're not pissed off you haven't been paying enough attention
we are so far away from any sort of reasonable system right now
MONSTRTRKMAN: Hah, you're still trying to make this about healthcare because you feel it's enough of a polarizing battleground that you can change my mind about compromise.
me: well it's in front of the congress right now
the other current issue is energy policy and global warming
MONSTRTRKMAN: You think I like insurance? It's a waste of money and resources. A colossal waste. But we need to compromise or nothing is ever going to get done.
me: should we talk about my propensity to compromise with people who think God is going to end the world within a generation so we don't need to protect the earth?
I am sorry - sometimes when I hear the word compromise I think it means "compromise with crazy people"
MONSTRTRKMAN: If they matter in terms of the central issue, then you do. Human beings are stubborn, irrational, illogical creatures. You think you can bloody their nose and they'll accept it? Cut them out of the process and they'll want revenge. No, you need to bring everybody to the table. Even the crazy people.
…
[We move to talking about Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen’s comments on environmental protection]
me: we should win the argument on the basis of sound logic and clear communication, not compromise with crazy
MONSTRTRKMAN: That approach will crystallize the issue as one of religion. You'll either congregate support around her or make her a martyr. And making a fight out of it ensures she'll never change her mind - people are stubborn.
We should.
But we won't.
me: I disagree, I think a well-made argument can pare her support away over time
MONSTRTRKMAN: How many people believe the Holocaust never happened? How many people believe we never landed on the moon?
Logical, well-made arguments only work on people willing to hear them.
And they're in the minority.
me: I'm not willing to give up on the electorate or stop trying to convince people of good science or sound policy.
MONSTRTRKMAN: I never said you had to do any of that.
me: People are smart: if you tell them that dumb ideas are dumb and why they are dumb they will listen.
MONSTRTRKMAN: What you have to do is work with the people who DON'T.
To quote Men In Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe."
me: Yeah, and the argument wasn't won by adopting a compromise stance.
Galileo stuck to his guns and got excommunicated.
We should have adopted a "partly curved" hypothesis as a compromise between flat earth and round earth?
MONSTRTRKMAN: No. But I do like how you're jumping around the issue - the key here is that you can't convince the masses. You need to work with the people in charge. The people who make changes happen.
me: I disagree entirely.
You can and you must convince the masses, the powerful will always be the last to move.
They will defend their little patch of the status quo until you yank it out from under their feet by popular demand.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Conflict. Always back to conflict. For someone who espouses cool rationality and logical arguments, why do the answers always end in vilification and antipathy?
me: Are you saying that my positions are not logical?
MONSTRTRKMAN: Please. Your positions are eminently logical.
Your approach is fraught with conflict. And political divide.
me: Logic needs passionate defense or it will be overwhelmed by vested interest and unfair bias and racism and sexism and dogma etc etc
MONSTRTRKMAN: To an extent. But when you go to the extreme of vilifying one side outright, you risk falling into the same abyss you rail so passionately against.
me: I rail against poor judgment and corrupt power
If the people who hold opposing views were able to speak more logically we would have more to talk about. It's hard to engage with stupidity: I do try!!
MONSTRTRKMAN: That's a fair point, but it's bringing your own bias to the table - the world is not a fair and rational place. We must take the positive aspects of as many approaches as we can and attempt to better our situation through them - and means conceding things that you know for a fact are wrong.
me: I am willing to concede or compromise for the sake of strategy
MONSTRTRKMAN: That is what ALL sides must do.
me: The GOP members of Congress have decided that, given their current lack of actual numbers they will oppose all Obama policies on the hope that if things go poorly they can point fingers later.
Their strategy at this time does not include the possibility of compromise.
MONSTRTRKMAN: That event doesn't exist in a vacuum. They should have compromised earlier, and the democrats should have been receptive to it. I'm not saying they weren't, mind you, but just in general.
me: they have nothing to gain from compromise and lots to gain from showing symbolic opposition
MONSTRTRKMAN: They do now. Great.
Both sides need to stop being dicks to each other and freaking WORK TOGETHER.
me: however there are two political groups that matter right now
these are progressive Democrats and obstructionist Democrats
…
me: well I'm trying to say that my stance as far as compromise is concerned ENTIRELY DEPENDS on what the situation is and who the other side is
MONSTRTRKMAN: And therein lies the problem. Compromise with strings attached isn't really compromise.
me: No - that's what compromise has always been.
I get this, you get that; done deal.
MONSTRTRKMAN: You're coming to the table with preconceptions about who you'll work with.
Who you're willing to negotiate with.
Those are the strings I'm referring to.
me: If you soften your position before going in to negotiate then the other side will just negotiate with that weaker position instead.
Then you'll lose twice instead of just once.
This is logical!
MONSTRTRKMAN: If you refuse to compromise and simply decide to attack the other side outright, then you're probably going to make the situation worse.
These are people, Steve! They're NOT LOGICAL!
…
MONSTRTRKMAN: And if they hold some of the keys to repairing our planet or healing our sick, then geez, we need to talk to them. And compromise with them.
Because fighting with them is a distraction from those issues.
me: yes. the obstructionist Dems hold power over these issues now. The GOP does not.
…
[We talk about game theory and optimal strategies]
MONSTRTRKMAN: Anyway, the point here is that you are most successful when you are open to everything and everyone.
me: I think you're stretching an analogy [about game theory] a bit thin here
the game situation is just people offering trades, a marketplace
MONSTRTRKMAN: Eh, perhaps. It's game theory that supports my viewpoint, however. Again, I do not care about political viewpoints. I think both sides are being idiots.
me: In the marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are equal unlike how all dollars are equal.
Ideas must be judged according to one's values.
MONSTRTRKMAN: In this discussion, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Atheists, etc. are irrelevant. The point is that both sides should be open to compromise and dealing with the other side.
me: I like it when we are peaceful and prosperous and not excessively unfair
a little bit of unfairness is acceptable
some people want way too much
MONSTRTRKMAN: Well, they need to compromise.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Politics. Bleh. Everybody's wrong because they think they're right. If people would compromise more and try to see eye-to-eye, it'd be a lot less stupid.
me: compromise is often a bad idea
at the start of this country we had a compromise that the North would have slavery and the South would not
MONSTRTRKMAN: I believe you mean that the other way around.
me: Indeed. See how bad a system it was?
MONSTRTRKMAN: And in any case, we got a country out of it. You can't just say it was a bad plan because it granted tacit approval to a morally-corrupt and terrible system and spawned the Civil War.
me: I think that the idea that the best solution is the midpoint between any two opposing ideas has a lot to be desired from the standpoint of logic
MONSTRTRKMAN: America would probably not even exist if that compromise had not been struck.
Best? Hah.
It's not the best solution. It's the one that worked. Compromises tend to work, because both sides have a say.
The best solution would be if England let go without any problems and southern plantation owners stopped being dicks.
me: but what if, knowing that compromise is the rule, one side moves their stated objectives further and further to the outside?
the optimal strategy becomes being as extreme as possible; your ideas don't have to make sense they just have to be more extreme than the other guy's and presto the compromise is closer to what you wanted
MONSTRTRKMAN: Then you stop doing business with them and stop appeasing their cheating asses.
me: Brilliant! Thank you!
MONSTRTRKMAN: Compromise works if people will work with it. If they don't actually want to compromise and they simply want to get their way under the flag of compromise, they can die in a fire.
…
[I bring up the issue of health care reform]
MONSTRTRKMAN: The people want free healthcare. They can't have it.
The insurance companies want no healthcare and all the money. They can't have that.
There has to be a compromise.
'Best' doesn't factor into this.
What will work in REALITY is what's needed.
me: the choice isn't between free healthcare and all moneys to insurance
right now it's between action and no action
MONSTRTRKMAN: No, it's not. But when you're talking about one side vs. the other, that's what each one truly wants.
And they're both insane, unachievable goals. That's why compromise is needed.
me: I'm not sure who you think is advocating free health care.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Nobody is - but you invoked 'the people' a little while ago, or at least 'the majority', and again, it's not what they're advocating - they'll never get it and they know it - but it's what they truly want.
me: I'm advocating having the government pay for more of it because of the increased efficiencies that are possible in this particular marketplace
me: the patchwork system we have now requires a lot of overhead costs and is a big burden on small businesses and discourages people from changing jobs to places they might be more efficient
MONSTRTRKMAN: A perfectly reasonable approach. I probably agree. But we're not arguing healthcare. We're arguing compromise and reality vs. black-and-white annihilation of the insurance industry.
Or black-and-white selection of any side over compromise.
me: I'm not arguing for black-and-white choices, I'm arguing that we should be less compromising on certain issues
MONSTRTRKMAN: Or are you? I believe "it's just what the people want: the industry can go screw" was posited not long ago as the 'best solution.'
As opposed to a compromise, that is.
me: I think that we should listen to what individuals and doctors and hospitals and political parties have to say: the insurance industry has shown itself to be a nasty cheater and should be cut out of the process
We can strike a compromise among the reasonable people.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Compromises - real, honest-to-God attempts by both sides to reach a decision that they both will support and attempt to champion - are needed in politics.
They need to be the rule, not the exception.
There's far too much vilification and 'GO TEAM! HA-HA, SUCK IT, OTHER TEAM!' in politics.
MONSTRTRKMAN: There is no magic bullet. Cut out the insurance agencies entirely and some bad stuff is gonna happen. Both sides need to work together.
me: I think if you're not pissed off you haven't been paying enough attention
we are so far away from any sort of reasonable system right now
MONSTRTRKMAN: Hah, you're still trying to make this about healthcare because you feel it's enough of a polarizing battleground that you can change my mind about compromise.
me: well it's in front of the congress right now
the other current issue is energy policy and global warming
MONSTRTRKMAN: You think I like insurance? It's a waste of money and resources. A colossal waste. But we need to compromise or nothing is ever going to get done.
me: should we talk about my propensity to compromise with people who think God is going to end the world within a generation so we don't need to protect the earth?
I am sorry - sometimes when I hear the word compromise I think it means "compromise with crazy people"
MONSTRTRKMAN: If they matter in terms of the central issue, then you do. Human beings are stubborn, irrational, illogical creatures. You think you can bloody their nose and they'll accept it? Cut them out of the process and they'll want revenge. No, you need to bring everybody to the table. Even the crazy people.
…
[We move to talking about Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen’s comments on environmental protection]
me: we should win the argument on the basis of sound logic and clear communication, not compromise with crazy
MONSTRTRKMAN: That approach will crystallize the issue as one of religion. You'll either congregate support around her or make her a martyr. And making a fight out of it ensures she'll never change her mind - people are stubborn.
We should.
But we won't.
me: I disagree, I think a well-made argument can pare her support away over time
MONSTRTRKMAN: How many people believe the Holocaust never happened? How many people believe we never landed on the moon?
Logical, well-made arguments only work on people willing to hear them.
And they're in the minority.
me: I'm not willing to give up on the electorate or stop trying to convince people of good science or sound policy.
MONSTRTRKMAN: I never said you had to do any of that.
me: People are smart: if you tell them that dumb ideas are dumb and why they are dumb they will listen.
MONSTRTRKMAN: What you have to do is work with the people who DON'T.
To quote Men In Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe."
me: Yeah, and the argument wasn't won by adopting a compromise stance.
Galileo stuck to his guns and got excommunicated.
We should have adopted a "partly curved" hypothesis as a compromise between flat earth and round earth?
MONSTRTRKMAN: No. But I do like how you're jumping around the issue - the key here is that you can't convince the masses. You need to work with the people in charge. The people who make changes happen.
me: I disagree entirely.
You can and you must convince the masses, the powerful will always be the last to move.
They will defend their little patch of the status quo until you yank it out from under their feet by popular demand.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Conflict. Always back to conflict. For someone who espouses cool rationality and logical arguments, why do the answers always end in vilification and antipathy?
me: Are you saying that my positions are not logical?
MONSTRTRKMAN: Please. Your positions are eminently logical.
Your approach is fraught with conflict. And political divide.
me: Logic needs passionate defense or it will be overwhelmed by vested interest and unfair bias and racism and sexism and dogma etc etc
MONSTRTRKMAN: To an extent. But when you go to the extreme of vilifying one side outright, you risk falling into the same abyss you rail so passionately against.
me: I rail against poor judgment and corrupt power
If the people who hold opposing views were able to speak more logically we would have more to talk about. It's hard to engage with stupidity: I do try!!
MONSTRTRKMAN: That's a fair point, but it's bringing your own bias to the table - the world is not a fair and rational place. We must take the positive aspects of as many approaches as we can and attempt to better our situation through them - and means conceding things that you know for a fact are wrong.
me: I am willing to concede or compromise for the sake of strategy
MONSTRTRKMAN: That is what ALL sides must do.
me: The GOP members of Congress have decided that, given their current lack of actual numbers they will oppose all Obama policies on the hope that if things go poorly they can point fingers later.
Their strategy at this time does not include the possibility of compromise.
MONSTRTRKMAN: That event doesn't exist in a vacuum. They should have compromised earlier, and the democrats should have been receptive to it. I'm not saying they weren't, mind you, but just in general.
me: they have nothing to gain from compromise and lots to gain from showing symbolic opposition
MONSTRTRKMAN: They do now. Great.
Both sides need to stop being dicks to each other and freaking WORK TOGETHER.
me: however there are two political groups that matter right now
these are progressive Democrats and obstructionist Democrats
…
me: well I'm trying to say that my stance as far as compromise is concerned ENTIRELY DEPENDS on what the situation is and who the other side is
MONSTRTRKMAN: And therein lies the problem. Compromise with strings attached isn't really compromise.
me: No - that's what compromise has always been.
I get this, you get that; done deal.
MONSTRTRKMAN: You're coming to the table with preconceptions about who you'll work with.
Who you're willing to negotiate with.
Those are the strings I'm referring to.
me: If you soften your position before going in to negotiate then the other side will just negotiate with that weaker position instead.
Then you'll lose twice instead of just once.
This is logical!
MONSTRTRKMAN: If you refuse to compromise and simply decide to attack the other side outright, then you're probably going to make the situation worse.
These are people, Steve! They're NOT LOGICAL!
…
MONSTRTRKMAN: And if they hold some of the keys to repairing our planet or healing our sick, then geez, we need to talk to them. And compromise with them.
Because fighting with them is a distraction from those issues.
me: yes. the obstructionist Dems hold power over these issues now. The GOP does not.
…
[We talk about game theory and optimal strategies]
MONSTRTRKMAN: Anyway, the point here is that you are most successful when you are open to everything and everyone.
me: I think you're stretching an analogy [about game theory] a bit thin here
the game situation is just people offering trades, a marketplace
MONSTRTRKMAN: Eh, perhaps. It's game theory that supports my viewpoint, however. Again, I do not care about political viewpoints. I think both sides are being idiots.
me: In the marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are equal unlike how all dollars are equal.
Ideas must be judged according to one's values.
MONSTRTRKMAN: In this discussion, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Atheists, etc. are irrelevant. The point is that both sides should be open to compromise and dealing with the other side.
me: I like it when we are peaceful and prosperous and not excessively unfair
a little bit of unfairness is acceptable
some people want way too much
MONSTRTRKMAN: Well, they need to compromise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
