I support the house passing the Senate Bill. It would sure be lovely if the 43 Senators who support passing a public option through reconciliation would morph into 51. Of course the now problematic House needs to pass reconciliation language and if it doesn't have public option language then the Senate support is moot. Mind I'm not saying I would support opposition to a House reconciliation bill without public option. I'm just saying if I had my druthers...
So along comes this cute stunt by Alan Grayson of a four page bill that would amend Medicare to allow anyone who doesn't qualify now to buy it as health-care insurance for themselves (and family?) Too easy, too simple and too obvious for passage? Yeah most likely.
Moveon.org national is polling its members on whether to support or oppose the president's health insurance reform plan. Their email offers some links:
The links weight the poll toward a "Yes." I didn't see a real cogent argument against the bill, but Howard Dean in The Hill last weekmade some policy and political arguments to kill the bill. WHile a few provisions have changed in the last 75 days, he explained his reasning in this interview with Stephanopoulos back in December, which includes a clip of Tom Harkin on Rachel Maddow:
What do we think? Is Dean right? or Harkin? How should I vote?
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach - its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
(This was a comment over at the Agonist. I have been in a percolation period. I haven't been moved to post much diary-wise.
In Illinois I would love to see Jan and Jesse move into something like I describe below. But the other piece for us is combining our progressive institutions into a solidified and allied meta-structure. Some more buzz words.)
===============
I agree that the so-called Health Care Reform (HCR) is more like Health Care Regulation than reform. Single Payer would have been reform and the farther from that the less reform, at least in my book.
I agree that the current HCR is a boon to the MIC (Medical Industrial Complex).
But that said I think it will be a winner for the Dems at the ballot box next November if they run on it correctly and proudly. Never mind that to us there is little to be proud of. We all hated the Massachusetts Care thing yet even as the voters there complain they still don't want it to go away by a 79% to whatever margin. No the Dems can do very well with this bill. That's can rather than necessarily will, but I actually think they'll do well enough. Maybe simply not lose a lot of seats well rather than gain seats well but still well enough.
On the 3rd party score I agree something in that vein can and needs to be done. Not exactly a third party but a quasi-3rd party perhaps. The switching registration to Independent mentioned above has possibilities. Reps would get elected as something else than Dems and then pretty much caucus with the Dems. It would be nice for branding purposes for something other than "Independent" be created to associate all of them though.
But 3rd parties are doomed right up to the moment they can realistically become the 2nd party. For that to happen there has to be an intermediate phase, I believe. The last thing this new entity wants to do is run someone for president. The Nader curse is now very very strong. No that's a last step not an early one.
Let there be a "one, two a hundred" Bernie Sanders bloom approach. I use Sanders as an example here not necessarily a model. But I would think that if enough members of the progressive caucus, again for example, were to band together as a branded group of independents that caucused with the Dems that that could be a path to a new 2nd party.
In order to defeat the mono-party of Republican/Democratic so-called centrists, it might need to ally with Paulist types to find a non-corporate funding path and common anti-corporate agenda. Just as the Blue-Dogs now float back and forth between the wings of Republican/Democratic mono-party, so we need to find ways for our own common cause back and forth floats that can successfully oppose the corporatists.
And yes further, the major goal of such an independent and branded group would need to be campaign finance reform. Absent that I'm not sure there will ever be much that can be done until the American Empire had declined sufficiently for populism to enter through the cracks. And even then we might need to suffer an authoritarian populistic or even a dictatorial communistic populistic regime, ala many South American regimes, before coming out the other side with a Libertarian/Socialist/Democratic regime.
I threw out a bunch of buzz-words there (Duck-Speak anyone) but you get the drift.
It turns out that the so-called $750 "fine" for not purchasing health insurance is not going to be enforced against the folks:
(2) SPECIAL RULES.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law-
''(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
''(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.-The Secretary shall not-
''(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
''(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
In sum: No criminal penalties, no IRS liens on your property or bank account. The "fine" is purely voluntary (you can still pay it if you wish, but they can't force you).
Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend from high school who is generally pretty moderate (a Democrat, but not prone to absolutist arguments) and inclined to see the world from the perspective of the investor class. It's good to have money.
He was as down on the bill as the progressive activists, like Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas and Ellen Beth Gill. He had a wide variety of concerns, some based on issues he and his family have faced, some based on talking to physicians and some were about policy.
One of the points he made was that he believed that most of the cost savings would be realized by government, not employers. And the big players, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and specialty physicians would all make at least as much money if the bill passed. He was also very concerned that people who didn't make much money, like artists, would be forced to pay and that the legislation would reinforce the problem of people being tied to large employers because it would become even more onerous to start a small business.
Below are some questions I have about health care.
Burris's backpedaling yesterday on any attempt to kill the Health Care Reform in the Senate was note number 1 of a Bower's claim that progressives or the "left" would in any way be able to be held responsible for the death of Obamacare, to coin a phrase; oh wait the wingnuts already coined it.
Recent actions and statements from Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold make it clear no such left-wing filibuster will take place. As such, if the bill is defeated, it will be entirely because of right-wing opposition.
Now some might argue that there are those in the progressive blogsphere or the progressive internet (Move-On) who have been carrying water for the authoritarian attack on Obama's HCR. Perhaps, but that's a bit of a different story. A story locally docuemented here at the last mention of Burris.
Excuse the lack of specific Illinois content but after the fold I will quote a chunk of a recent post from OpenLeft by Chris Bowers. Bowers is suggesting that all of the possible outcomes for Health Care Reform at this point will be bad for the Democrats and some are even worse for progressives.
Senator Roland W. Burris, Democrat of Illinois, has vowed that he will not vote for a health care bill that does not include a government-run insurance plan, or public option.
"The family, Dan and Midge Hough, of Chicago, spoke in favor of health care reform and in support of U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-3rd) at a Nov. 14 town hall meeting in Oak Lawn."
Only the be mocked by anti-reform Tea Partiers by
an organizer for a Tea Party splinter group, Chicago Tea Party Patriots, falsely claimed that the Houghs fabricated their story. In an e-mail, she called them operatives of President Barack Obama who "go from event to event and (cry) the same story."
Chris Bowers has obtained a list of Bart Stupak supporters who would kill health care reform unless it further limits reproductive care. Bowers:
The reason for this, unsurprisingly, remains Bart Stupak. He is, as Natasha described this morning, working to block the entire bill unless none of the insurance options in the new health care exchanges cover abortion procedures. This is even though there is already a ban on federal funding for abortion in the bill, and in pre-existing federal law. Using an alliance of Republicans, anti-choice Democrats, and Democrats who oppose the health care bill for other reasons, Stupak is claiming that he has enough votes to block the bill for reaching the floor (though the necessary "motion to recommit" vote), unless his demands are met.
Bowers says that Sutpak does not have the votes but that he suspects that there may other holdouts willing to join Stupak for reasons other than placing further limits on abortion. In anycase his list does contain Costello and Lipinski. See the link above for the full list.
Since the 2002 redistricting, the northern half of the 18th Representative District lies in the 10th Congressional District, so naturally (I thought) it made sense, despite the odd date, to hang out on Halloween with the district-wide group, 10th Congressional District Democrats, that Lauren Beth Gash has invigorated up north, especially since Howard Dean was the guest speaker. Apparently too many folks must have felt the New Trier Democratic dinner the week before was enough 10th CD action for them, since a number of candidates weren't present. But I thought it worthy enough to both attend and blog.
And polling shows that it's popular even amongst constituencies like yours.
So if you are in Indiana and especially in Joe's districe give him a call now (Friday early afternoon): Joe Donnelly (IN-2): 202-225-3915, 574-288-2780
When Joe was running in 2006 against Count Chocula, buckinghamfan wrote many diaries here urging our support. Now Joe you could support us.
The National Journal has a new story by Ronald Brownstein titled The New Geography Of Health Care that summarizes the results of the Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey. In it, they break down the percentage of the uninsured in each Congressional District in the country, pair it with the 2008 presidential results in those districts, and try to come to some conclusions based on those factors. It's an interesting read.
I am disappointed with Foster. He's an intelligent guy. But ever since the get got he's had Blue Dog leanings and he's been willing to say so out loud. Still he's a scientist. That should count for something.
Lipinski's a straight up machine hack. Well son-of-a-hack. Still his district is solid Democratic and he has to have some affinity with his electorate.
Actually that Bean is still persuadable is a pleasant surprise. I know we write her of as totally bought by her district's heavy pharma presence, but maybe she is more independent that we give her credit for here.
What's also interesting is our poll. We give too much credit to Foster but not enough to Costello and Halvorson. Costello is a bit far away for us to properly notice. Halvorson is still pretty new to us. And we have high hopes for Foster. That's one set of explanitions.
Update: The Howard Dean count has Foster and Lipinski as yeses. We've reported Foster here as yes as well, and I regularly forget it. I assume that the OpenLeft whip count has Foster as persuadable because he has not recently stated clear support.
I assume that the tactic will happen here in the Chicago area shortly. As Kevin Zeese reports:
Just a few weeks ago the Mobilization for Health Care for All was announced (www.MobilizeForHealthCare.org). The Mobilization focuses on the denial of doctor-recommended care by the insurance industry. Sit-ins were planned at health insurance companies with demands that insurance corporations stop the denials. The Mobilization sought 100 people willing to sit-in at insurance corporations and risk arrest as people sat in at lunch counters two generations ago.
The response has been explosive, nearly 800 have signed up to risk arrest and thousands have signed up to join the protests. In the last 20 days 78 people have been arrested protesting the real death panels - the private insurance industry - who according to a California study deny doctor recommended care 20% of the time.
The Mobilization hoped to have "patients not profits sit-ins" in three cities last week, and instead it had them in nine cities. On the next Mobilization day, October 28th, there is likely to be twice as many cities protesting the insurance industry - just as Congress considers forcing Americans to buy insurance. This may be developing into the largest campaign of non-violent civil resistance since the Civil Rights era.
My goal was to egg Schakowsky on to sign up with Rep. Grijalva's progressive whip count supporting a robust public option and drawing a line in the sand as a threat. Subsequently I heard no more about Grijalva's count. Till today.
Apparently Grijava got up to 46 representatives to sign on to his whip count. I say up to because we further learn that at that point he stopped counting progressives who would draw a line in the sand. Out of frustration. No quite the opposite. If anything he was doing better with this count than the one months ago that garnered 60 signatures. No instead he began a new count:
The effort was dropped, however, in order to begin a new whip count of the entire Democratic Caucus on support for a public option with Medicare +5% rates (aka, the "robust" public option the Progressive Block had been demanding). This new whip count was begun at the request of Speaker Pelosi, who had challenged the Progressive Caucus to demonstrate sufficient support to pass such a public option.
That count is supposedly over 170 but below 218, 218 being the magic passage number ,of course.
So now we, progressives, are in the interesting position of being on the offensive. (Granted, I must add for those of us staunch single-payeristas, it barely qualifies as an offensive.) Now progressives are spreading out in the house hunting for support.
So now the question is not what can we do to insure that Jan takes a strong enough stand, but what can we do to get the Bill Foster's of the world to promise to support a robust public option, i.e. Medicare +5%, open enrollment etc.?
Indeed, could we even dream of getting Melissa Bean to sign on? So lets try a poll. Pick all you think might support a robust public option.
A poll reported on-line in today's New England Journal of Medicine, http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=TOC, shows that a considerable majority (63%)of practicing physicians favor a mixture of public and private options for healthcare reform. Twenty-seven percent favor having only private insurance while 10% favor having only a public plan. These results are essentially consistent across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice types, and practice locations.
As the article's authors note, the opinions of physicians largely mirror those of Americans in general. Maning that physicians are not among the groups opposing inclusion of a public option in healthcare reform.
