Go Nancy, Go!

[nikkibong]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/..._care_overhaul

Today's the day!

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/..._care_overhaul

Today's the day!

Call me after the senate is done.

[Wonderment]

Call me after the senate is done.

Good point, but still, this is a huge and well-deserved victory for Obama.

The closeness of the vote vindicates his approach, I believe. Squeezing anything more than a mild version of public option out of the House was just not doable. The President got the most he could get. Kudos to him and Pelosi.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Good point, but still, this is a huge and well-deserved victory for Obama.

The closeness of the vote vindicates his approach, I believe. Squeezing anything more than a mild version of public option out of the House was just not doable. The President got the most he could get. Kudos to him and Pelosi.

Wonderment, Obama is a gutless centrist afraid of rocking the boat. Wait a second, I think I got our parts reversed!

This is definitely cause for celebration. What I don't understand is the 30+ Dems who voted against it. Do they it's going to make them any safer? The wingnuts are still gunning for them. Might as well take credit for doing a good thing if you're going to be attacked for it anyway.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Wonderment, Obama is a gutless centrist afraid of rocking the boat. Wait a second, I think I got our parts reversed!

LOL!

This is definitely cause for celebration. What I don't understand is the 30+ Dems who voted against it. Do they it's going to make them any safer? The wingnuts are still gunning for them. Might as well take credit for doing a good thing if you're going to be attacked for it anyway.

Agreed. I don't understand why they can't grasp this.

(I think big money has a lot to do with it, though, especially on HCR. Some politicians are honest -- they stay bought.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Agreed. I don't understand why they can't grasp this.

(I think big money has a lot to do with it, though, especially on HCR. Some politicians are honest -- they stay bought.)

I was wondering last night whether any of the Dems voted against it because of more principled reasons. Turns out this is true for at least one: Dennis Kucinich.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I was wondering last night whether any of the Dems voted against it because of more principled reasons. Turns out this is true for at least one: Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich makes great points. if this obomination (hehehe couldn't resist) of a bill ends up having individual mandates for private insurance - then this should be a day of mourning for progressives, not celebration.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

Kucinich makes great points. if this obomination (hehehe couldn't resist) of a bill ends up having individual mandates for private insurance - then this should be a day of mourning for progressives, not celebration.

I dunno. I haven't looked at the details closely enough to be sure (in large part because I think lots will change once the Senate and House go to conference), but my sense is that this may well be a case where we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think we would spend the rest of eternity waiting in vain for the sort of health care/health insurance reform you and I would ideally like if we tried to get it all in one fell swoop. There is just too much money opposing any sort of reform, and there are too many people willing to buy into whatever FUD this money pays to broadcast.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I dunno. I haven't looked at the details closely enough to be sure (in large part because I think lots will change once the Senate and House go to conference), but my sense is that this may well be a case where we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think we would spend the rest of eternity waiting in vain for the sort of health care/health insurance reform you and I would ideally like if we tried to get it all in one fell swoop. There is just too much money opposing any sort of reform, and there are too many people willing to buy into whatever FUD this money pays to broadcast.

A reasonable public option is the lowest level of compromise i could sink to and support "reform".

if "reform" means handing billions of dollars to the vampire corporations that interpose themselves between people and health care, AND fucking me out of my freedom by requiring me to pay for the fucking privilege of letting these bastards suck my blood - then by all means let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" as defined by this "reform".

yes, i'm ranting. but this really is starting to look like Bill Clinton all over again - elect a democrat, pass the republican wet-dream "reforms" that no progressive would ever support unless beguiled by some poser of a politician...

I'm going off the kucinich piece, but if what he is saying is accurate....ugghhh this sure aint reform.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

[...]

Noted. As I said, I can't really comment on the specifics.

[Added] But given the current situation, I'm happy that at least some Democrats are trying to push for what they can get. If it works out even close to how they advertise it (more people covered, some containment on increasing costs), I'll call it a step, and hope that once the screaming over this step dies down, they'll take the next step.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

A reasonable public option is the lowest level of compromise i could sink to and support "reform".

if "reform" means handing billions of dollars to the vampire corporations that interpose themselves between people and health care, AND fucking me out of my freedom by requiring me to pay for the fucking privilege of letting these bastards suck my blood - then by all means let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" as defined by this "reform".

yes, i'm ranting. but this really is starting to look like Bill Clinton all over again - elect a democrat, pass the republican wet-dream "reforms" that no progressive would ever support unless beguiled by some poser of a politician...

I'm going off the kucinich piece, but if what he is saying is accurate....ugghhh this sure aint reform.

The bill has $50-90 billion (I forget) in subsidies for people to pay for that insurance! Plus no more denying payment for when people actually get sick. That's pretty good. Plenty of progressive countries with universal coverage have private insurance plus individual mandate systems -- Holland, Germany, Switzerland, etc (their insurers are all non-profit though).

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Originally Posted by claymisher

The bill has $50-90 billion (I forget) in subsidies for people to pay for that insurance! Plus no more denying payment for when people actually get sick. That's pretty good. Plenty of progressive countries with universal coverage have private insurance plus individual mandate systems -- Holland, Germany, Switzerland, etc (their insurers are all non-profit though).

Correction: the Dutch allow for-profit insurers now, as of some reforms in 2007.

[Wonderment]

Kucinich makes great points. if this obomination (hehehe couldn't resist) of a bill ends up having individual mandates for private insurance - then this should be a day of mourning for progressives, not celebration.

I supported Dennis Kucinich for president until Barack won the nomination. He does make great points, and a lot of us feel that this bill will not come remotely close to providing the kind of healthcare reform we need, and it may even be counterproductive (enabling premiums to continue to soar).

I'm still happy it passed, however, as opposed to being defeated by the Republicans. It's the most that could have been wrung out of this Congress, and we have to hope it's a first step toward significant reform. Also, a loss here for Obama might have been catastrophic for his presidency, leading to a Repub. takeover in 2012 and 2014, which would be very bad outcomes.

[Wonderment]

Wonderment, Obama is a gutless centrist afraid of rocking the boat.

I've never accused him of being gutless. Just accommodating.

When he wins a close one like this, however, he sure looks like the consummate political genius.

So he gets a big high-five from me.

Even though the bill is still a long way from being law, and even though Senators owned by the insurance lobby are still likely to ruin it, today was a very good day for the domestic progressive agenda.

[bjkeefe]

Jim Newell has some comical coverage of the day in the House here, here, here, and here.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Jim Newell has some comical coverage of the day in the House here, here, here, and here.

I turned msnbc on to see Ezra Klein. Cool to see him on tv. Then they cut to Luke Russert. Sheesh.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

I turned msnbc on to see Ezra Klein. Cool to see him on tv. Then they cut to Luke Russert. Sheesh.

For some reason, every time I hear "Luke Russert," I think "Luke Walton," who is actually not a terrible basketball player, even by NBA standards.

I have never seen Luke Russert. How bad is he? Worse than about nine hundred other people on the teevee that I could name?

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

For some reason, every time I hear "Luke Russert," I think "Luke Walton," who is actually not a terrible basketball player, even by NBA standards.

I have never seen Luke Russert. How bad is he? Worse than about nine hundred other people on the teevee that I could name?

Painful. He's terrible on tv, like, cable access-level bad, but you just feel sorry for him 'cos his dad died suddenly.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Painful. He's terrible on tv, like, cable access-level bad, but you just feel sorry for him 'cos his dad died suddenly.

How much longer does he get that pass?

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Jim Newell has some comical coverage of the day in the House here, here, here, and here.

Mike Pence is well-known to be a complete idiot:

Specifically, way back in 2005 I got to talk to him about Social Security privatization at a Heritage Foundation event. Obviously, I have my perspective on this and conservatives have theirs. But Pence had a truly peculiar idea. His idea was that the government ought to reassure people about the risks of losses under a privatization plan by having the government guarantee a minimum annuity level pegged to what’s promised under current law. This plan would, according to Pence, save money relative to current law because most people’s stock/bond portfolio would outperform the level needed to provide such an annuity, so the government would only need to kick in for a minority of people. I said I thought this would create a moral hazard problem for bad investors. He had no idea what I was talking about. Seemed unfamiliar with the term. Then I tried to explain it to him, I said that if the government guaranteed to bail you out in case of losses, then investors would make riskier investments and the number of people who need bailing out would rise. He just flat-out denied this, said the presence or absence of a guaranteed bailout would have no impact on investor behavior. He seemed unaware that some portfolios are riskier than others, or that higher average rates of return are associated with greater risk taking. He didn’t know anything at all, in short, about investing, financial markets, or, seemingly, the basic terms of public policy. And yet there he was speaking on the topic at Heritage. He’s a total fraud.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ke_pence_2.php

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Mike Pence is well-known to be a complete idiot:



http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ke_pence_2.php

That is a classic post. Yglesias deserves permanent recognition for that one.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Jim Newell has some comical coverage of the day in the House here, here, here, and here.

And he just added another post, to report the vote. Bonus: There is a graphic of (how the wingnuts see) Nancy Pelosi that is to die for.

[Wonderment]

Only one Republican, Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana, voted for the bill...

Cao is the first and only Vietnamese-American in Congress.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Cao is the first and only Vietnamese-American in Congress.

The twittering wingnuts are out for blood.

Cao, like Bobby Jindal, probably supports health care reform. So perhaps he voted his actual conscience, but he is a Representative to a overwhelmingly Democrat district and would have no chance at re-election if he voted against it.

And the Republicans will continue to support him because he's Vietnamese. So he can pretty much vote however he wants to all the time and to hold on to his district he's going to have to vote like a Democrat most of the time.

So like Progressives who love to get on Blue Dog Democrats for not voting progressive enough, I imagine Cao will catch some flack from some incompetents on the Right.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Lyle

Cao ... is a Representative to a overwhelmingly Democrat district and would have no chance at re-election if he voted against it.

Yes, that does seem to be the calm, cool, and collected consensus of Greater Wingnuttia. (Fine example here, more from the same guy here, much more here.)

I've seen alot of the stupid responses about Cao already. Hopefully, these fools will come to their senses. Much like progressives should when they yell and scream at Blue Dogs.

Both sides have their bigots.

[bjkeefe]

Very nice celebratory post from DougJ.

I loved Rufus back in the day.

[claymisher]

Republicans shouting down pro-choice Congresswomen today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4

They're going to pay for this, right? I don't know where these guys are from but I doubt their constituents are proud of that kind of behavior.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Republicans shouting down pro-choice Congresswomen today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4

They're going to pay for this, right? I don't know where these guys are from but I don't their constituents are proud of that kind of behavior.

Wow.

Well, the wingnuts love that kind of behavior (cf. Joe "You Lie!!!1!" Wilson and the teabaggers disrupting the town hall meetings). But I do hope enough Republican sympathizers will realize that they're not wingnuts.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Republicans shouting down pro-choice Congresswomen today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4

They're going to pay for this, right? I don't know where these guys are from but I doubt their constituents are proud of that kind of behavior.

Tim F. has an interesting post on this event. While he does sigh at the wingnuttiness of it all, he also makes a reasoned case along the lines of my immediate reaction; i.e., that this was actually either good or necessary for the Republicans, given where they're at right now.

I'm not sure I buy Tim's implicit assumption -- that all the Republicans were capable of thinking this rationally in complete contrast to external appearances -- but it does hang together as a rationalization, if nothing else. And I guess I do believe some of them were truly as calculating as Tim suggests and were either acting, or allowing others to get the spotlight, or both.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Tim F. has an interesting post on this event. While he does sigh at the wingnuttiness of it all, he also makes a reasoned case along the lines of my immediate reaction; i.e., that this was actually either good or necessary for the Republicans, given where they're at right now.

I'm not sure I buy Tim's implicit assumption -- that all the Republicans were capable of thinking this rationally in complete contrast to external appearances -- but it does hang together as a rationalization, if nothing else. And I guess I do believe some of them were truly as calculating as Tim suggests and were either acting, or allowing others to get the spotlight, or both.

Why can't Democrats (aside from Alan Grayson) make more out of these antics? The Republicans have to make up shit to get people riled up (socialism! death panels!). We dont:

EK:

Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment did not make abortion illegal. And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.

Stupak's amendment stated that the public option cannot provide abortion coverage, and that no insurer participating on the exchange can provide abortion coverage to anyone receiving subsidies. But as Rep. Jim Cooper points out in the interview below, the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak's amendment. It's the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free.

That money, however, subsidizes the insurance of 157 million Americans, many of them quite affluent. Imagine if Stupak had attempted to expand his amendment to their coverage. It would, after all, have been the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it would have failed in an instant. That group is too large, and too affluent, and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch their access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange proved a much easier target. In substance, this amendment was as much about class as it was about choice.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...as_much_a.html

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Why can't Democrats (aside from Alan Grayson) make more out of these antics?

Not enough spine. Too much assumption of good faith. Probably both.

Originally Posted by claymisher

The Republicans have to make up shit to get people riled up (socialism! death panels!). We dont:

EK:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...as_much_a.html

EK does make good points, though. Thanks for passing that along.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Not enough spine. Too much assumption of good faith. Probably both.

EK does make good points, though. Thanks for passing that along.

I would point out that what we saw in the House on Saturday was a reprise of tactics Republicans used extensively both on the floor and in committee during the early Clinton years, 1993-1994. They used a constant stream of parliamentary inquiries and points of order to bring all action to a grinding halt. This was when I first laid my eyes on Joe Scarborough, actually. I was watching some committee hearing and the Republicans were taking turns jamming up the process so nothing could be accomplished. One of C-SPAN's cameras happened to be positioned near Scarborough, and he was having the time of his life. Every time he made a point or order or forced the chairman to jump through some parliamentary hoop, he would laugh like a schoolboy who shot a spitball at the back of the teacher's head. I frankly expected to see more of this during the Obama years, but Saturday's antics were the first time I'd seen this since Clinton. Perhaps it has been happening in the committees and I just don't realize it because I haven't been watching.

[nikkibong]

39 "blue dogs" voted NO. Shameful.

What's the point of their existence? I would shed no tears if every "blue dog" democrat lost his seat to a rabid republican in 2010. As long as progressive legislation can be passed without their help, they are merely extraneous.

In fact, I would argue that their presence is a net-negative: it forces conservative "compromises" between "blue dogs" and progressives. Thus, a barebones majority of true progressives is probably a better situation than in this large "big-tent" majority.

Eff the blue dogs...

and good job, Madame Speaker!

EDIT: Just saw bjkeefe's post upthread, so I hereby stipulate:

38 blue dogs voted no and one, um, "red" dog also voted no. Good for him: he at least had the courage of his convictions.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

39 "blue dogs" voted NO. Shameful.

[...]

EDIT: Just saw bjkeefe's post upthread, so I hereby stipulate:

38 blue dogs voted no and one, um, "red" dog also voted no. Good for him: he at least had the courage of his convictions.

Thanks.

Here's another view of the hall of shame, from Scott Lemieux:

For your convenience. Included are 26 Democrats now on the record as opposing expanded access to health care but who want to make sure that if health care passes despite them it should discriminate against women.

About the numbers: Scott's link points you to a list of "64 Democrats on the Wrong Side of Stupak-Pitts," which notes in closing "the list of 26 Democrats who voted 'Aye' on Stupak but 'Nay' on the final bill."

Also, in case I haven't passed this link along already, more on Stupak. (Pun intended.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Also, in case I haven't passed this link along already, more on Stupak. (Pun intended.)

Marcy Wheeler on Bart Stupak (via):

As you read Bart Stupak boasting of taking reproductive choice away from women, remember that he’s not just an otherwise good Democrat (he’s not, in fact, a Blue Dog) ...

[..]

Viewed through the lens of Stupak’s C Street membership, this victory lap (and all the others he has been doing) comes off as what it is: a naked grab for power through hypocritical moralizing.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Marcy Wheeler on Bart Stupak (via):

Related: Ann Friedman (via Adam Serwer):

It's pretty cramped underneath this bus, what with 50 percent of Americans down here.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

39 "blue dogs" voted NO. Shameful.

One of the advantages of having a large majority is that we don't need every last member to vote for a bill to pass it. I don't know about the particulars of this vote, but it is often the case that the House Leadership will allow members in difficult districts to vote differently from the majority. If these tactics help the Democrats keep those seats in 2010, and the bill passes anyway, it's smart politics. I would not assume that there isn't some strategic reasoning behind some of those 39 votes.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

One of the advantages of having a large majority is that we don't need every last member to vote for a bill to pass it. I don't know about the particulars of this vote, but it is often the case that the House Leadership will allow members in difficult districts to vote differently from the majority. If these tactics help the Democrats keep those seats in 2010, and the bill passes anyway, it's smart politics. I would not assume that there isn't some strategic reasoning behind some of those 39 votes.

That's of course true to some degree, but it is also undoubtedly true that some of these ConservaDems did their level best to water down the bill while it was being crafted, and then ended up voting against it anyway. So, while I am not entirely opposed to the notion of letting some members slide on some issues, because the Republican alternative would be worse, there does get to be a point where DINOs are more counterproductive than they're worth. I'd be willing to have a Republican rather than an Evan Bayh or Max Baucus or Mary Landrieu -- and certainly a Bart Stupak -- because I think it would make many other regions realize that they really do want actual Democrats to represent them.

==========

[Added] Also, what clay said. You get hung as high for a sheep as a goat, as the old saying goes.

I'd be willing to bet some of these House Dems who voted against HCR will nonetheless be attacked next election by their Republican and conservative opponents for being part of what enabled "Obamacare."