Tag: democrats

2010, the GOP, and Play or Pay

Greg Sargent pulls out some interesting figures from a recent WaPo poll:

* That Dems hold an overwhelming 20-point lead on which party is most trusted on major issues, with Obama preferred over Republicans by 12 points on health care.

* That a majority, 53%, agrees that “government reform of the nation’s health care system is necessary to control costs and expand coverage,” underscoring yet again that the public wants government action.

* That a plurality now believes reform won’t prevent people from keeping their own health care, suggesting the public may be it reform as less and less threatening.

* That a big majority, or 62%, believe Republicans have not made a good faith effort to cooperate with Dems on health care.

That last one seems the most damning. Everyone talks about 2010 being full of doom for the Democratic party. To be sure, historic majorities like the current Democratic position don’t last. By definition, any “historic” majority is going to include seats that, for one reason or another, are more likely to be held by the non-historic-majority party more often than not.

But, and it’s a big but: to go back to the “predictable” seat holder party-wise, you still have to give those “predictable” voters a reason to prefer you. And the GOP isn’t doing it so far. Even worse: people are noticing. Naturally, we need to see some of these toss-up districts broken out to be sure, but I suspect this polling data is more or less on the nose.

The bad news for Democrats in this poll is this:

a big majority wants Dems to craft a bill that will win GOP support

Since we know a priori that no proposal will win GOP support (party leaders have done everything but put that in writing on granite tablets), there would appear to be a rather hazardous, built-in capacity for outrage. That is: voters, never ones to pay a lot of attention, will see that some healthcare reforms passed, not realize that nothing rolls out until 2012 or later (circa 2010: “I ain’t seen nuthim from it ‘tall!”), see (and be told repeatedly) that not one member of the GOP voted for it in the House and that (at most) one or two GOPers voted for it in the Senate, and will assume that all the “problems” with the bill are well and truly the fault of the Democrats. And, here’s the rub: they’ll assume it’s all because they wouldn’t work with the GOP, not because the GOP refused to work in good faith with the Democrats. The ever feckless Reid et al. will try to point out that no GOP proposal or counter-offer (beyond Go Die in the Streets) ever appeared. But the media cares not for nuance, and you need to be setting up the short, two or three word rhyming drumbeat right now, every day, every hour, and every minute about GOP intransigence such that, when the time comes (and it will come), you can merely call back to your groundwork, which will seem familiar, and will almost automatically become the basis for the discussion. No Democrat should even be approaching a microphone without uttering something like “The GOP needs to Play, or Pay.”

Of course, that will not happen. And, we all know that, even if the Democrats managed to gain seats in 2010, it will be portrayed as “good for Republicans.” Everything always is.

GOP: Officially Defunct

There is no serious dialogue between the Democrats and the GOP. How can you possibly form any governing coalition between groups when one half of those groups refuses to accept empirical reality?

This is a post about Joe Wilson, but not about him specifically. But let’s start there. He’s the one who lied when he called out “You Lie!” in reference to coverage of illegal aliens. Facts are troublesome things to the modern GOP; one need not read any further than the name of the appropriate subsection to see what’s what, but Politifact goes one further:

…health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants

If this outburst were limited only to the sad fucktard that is Joe Wilson, that’d be one thing. But Dana Milbank lays out the entire sad situation:

Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would “leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” They hissed when he protested their “scare tactics.” They grumbled as they do in Britain’s House of Commons when Obama spoke of the “blizzard of charges and countercharges.”

When he asserted that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted “What plan?” and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: “WHAT PLAN?” Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said “WHAT BILL?”

The essential outcome of all this is something the media seems to forget on a daily basis: There is no GOP anymore as a functional political party interested in governance. Full stop. All policy debate, healthcare or otherwise is being conducted by Democrats: liberal and conservative. They then have to pass said policy through a perfectly mysterious 60-vote supra-majority in the Senate that the media can never see fit to explain either. Just why is it that the Senate cannot move on 51-vote majorities? Why is that anti-democratic policy in place and ruling our worlds? Easier to repeat whatever it is Drudge is peddling, I suppose. But consulting the MSM, you will never, ever find out what’s behind those mysterious 60-vote requirements. But, rest assured, there is no dialogue, because there is no (functional) GOP. It seems more and more likely that the ultimate outcome of the current situation is a new third party that, over time, first relegates the GOP into a regional, state-level party, and then into Whig-town.

And but Obama is exactly right, though probably a few decades late, in issuing this warning:

[When] we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter, we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

One might add that we also lose the ability to govern the country at all.

You’d hope that the powers-that-be in the GOP (or the public at large) will see this sequence as a tipping point, and Joe Wilson will become the Joe McCarthy of his era (though, in his case, managing to be his own Joe Welch). Based on the various FOXnews reactions last night, I seriously doubt it. Things will only get much, much worse as Joe Wilson is held out as some sort of conquering hero and sets about creating a whole crew cast in the vapid image of Sarah Palin.

Whoa there, Trigger

Why are the Republicans so afraid of the Power of the Market? Here’s (extremely conservative) Democrat Ben Nelson saying why he’d support a so-called “trigger” option that would, at some hypothetical point in the future, activate a public plan built into some version of the forthcoming insurance reform (emphasis added):

“If, somehow, the private market doesn’t respond the way that it’s supposed to [to other aspects of health care reform], then it would trigger a public option or a government-run option,” Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “but only as a failsafe, backstop to the process. And when I say trigger … I don’t mean a hair trigger. I mean a true trigger – one that would only apply if there isn’t the kind of competition in the business that we believe there would be.”

Naturally, the Republicans are against even this idea (emphasis in original):

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Republicans aren’t likely to be receptive to public option “trigger,” which would kick into effect only if private insurers fail to meet benchmarks.

“I don’t think so,” Gingrich said on Fox News Sunday.

[–]

Gov. Pawlenty says “all it does is delay the inevitable… if Republicans embrace the trigger, all  they’re going to do is shoot themselves in the foot.”

I see. I see. What we have here is the old accidental truth seepage. If you’re in front of cameras, lying, for long enough…eventually and by accident some truth will get out of you. The GOP leadership in charge of messaging knows damned well that the mythical “market” of insurance won’t work at all. Healthcare is not and has never been a traditional market. It’s the nature of it. Thus, they know, KNOW that a trigger option, no matter how non-hair-trigger it might be will, in fact, be triggered. In one fell swoop such a trigger would show both the inability of the markets to solve every problem on this Earth, and (b) implying a role for government in, you know, anything not abortion or gun-ownership related.

Fuck the general welfare and well-being of The Republic. This would undermine the fundamental, guiding principles of the GOP: government isn’t part of the problem, government is the problem. And, just like with S-CHIP, such things cannot be allowed, no matter what the human cost.

Yep

“My fellow Americans, we say that healthcare is a right of all citizens. The other party says that it is a privilege for those who can afford it. If you agree with them that healthcare is a privilege, not a right, then vote for them. We would like to persuade you to join us, but if we can’t, then we are going to defeat you.

"Decades ago our opponents tried to block Social Security and Medicare, using the same bogus arguments that they are using today against healthcare reform. They said Social Security and Medicare would bankrupt the country. They were wrong. Once we fix the cost inflation of our broken medical sector, with some minor tweaks Social Security and Medicare can be made solvent forever.

"Decades ago, our opponents said that Social Security and Medicare would turn the United States into a fascist or communist police state. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. And not only are they wrong, they are hypocritical. Many of our opponents who claim absurdly that universal healthcare will bring tyranny to the U.S. have defended some of the greatest assaults on civil liberties and the rule of law in American history during the previous administration.

"They can draw a Hitler mustache on me. They can draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa, for all I care. They are wrong and we are going to defeat them.

"We won the elections and we are the majority. We would like to build the biggest consensus possible, but progress is more important than consensus. Our job is to help the American people, not split the difference between right and wrong by giving a veto to the party that the American people have rejected.

"In this fight, as in earlier struggles, powerful interests are opposed to the needs of the people. In the 19th century, we the people defeated the Southern slave owners, freed the slaves and saved the nation. In the 20th century, while fighting alongside many other nations to save the world from militarism and totalitarianism, we the people here at home tamed the corporations for a generation and fought segregation based on race, gender and, more recently, sexual orientation.

"Today the campaign for affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, is opposed by powerful interests in the medical and insurance industries. They seek to deceive and confuse you. And they seek to bribe or intimidate your elected representatives into serving their will rather than the needs of the public.

"They may win this battle. They may win the next. But we will never stop fighting for the needs of the many against the greed of the few. For more than 200 years, from the time we threw off the tyranny of the British empire and established our republic, we have worked to realize the spirit of ‘76 on this continent and in the world beyond. The enemies of progress have money on their side. We have history on ours.”

–Michael Lind

Profiles in Courage

Joe Lieberman on health care reform:

Morally, everyone of us would like to cover every American with health insurance but that’s where you spend most of the trillion dollars plus, or a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession. There’s no reason we have to do it all now.

Well, Joe, if you’d bother to read the bills in question, you’d see that the programs phase in over time (currently ranging from three to five years so far as I know; so far as Lieberman’s concerned the figure is five years, the number that the Baucus Plan puts on it).

I challenge Joe to find me an economist, any economist, that says we’ll be in as bad or worse shape in five years’ time. Furthermore, I challenge Joe to explain why it is that Congress should only be considering policy based on the conditions of the previous six months and not those spanning (and constituting) the next decade?

Harry Reid should immediately cut back Lieberman’s responsibilities in the Demomcratic Caucus such that he has more time to read extant pending legislation and also plan long-term.

El Dorado

As the Obama administration merrily dispatches with that part of healthcare that the public broadly (and, the WH would add: inexplicably) favors, the Public Option, they still stand pat on the part that will really get the folks screaming: the individual mandate. Marc Ambinder chanels the latest (and inevetiably a self-loathing Clinton administration alum) “anonymous source” from inside the Obama administration who chooses to leak this sort of self-damning pablum:

The president continues to operate under the belief that liberals will warm to the bill when presented with a goodybag that includes includes an individual mandate, community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum required package. There’s no chance, really, that a bill WON’T feature these reforms. Quietly, to secure and keep Democrats on board, the White House is going to bargain, providing inducements, like more money for favored projects, etc., in order to secure individual votes.

Let’s get Rahm in order on something right now: Without a robust public option there can be no individual mandate. Without strict cost controls and the much-longed-after downward bend to the cost curve, all you’re left with is today’s overpriced, low-choice coverage which, under new laws anybody can get…and they’d have to. That’s sort of why the insurance lobbies favor a plan with no public option and/but an individual mandate; especially if their buddy Max Baucus manages to use the legislation to increase their profit margins to 35%. Oh, and we’d be ditching the employer mandate as well. So there’d be impetus for employers to ditch the matching coverage schemes of today to cut their costs in favor of kicking you out on your own…where you’d be required by law to pay ever more since you’d have no access to the sort of pooled coverage groups and bargaining power that might actually, you know, contain costs. This is really sounding like a wonderful plan they’ve got going.

You can ditch the public option, but with it has, HAS to go: the individual mandate. You then rely on slow growth of acceptance (the campaigning Obama said as much: people will buy healthcare if they can afford it. They want to buy in, but often can’t in the current setup that’s too heavily weighted towards certain “good” jobs with plans attached or the occasional large coverage pools.) It would be a bad outcome, and would extend the period of suffering for all of us; but it’s not nearly as bad as losing the public option and the employer mandate and yet inexplicably keeping the individual mandate along with none of the potential consumer choice and provider competition-oriented benefits. Now you’re forced to buy insurance that too few folks can afford anyway.

Instead, we’re being told to quit being smelly hippies and get on board with the wonderful program of force-fed shit sandwiches, and could we please all agree it’s the best of all possible worlds? Uh, no. We can’t. Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.

Short Attention Span Theater

John Boehner is really, really pushing the lack of ‘Mericans to store and recall any fucking fact, no matter how recently the were exposed to said fact:

“It’s a shame that the White House and their liberal allies are now trying re-write history. From the beginning of this debate, Republicans have tried to work with the President and Democrats on real health care reform that reduces cost and expands access for the American people. Instead, Democrats played the old Washington game, bribing and log-rolling special interests to produce a plan that will cost at least a trillion dollars and just won’t work.”

I see. So this is some other group than that GOP whose second-in-command in the Senate had said that “almost all Republicans” were likely to oppose reform, no matter how bipartisan its sourcing, up to and including a bill that the Republican members of the committee might (theoretically) have written themselves. Indeed this is entirely the fault of the Democrat. And that’s certainly good news for Republicans.

All Hands On the Bad One

And so we hear that the so-called Public Option is probably heavily weighted towards “option” and rather more lightly so toward “public.” We’ll end up with the Co-Ops, a watered down version of the already rather watery Public Option of so much debate. It’s too bad that thousands of grannies have already gone to their deaths at the behest of the various death panels that had yet to hear of these operative changes.

But I think Yglesias has it right:

Given that adding a robust public option into the mix would reduce costs, if you set up a system without a public option wouldn’t you be able to add the public option in later years as an uncontroversial application of the reconciliation process? It seems to me that doing so would count as a 100 percent legitimate deficit reduction play. The public option concept also polls substantially better than does health reform as a whole. Under the circumstances, the odds for securing 50 senate votes for adding one strike me as pretty good.

Yep. Follow the MA model more or less exactly. Get most of everyone insured, giving up cost-controls to the GOP as you go. Then you find: hey, without those cost controls, costs aren’t, uh, controlled. And you revisit cost controls because, what do you know, the program itself is damned popular. Even assuming the 60-vote majority has by then evaporated or diminished, you can ram it through on a Reconciliation basis because it’s absolutely 100% budget related and finally brings the costs under control.

Colonel Sanders

One of those quotes that needs no introduction; independent Senator Bernie Sanders:

“I think that with Al Franken coming on board, you have effectively 60 Democrats in the caucus, 58 and two Independents,” Sanders said in an interview with the Huffington Post. “I think the strategy should be to say, it doesn’t take 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster. And if somebody who votes for that ends up saying, ‘I’m not gonna vote for this bill, it’s too radical, blah, blah, blah, that’s fine.’”

Exactly. Naturally, no Democrat in the Senate will see it this way, and they’ll continue to be feckless drones to whatever the David Broders of the world seem to think constitutes “serious” opinion. Step Two: ? Step Three: Profit!