ObamaCare: Dems strain to pass crap sandwich
[Posted by Karl]
House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel says that Dem negotiators are facing “a serious problem” in resolving their differences on ObamaCare, and are not likely to have a final bill until February. The story comes a day after Sen. Chris Dodd claimed the bill was “hanging by a thread” (which most likely dismissed as the gin talking). Stories like this have people from RCP’s Jay Cost to FDL’s David Dayen wondering whether the attempted takeover of the US healthcare system is in trouble.
While I agree with Jay that it would be hasty to say that passage of ObamaCare is inevitable, these stories really only confirm what we already knew. Both the House and Senate passed bills with razor-thin margins. Those bills have differences that were not going to be easy to harmonize.
What Democrats still have going for them is their delusional faith that passing some version of ObamaCare will help them politically. Statistics and history suggest the opposite is true. Anecdotally, recent polls show freshman Rep. Larry Kissell benefitting from voting against the bill, and Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid continuing his downward spiral. But evidence really has little bearing on matters of faith.
The latest iteration is typified by The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent and The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson, who theorizes that liberals who think ObamaCare does not go far enough “will eventually admit that something is better than nothing.” Far be it from me to get in the way of one group of liberals calling another group of liberals stupid and emotional. But given the phased process envisioned for ObamaCare, I would not want to be betting on disgruntled lefties suddenly getting gruntled, especially with the 2010 midterms are likely scads of ads calling ObamaCare a bailout of Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc.
–Karl
Or this could be the Dodd and Rangel approach to setting up the President’s involvement in the negotations as the key to resolving the impasse. This would make the President the savior of health care for Americans.
Phaedrus (419f68) — 1/13/2010 @ 2:58 pmWe absolutely need nationalized health care – no longer a reason that we should have the great health care that 80% plus of americans enjoy. We all should expect health care equal to what the bottom 10% get. The great benefit of socialized medicine – everyone deserves and gets the same level of care.
Joe (38e73c) — 1/13/2010 @ 3:32 pmIf they want to pass it they can pass it. If they don’t pass it it’s on purpose. Cause they know everyone knows what a gay and purposely debilitating fiasco it is. But I think they way bad want to pass it. They passionately hate our little country and regardless of the hopeless impoverishment they’ve already mired her in they’re going to pummel her until she’s dead dead dead and this health care scheme is a bludgeon like no other.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/13/2010 @ 3:44 pmThe great benefit of socialized medicine – everyone deserves and gets the same level of care
Now, there’s an example of a crap-sandwich!
AD - RtR/OS! (1365d9) — 1/13/2010 @ 3:46 pmIf the Democraps don’t pass it with the control the have in both the House and Senate, they are a bunch of feckless tacos.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/13/2010 @ 3:55 pmespecially with the 2010 midterms are likely scads of ads calling ObamaCare a bailout of Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc.
I can’t imagine the Republicans running such ads, as appropriate as they might be.
Subotai (6e5ecf) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:14 pmThe great benefit of socialized medicine – everyone deserves and gets the same level of care.
Except for the party bosses and other bigwigs.
Subotai (6e5ecf) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:16 pmJack Cafferty calling Nancy Pelosi a horrible woman on CNN last night was a good thing.
So was Jane Hamster putting out a piece today ripping the ridiculous “independent” analysis of MIT economist Jonathan “Money” Grubber in the health care debate and tying the deceit directly back to the White House.
Just sayin’.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:26 pmAt the end of his show today, Limbaugh said that the Dems had agreed to exempt union members from the “Cadillac Plan” tax, but he provided no attribution or details. Anyone else heard this? We have been (understandably) saturated with coverage of the crisis in Haiti, so I wondered if that had slipped under the radar. I’m not sure that I understand how they can carve a special exemption for unions, so I wonder if they have raised the level to trigger the tax and if so, how they intend to make up for the lost revenue.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:28 pmAnyone who votes against health care reform and is on Medicare is a hypocrite.. Its obvious to me that the Republicans would vote against any bill even if God Almighty endorsed it.
There are definitely things in this bill that are not pleasing to me but at least I understand that opposition to this bill and any health care reform is politically based and if thousands of people die from lack of health care that is on no concern to the party that already launched a war for political reasons and endorses torture and imprisonment without trial.
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:38 pmVietnamEraVet – seems like you either need to cut out some of the ‘medications’ you are taking – or possibly significantly increase the dose …
Alasdair (d14120) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:46 pm“Anyone who votes against health care reform and is on Medicare is a hypocrite.”
VEV – Voting against having their benefits cut is being a hypocrite? Explain or take another bong hit.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:46 pmIs it just me ? or do others also get the impression that “VietnamEraVet” seems more like someone who helped to take care of animals for the Viet Cong during the late 1960s and early 1970s ?
Alasdair (d14120) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:47 pmNow lets see.. I can believe one of two scenarios.. One: the Democrats, who brought us Social Security and Medicare and who know full well that destroying medical care for Seniors will mean their certain end as a political party, nevertheless have embarked on a political suicide campaign to bring death panels, long lines, higher taxes and reduced benefits to their core constituency OR.. scenario two big business and its Republican Conservative supporters feel their multi million dollar feedbags threatened and so have launched a program of WMDs.. words of mass deception to stall any reforms.
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:54 pmHmmmm now which seems more plausible.. well I guess I have to go with scenario one figuring that in order to avoid defeat they will suspend elections next year. Glenn Beck/ Michelle Bachman/Rush Limbaugh/ Tea Baggers and Patriotic Americans… where are you when we need you!!!Its another DemoFascist conspiracy to destroy America… almost as bad as Social Security and Medicare!!
OK, “VietnamEraVet,” just for fun let’s play things your way. Do you believe that anyone who supports the Dems’ health care bill but is not willing to pay more in taxes or have their benefits scaled back is also a hypocrite? Or does your feigned outrage only work one way?
With respect to my comment at 4:28 pm, I found this over at National Review online. It seems this bill, should it pass, it a target-rich environment for lawsuits under the equal-protection clause. (Did I get that right? I’m not a lawyer.)
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:56 pmAlasdair said..
seems like you either need to cut out some of the ‘medications’ you are taking
Once again someone disrespects all Vietnam Era vets with the stereotype that they are all drug addicts. Well we served the country well and its pretty sickening that you smear an entire group of people that risked their lives with the drug charge. You ought to be ashamed but chickenhawks have no shame..
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:59 pmYou owe all vets of that era an apology for using that hateful stereotype..
In case you haven’t noticed, VEV, big business is at worst agnostic to Obama/Pelosi/ReidCare and probably mostly supportive of it. They already pay for health benefits for their workers, so they would love nothing more than to (1) force a new mandate on their smaller competitors who would now have to buy coverage and (2) off-load a lot of their more expensive premiums to some nebulous government public option that will eventually come to light.
But then you are still recycling the anti-corporate rhetoric you learned during the McGovern campaign, right? It sucks to have to learn it anew just when you were getting the hang of the old patter, huh? Every since Bill Clinton, big business has learned how to co-exist with Democrats and turn them against small business, who up to now had been the great engine of the American economic expansion.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:04 pmJVW you really pose a strange question.. The purpose of the bill is to reduce costs and so to ask if someone is a hypocrite for not supporting a bill to reduce costs that is going to increase costs, makes no sense. There might be a temporary increase for some but long term there are cost savings and I would say , to answer your question in a different way, anyone who did not vote for a bill that had long term benefits because of short term considerations is guilty of very short term thinking..
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:12 pmBut there is really a larger issue here and one that you and I might discuss. It is the tactics used in this debate which most offend me. There might well be problems with the bill but its clear to me that the GOP intends to kill all reform and uses any tactics to do just that..
That is quite the sentence.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:16 pmVEV, as Eric and daleyrocks point out, your position seems to be “Medicare works great, so we need to cut half a trillion dollars from it and create a similar program for everyone.” Don’t you see how contradictory that is? For one thing, Medicare is already in trouble, even before the Dems massive cuts are factored in.
And I know that your side is trying desperately to spread the notion that the Republicans are wedded to the status quo, but it simply is not the case no matter how much you wish it were so. Obama could have had a health care bill if he had brought along Republicans and limited the bills reach to prohibiting denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, providing some degree of tort reform to protect doctors and keep insurance premiums reasonable, and figuring out a way to subsidize health insurance for poor and middle-class. He, Pelosi, and Reid decided instead to ram through a bill that serves as a monument to their inflated egos, and they are now enmeshed in a problem entirely of their own making.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:33 pmJVW Your last post is completely unintelligible to me.. you say..
big business is at worst agnostic to Obama/Pelosi/ReidCare and probably mostly supportive of it
I dont understand that… antagonistic and supportive at the same time??..
you seem to attack big business when you say..
‘They already pay for health benefits for their workers, so they would love nothing more than to (1) force a new mandate on their smaller competitors who would now have to buy coverage and (2) off-load a lot of their more expensive premiums to some nebulous government public option that will eventually come to light.
but then you say “you (meaning me) are still recycling the anti-corporate rhetoric you learned during the McGovern campaign, right?
Which seems like you are chiding me for being anti business which is strange right after your previous statement in which you yourself attack big business!!!??? ..
Then you somehow weave in something about small business and your concern for it in the face of big business.. something which is at total odds with Republican policy which currently favors big business since only they can hammer down the insurance companies..and which again seems like an attack on Big Business..something that you accused me of doing.
Honestly, I dont understand you.. honestly..not trying to be difficult.. your post is a mystery to me.. I think the basic message is You hate Democrats.. period.
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:34 pmVietnamEraVet – so far, *you* are the only one here who “disrespects all Vietnam Era vets with the stereotype that they are all drug addicts” – I merely observed that 1) *you* seem to have gotten your ‘dosage’ in the wrong ranges and 2) *you* don’t sound (to me, at least) like a veteran of *any* foreign war …
Or, as is said nowadays – Defensive, much, VietnamEraVet ?
Perhaps you might consider the CBO estimates of the effectiveness and value of Tort Reform – a type of reform supported by Republicans consistently throughout the years – estimates here – genuine reform which would help both Health Care and help reduce future federal budget deficits …
Alasdair (d14120) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:36 pmJVW you are just not telling the story the way it really is but instead relying on talking points. Democrats did reach out to Republicans but Rs wanted to destroy the bill from day one saying its defeat would be Obamas waterloo.. Remember that? Democrats scuttled single payer, then the pubic option and then the possible expansion of Medicare because of Conservative objections but still have not gained one single Republican vote.
Meanwhile Republicans spread the word that death panels were in place and complained first that the bill was too big and then covered too few.
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:43 pmThey organized Tea Parties and compared health care reform to Nazi Germany and Pol Pot and scared seniors will all kinds of talk about the horrible things that would happen. Now Repubicans say they would have gladly contributed if only the Democrats had asked them to take part. Who the hell do they think they are kidding?
alasdair I dont care to discuss anything with you..
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:46 pmalasdair i said I dont care to talk with you but I have to just remark that I just noticed your remark about me not sounding like a vet. How the hell do you know what a vet is or is no supposed to sound like!! and what a hoot you to say
I merely observed that 1) *you* seem to have gotten your ‘dosage’ in the wrong ranges
and deny that is drug stereotyping!!
I am out of here..
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:50 pmVEV, we are accusing each other of recycling talking points, but here is my response to your claim about Republicans not working with Democrats: Do you really think that there was no way Dems could have gotten an “aye” vote from Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, or one or two other “moderate” Republicans? Snowe and Collins were chompin’ at the bit to show bipartisanship and support the bill, but Fancy Nancy and Dingy Harry decided they would move it to the far reaches of the left. Sorry, but if this bill fails then it can’t be pinned on anyone else but the White House and the majority party in Congress. Your notions of nasty Republicans blocking the noble Dems is just so much hooey.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 5:56 pmWhile I am here, let me address your response to me from 5:34:
I left out a couple of words. I meant to say that at worst (at least from the perspective of Democrats) big business is agnostic towards the bill and at best (the words I left out) the are somewhat supportive.
What I am saying in regards to my comment about your anti-business rhetoric is that you are still using big business as the catch-all progressive bogeyman, when in actuality they are as much in your camp as they are in ours. [See the massive amounts of money Bill Clinton and Barack Obama raised from Wall Street as an example.] It’s like Republicans trying to claim that the South is still aligned against them, just because it was in the first half of the last century.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:05 pmAlso, I don’t hate Democrats. Some of my best friends. . . and all that. What I hate is the Democrat machine, its echo chamber in academic and the media, and their sense of entitlement and belief that the rules don’t apply to them. As to actual Democrat voters, though? Well, hate the sin but love the sinner.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:07 pmThis has been covered. He has “era” in there because he served not a single day In Country, but merely served state-side – he is a fine example of an REMF. He tells you WHEN he was in in the hopes people are too stupid to realize the above, and thus give his words more weight because “He knows what was is like, man.”
He’s an idiot, and worthless as a commenter.
“Republicans didn’t work with the Democrats!!” sounds awesome, until you realize that the only reason such a thing is true is because the Dem’s prevented the Republicans from having any input.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:09 pmDid anybody catch this doozy:
VEV, you misread JVW’s statement. He said business is at worst agnostic…you claim he said “antagonistic”.
The rest of your post is drivel, mostly because you didn’t understand the very big words that were used.
Some chump (d97978) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:16 pmNice catch, Some chump. I failed to note that VEV had changed the word in his response to me. As you note, I absolutely met to define the spectrum of big business’s support as running betwen “agnostic” and “mostly supportive” (or, even more accurately, “privately supportive”). Maybe I should have just used the word “neutral” instead. In any case, my point is that Big Business is certainly not openly opposed to the provisions of the Dems’ health care bill, except perhaps to the degree that it will have a long-term effect on the economy (but, of course, Big Business is not all that known for looking out at the long term).
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:30 pmKarl: For all your astute analysis you continue to miss the fundamental reasoning of the Dems on health care, and it makes a difference. You say, “What Democrats still have going for them is their delusional faith that passing some version of ObamaCare will help them politically.”
Wrong. Democrats believe NOT passing health care will kill them politically. They are not sure it will help. They are sure failing will savage the base support. I would say it’s the only thing that could potentially give the GOP the house. You don’t seem to grasp that Dems and Republicans came away from 1994 learning polar-opposite lessons.
Everybody on the D side has already taken their licks for going this far with it and some will take more come November. A line has been crossed. It would be (political) insanity to not pass anything now.
And don’t believe for a second that if Brown somehow manages to upset Coakley it will change anything. Trust me: He will never get to vote on this bill, no matter who wins on Tuesday. Democrats would not demoralize the party by letting a guy in Teddy’s seat kill Teddy’s dream, so Rush, FoxNews and that crowd can urinate on Teddy’s grave. Forget it. Won’t happen.
Watching you guys’ desperate hopes ratchet up every time some Dem talks about how difficult the legislation will be to pass, right before another milestone is cleared, is like watching a cat paw at a dangling shoestring. Pick another Waterloo.
Deal With It aka Myron (998393) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:43 pmHungry hungry trolls. At Kinkos.
Eric Blair (9cfd42) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:56 pm“I am out of here..
Comment by VietnamEraVet — 1/13/2010 @ 5:50 pm ”
Thank you!!
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:58 pmI’m sure he “had to bounce.”
Eric Blair (9cfd42) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:01 pmDeal with It/Myron — Sounds like the Dems are in a “dammed if you do/dammed if you don’t” scenario. What happens if this is the sword upon which the Dem majorities choose to fall,? What if key parts of this bill are judged to be unconstitutional on a 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court or are undone in 2013 by a Republican President and Congress? Will the Dems then say “Gee, maybe it wasn’t a good political move in retrospect”?
JVW (48cbba) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:04 pmVisiting time is over, so for VeVian its…
AD - RtR/OS! (bba33c) — 1/13/2010 @ 10:13 pmI work here is done!
I’m definitely late to the party but… wow, just wow. VeV has some chutzpah with his gross mischaracterizations.
VeV spouts off some ridiculous stuff.
Someone calls him on it, insinuating he’s doped up.
VeV wraps himself in the flag.
VeV demands any insinuation of him personally being doped up is an attack on every veteran of Nam.
When called on it, VeV “takes his ball and goes home.”
I’m not entirely certain how many logic fallacies VeV’s outrageous victimhood accusation made, but the count is higher than 3. And I got news for VeV: I know of at least 2 VietNam vets who are against this government take-over of the health care industry. John McCain, whose shoes you are not fit to shine (despite his being a leftist DIABLO) and another gentleman I talk with who was a scout/sniper in Nam and can count 37 successful kills.
So, VeV, next time you decide you speak for all VietNam Vets, adjust the dosage on your meds. And the next time you decide an attack on you is an attack on all VietNam Vets, adjust the dosage on your meds. Because you are not worthy.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 1/13/2010 @ 10:53 pmExcept for the nomenklatura, of course. “Some pigs are more equal than others.”
The way the Democrats are trying to pass this is offending a lot of people, a lot of independents who have now been alienated from the “Democratic” Party. The more that people learn about the contents of the bill the more the public hates it. Which is likely why they aren’t letting even most of the members of their party see what’s actually in the bill. But if it passes, they will have to publish it. I’m reminded of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Which was repealed in 1989.
The Democrats keep forgetting that they are not a majority in this country (neither are Republicans). They’ve been doing an excellent job of convincing independents of the necessity of fiscal conservatism and smaller government. And all the debts of decades of government unsustainable spending are coming due in the immediate future, public employee pensions, Medicaid (already in the red), Medicare, Social Security, etc.
LarryD (feb78b) — 1/14/2010 @ 7:33 amI see VEV has run out of his illegal drug supply and is taking his withdrawl symptoms out on the rest of us.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 1/14/2010 @ 7:41 amBy the way, I know something personally about the Kissell race, since part of his district includes part of my city in NC. He is ahead b/c his opponents are undefined. Notice this little doozy from the article, which Karl neglected to point out:
“It turns out that a 44% plurality of the likely general election electorate falsely believe that Kissell voted for the bill, with only 29% giving the correct answer that he voted against it.”
Translated: He is ahead, even though people think he voted for the bill. But it’s not b/c of the vote, but b/c his opponents are not strong, yet.
His vote against has proven to be surprising, in fact. His district is a mix of urban and rural, more rural, and one of the hardest hit by the death of manufacturing.
There has already been a protest of Kissell’s office for voting against the bill.
This is in part b/c he ran on Obama’s coattails in a way more explicit than anyone I’ve seen in NC. He sent out fliers that showed Obama’s face huge and his tiny, or not even on it. He pretty shamelessly went after the black vote. One mailer featured just a black kid’s face on the front.
But the larger point of the Kissell situation is that it shows that the GOP takeover may not be as big as some pundits seem to believe. You can’t just have discontent with the majority party. You MUST field a raft of credible candidates. Here in NC, I think all our blue dogs are relatively safe — today. Tomorrow? Who knows. Kissell is considered the most vulnerable one and he’s 12 to 14 up. Heath Shuler is considered a little soft, too. Don’t know the numbers there.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/14/2010 @ 2:57 pmJVW: “What if key parts of this bill are judged to be unconstitutional …”
They’ll cross that bridge when they come to it.
Personally, I’d like to see the individual mandate challenged in court myself, just to get the issue settled. The mandate seems to conclude that being born means you must buy a product from a private company. That’s different from car insurance, which it is often compared to.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/14/2010 @ 3:01 pm