Dennis Kucinich called a press conference this morning and announced that despite really pretty much hating the health care bill that he will vote for it both because it moves the ball forward and because the president needs this to be effective on every other pressing issue facing the country. I think this is the first time in a while that I’ve seen eye to eye with Kucinich. I do hate the health care bill. I support H.R. 676, the Medicare for all bill. I dislike the entire concept of for-profit health insurance. I wanted a robust public option at a minimum. The Ben Nelson language that requires women to write two checks to get coverage for abortion is a threat to the availability of abortion coverage in both the individual and the employer-provided insurance markets, because insurers will not want to provide multiple products. I think the Republicans will get great mileage in attacking the mandate which, in the absence of a public option, requires people to buy insurance from justly vilified corporations. But, it’s clear that with the Congress we have, this bill is the best we can do, and failing to make these reforms would be catastrophic both for nation’s budget and for the Democrats’ political fortunes, including the president’s. I’d like to say that supporting this bill is a difficult decision, but it’s not. It’s a no-brainer. It is designed to cover 30 million people who currently lack any health insurance at all, while protecting people from losing the coverage they have. There are many fine provisions in the bill, including money for clinics and regulations of the insurance market that end caps of lifetime coverage, the practice of recissions, and the practice of denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
This bill is going to help poor people and improve the nation’s health dramatically. And it’s this bill, or it’s nothing. Given that choice, the decision is easy. And, now that Kucinich is on board, it’s pretty lonely on the left for people who are still holding out for something better.
I commend him for his courage. I hate that he and what he represented for us was given such a poor choice but he showed leadership in moving through the system.
throwing women under the bus isn’t leadership.
There is a problem in the bill with the Nelson language which creates a stigma to buying abortion coverage, will lead to less coverage (perhaps not in absolute terms, but as a percentage), and could dry up the availability of coverage outside the exchange. If left unaddressed, this could eventually reduce even the availability of abortion.
The problem is that we have a choice between that language and abandoning the entire effort to reform the insurance industry and extending coverage to 30 million people. A bad, lamentable choice, to be sure. But people who are supporting the bill are not throwing women under a bus. They are making a painful concession that must be watched carefully to make sure it doesn’t lead to very bad consequences.
In the larger picture, this bill is going to be extremely beneficial to women, especially the working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid.
I went over this last night to kind of explore how the legislation would help or hurt women who are really cash-strapped.
Under the bill, a woman with a family of five, making $25,000 a year would pay 2% of her income on insurance, or a little more than five hundred bucks a year. That’s around $45/month, as opposed to more like $500-$700 right now. It’s half her cable bill. And, she should expect to pay no more than half the money she currently spends on drugs and doctor’s visits. If she currently pays $1200/yr on health, that number would come down probably to around $600, depending on details.
Assuming she doesn’t by the rider for abortion coverage, she’d face an out of pocket expense of $300-$600 for a typical first trimester abortion, if she chose to have one. In financial terms, she’ll be in a better position to afford that than she is right now.
However, my concern is that those riders simply won’t be available, and that means women who can afford to pay out of pocket are going to get screwed out of that money even though they have insurance. That’s wrong. It’s bad policy. And it could grow in scope over time and even effect availability. So, it must be watched, and some measures must be found to assure the availability of coverage.
wire coathangers are cheaper than that.
They will come back regardless of this bill. will be retiring and his replacement will definitely be more to the right (to satisfy bi-partisanship) and probably be anti-abortion.
Yes, good for him for coming around the end. I still believe he has lost a lot of standing within the Democratic party as a result of this episode – well I’m still pissed, anyway – but in the end actions are what count and he’s coming through when it matters.
It should be a no-brainer, both substantively and politically. Sadly, a few Dems seem to have no brains.
There was a great idea by commenter Chris Andersen over at Political Animal yesterday that should, in a reasonable world, persuade all of the Dems to vote for the bill:
Personally, I think the headlines every week should be “What Passes For Healthcare Fails”.
Wish it was as lonely on the right. The reluctance of the Blue Dogs to support this bill built on past and present Republican ideas is one of the major reasons that their constituents have believed the GOP rhetoric that it is socialist and a step too far.
Kucinich’s support, without Blue Dogs hopping on for a solid Democratic vote, cements the idea that it is a left-wing looney bill. Major political mistake if you want to keep the bill from being repealed. HHS is now under the gun to get some success stories before November. That is, if the remaining eight votes can be found.
Looking at the comments over at FDL is amusing. I wonder if they’ll be revoking the money they gave him lol.
I wonder if anyone else on the left figured this one out yet.
Al Giordano has in “Health Care Home Stretch: The Base that Roared:”
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3856/health-care-home-stretch-base-roared
of course they’re revoking the money.
agree with FDL or not, they raised money as a reward for DK’s “no” vote. then he voted yes.
i myself did the same when i gave stephanie herseth money years ago when she was running as a progressive. when she turned out to be a piece of shit, I called the campaign office, said this wasn’t someone i supported, that i regretted donating money and i wanted it back.
a few weeks later, i got a check for $15.00 or whatever.
In addition, recently Arlen Specter had to return quite a few donations from republicans who donated to him before he switched parties.
So while I know FDL is the big bugaboo of the left right now, you can’t fault them for taking the money back.
Oh, I’m not trying to say they shouldn’t revoke it, that’s their right. If I donated to that cause I’d probably want my money back as well. I’m just trying to point out what Booman tried pointing out: it’s getting pretty lonely over there.
They should have known this would happen if his vote was definitely needed, though. That’s how Dennis rolls: he’s given cover of the bill passing, so he votes no. However, whenever he feels he could be the deciding vote, he votes yes if it will help a lot of people.
Doesn’t that make the donations bribery?
Hope Changey quid-pro-quo-y:
Apparently PhRMA has decided to swing in for the last push for votes, airing ads in the markets that serve 38 Congressional Districts. Given the fact most all “progressives” have signed on to the bill already (except for some members of the Hispanic caucus), it is likely that those 38 districts might include wavering Blue Dogs and New Democrats.
It will be interesting to watch how the endgame plays out. At some point the opinions might tilt so that all members of the Democratic caucus decide to jump on the bandwagon. Otherwise the story is bipartisan opposition to a Democratic bill. Having all but a few straggling Democrats on board will make the bill harder to repeal.
For the life of me I can not see any win for the Hispanic Caucus in opposing this bill. A disproportionate percentage of the uninsured are American born Latinos. And killing health care reform thereby crippling the President and Democratic Party is an ass backwards way of getting them to take up Immigration Reform, an issue more galvanizing for Republicans and Tea baggers than Health Care Reform.
There you go trying to apply logic to this.
The key word is “some”. It is not a caucus action. And the issue is the exclusion of undocumented workers, which affects everyone and even non-Hispanics if you think about it logically instead of punitively, but can provide additional hassles for any Hispanics seeking healthcare (ethnic profiling being what it is). But most of the Hispanic caucus has argued that the Hispanic community generally will benefit and are supporting the bill.
Good to see Dennis coming around to his senses and accepting the bad option like everyone else on our side has to do. As for FDL crew and their fans, it is kind of hard to defend these actions.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/03/16/and-yes-i-will-pile-on/
http://washingtonindependent.com/79427/a-quick-response-to-jane-hamsher#more-79427
The Energy and Commerce Committee released the Benefits of Health Care Reform, District by District Impact. I suggest passing it along to everyone through the various online methods.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1924:benefits-o
f-health-care-reform-district-by-district-impact&catid=169:legislation&Itemid=55
After the President signs this bill into law, then the real battle starts of fighting off the right wing’s narrative.
The White House made a calculated decision to use the public option as a bargaining chip if need be and to not piss of the Drug companies.
I think that sucks and it is an awful message to sell to its base/OFA. I would like for WH them to explain this decision in more details next time as the reform fight continues.
We all know that big chunk of profits need to be eliminated from Doctors,Drug and Insurance companies. This reform takes some from Insurance companies but also subsidizes millions of new customers. Until Congress is willing to take on all 3 of them, Health Care costs are going to continue to rise at unsustainable levels.
However, if this reform passes, I just do not see a political party being able to kick tens of millions of Americans off of Insurance and still win elections.
OK, let’s figure this out. When a politician runs as a “progressive” how do you hold them accountable for their votes between elections?
When one figures out that 41 progressive can be a veto point to extract some concessions to make a bill better, how do you act as a veto point if you leave the table prematurely?
When one raises over $400,000 to reward the good guys for committing to being a veto point, how do you hold the politicians accountable for taking the money and then folding as quickly as possible?
In case you’ve missed it, the problem that Jane Hamsher has been trying to solve is how to get progressives to vote as progressives when they have the chance to win. We know they will cast progressive votes when it’s deemed to be a lost cause. What we’ve seen in the healthcare bill is nominal “progressives” creating a lost cause that forces them to vote against their “progressive values”.
And after all of the fight for the public option, we find out that Jim Messina and Rahm Emmanuel bargained it away to buy the silence of the American Hospital Association. It might have been necessary, but Jane Hamsher called this move in July and has been fighting to preserve the public option. And then she did the unthinkable. She joined Grover Norquist (and some other liberal groups btw) in signing a letter asking for an investigation of Rahm Emmanuel’s role as a board member for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the period that board decided for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to invest more agressively, a decision that brought those quasi-government corporation near collapse. And she called out Lanny Davis’s opposition to the public option on the Ed Show by asking Lanny who was paying his freight, for it is clear from records that he represents folks in the healthcare industry. Washington insiders hate her because she’s exposed the non-transparency and deal-making that frustrates the public will. And the extent to which it pervades the “progressives” in Congress. Nobody can measure up to her standards because nobody has measured up to their own promises even after she has raised money for their campaign funds.
If getting out large numbers of votes doesn’t count and get large numbers of small donations doesn’t allow you to buy back your government, exactly how does the public will get implemented in Congress? A lot of folks are arguing that it never will, especially after the Citizens United decision.
But indeed after the bill is signed, and I am more hopeful that it will be, the major battle in narrative will depend to some extent on the numbers voting for the bill and how rapidly HHS can get the implementation going, given the delays and the legal requirements for public review of regulations.
And the public pressure needs to be of fixing those things that were negotiated away to the lobbyists–Medicare Part D, drug reimportation, public option, ERISA waiver to states seeking to create single-payer systems. And to items that the public honestly finds to be a problem. The battle must be between “fix the bill” and “repeal the bill”. And not between “aren’t we great, we passed it” and “repeal the bill”.
A drunken monkey could have told you that the public option pledge wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Not a single signer of that pledge other than Massa (if he signed it…I think he did) kept their promise. Anyone who thought they would doesn’t understand a damn thing about progressives and progressives in Congress. All Jane did was disappoint a bunch of people a drive a wedge into the party. In a battle over who will blink first on a massive expansion of government commitment to health care, the progressives will always blink before the Blue Dogs. When that pledge was first floated, Pelosi laughed at the idea that progressives would vote against whatever bill emerged, and she was right on the merits if not in showing disrespect.
How to change that? You can’t change it. When you are trying to help the least of us, those that don’t give a shit about them always have the upper hand. And that is before we even discuss the media and money advantage that is held by supporters of the status quo, or the stupid Senate rules.
As for this Messina deal, it’s being accepted as gospel on very thin reporting.
Correct.
Armando is arguing the opposite, and I can sympathize, but seriously, no one will EVER believe they’ll kill it, ever. That bluff is too easy to call:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/3/17/9027/83238
Armando misses the other half of the puzzle. It’s a numbers game. It’s not enough to make a credible threat to kill the bill. You have to use that threat to get someone else to cave. Progressive could kill the bill, but they couldn’t get Blue Dogs to vote for their vision of health reform. Blue Dogs could get progressives to cave, but if they didn’t, there would be no reform. In other words, the progressive goal was unattainable, but the Blue Dogs’ vision was attainable.
Yeah, exactly. That’s my exact point about the CFPA. The end game for Republicans and blue dogs is NO CFPA.
You can’t change it, eh?
So why go through the sterile exercise of elections this November. If those who don’t give a shit always have the upper hand, why bother to fight, why bother to vote? If you want to understand why the Democratic base is not enthusiastic, it is this not what Jane Hamsher, who most have not heard of, has done, despite the narrative inside the Beltway.
Talk me down. Why should I bother to vote in November?
because without progressives helping to define what the center-left party is, we don’t elect a Democrat president, we don’t ensure 30 million people, we don’t use diplomacy in our relationships around the world, we don’t do stem-cell research, we don’t give people protection against their credit card companies, we don’t preserve wilderness, we don’t expand SCHIP, and so on.
It’s not that we got what we asked for, but we made progress, and progress was only made because of us and our values.
Ah, so “upper hand” doesn’t mean invulnerable hand.
OK, I agree. But progressives are going to have to take the math seriously. For too many progressives, the only day to take action is the first Tuesday in November. Some better start looking at the calendar of filing dates for primaries and the general election. And asking themselves just exactly how they are going to convince 160,000 voters to vote for their candidate. And too many are not working to win, just “making a statement”; ask President Gore how that turned out; yep, in a politicized Supreme Court.
And about that “insuring 30 million” number, if you look at the immediate effects, it is bogus. But if you look at the bill being the first step with continued pressure beginning the day after the bill is signed, those 30 million are likely to be better insured by the time it happens and it might be more than 30 million.
Kucinich’s move has triggered some jumping on the bandwagon. I’m sure that the pressure in the next 24 hours will be on Blue Dogs and New Democrats; the progressives seem to be all there now.
The sad part at the moment is that the Republicans’ lockstep voting “No” as a block makes them vulnerable for large losses in November. But there are few Democratic challengers filed who can take advantage of this.
I don’t think there are a whole lot of seats out there where a progressive Democrat can beat an incumbent Republican in the first midterm of a Democat’s presidency. I’m all for tying, mind you, but there are slim pickings.
There is a bipartisan “throw the bums out” mentality out there. And there are some superannuated GOP representatives out there; Howard Coble (NC-06) comes to mind. It would require the progressive to play the clean up DC and Wall Street cards, support a successful end to the Afghanistan War (vaguely defined), hit on jobs, the free trade that isn’t, and economic (as opposed to nativist) populism. And to dish it out straight up and engage people. You don’t say you’re a fighter and then weasel on answering questions.
The closest current Democrat in Congress who has taken this approach is Tom Perriello. So far it seems to be working to keep him competitive. If Democrats can show through the removal of antitrust exemption on insurance companies, he will have a strong card to play.
In districts in the South, “progressive” means “as progressive as your district will allow”. There are a lot of Democrats in the South and other areas that do not push that envelope. And they will be the most vulnerable to Republicans. Perriello does; Brad Miller does; Bob Etheridge does; Heath Shuler does not, nor does Mike McIntyre. John Spratt does in South Carolina. These are the types of progressives that can replace Republicans because they know how to read their districts and push their ideas. From a communications standpoint, the messaging is similar to Jesse Helms’s approach. “I may not agree with Rep. Progressive but I vote for him because I agree with some of what he says and because I know where he stands.”
yeah, but you know what? In the last two congressional elections, I did predictions on outcomes based somewhat on polls, but also on the Partisan Voting Index. And PVI is a really strong predictor. It’s really rare for either party to win an election, no matter what they do, in any districts that have a high PVI. It happens when a candidate is caught up in scandal, as in the case of Eric Massa’s opponent, of Joseph Cao’s. That’s why you always want candidates for every seat. But just going out there and running a great campaign? It hardly ever works.
And there are very few low PVI seats out there. On top of that, if the climate doesn’t change, differential turnout will be strongly in the Republicans’ favor, making even low PVI seats almost unattainable.
I don’t want to be pessimistic, but I do aim to give you honest analysis.
What do you consider high and low? High >= 10?
Ten is a good number.
Anything over 5 is going to be hard this year, though.
Tell me how you score a district in which there has been minimal opposition for a decade.
And if 2008 was a watershed election (which it might not have been), doesn’t the PVI lose some predictive power because of a changing electorate or changing public opinion?
The reason I ask is that depending on PVI or other stats to make campaign decisions introduces a reinforcing bias that tends to create a situation of self-fulfilling prophecy and not actual analysis. And that dynamic has proved catastrophic in the use of financial statistics.
The merit of the PVI is that it measures how partisan a district is relative to the country as a whole. So, the country can move sharply left or right, but a district’s partisan bias will only change very slowly.
In a bad year for Republicans, any district with less than an R+6 is ripe for takeover. Why? Because the shift in the national electorate is strong enough to wipe out that 6 point advantage.
PVI tells you how big of a change in national mood is needed from one election to the next. It’s complicated by the different turnout models of midterms and presidential years, because the Republicans always have a slight advantage in midterm years do to the Democrats reliance on occasional voters.
What is averaged over two presidential years? The vote for president or the vote for the member of Congress from the district?
you look at how Kerry and Obama did in the district and compare it to how they did nationally.
Dana Kildee has just announced he will sign on to the bill. He’s a Stupak ally and from a swing district, so this is a big boost for passage.
Excellent!
Told ya so.
Thanks for this post, BooMan. In the past year, I have relied on you for quality reporting on this complicated issue.
Yes this is a tough, tough call. I wonder how this bill will affect many of my friends who are HIV positive and rely on the government for help paying for their very expensive drugs. No one has really directly addressed this. So far, the mainstream coverage has been: abortion, abortion, abortion. Oh yes, and “Death Panels.” But for so many of my friends and acquaintances the system is working them–barely. And they are afraid.
I want to just “trust the president” on this. After all, I was an early supporter of him. And the Kucinich endorsement helps. But forgive me for my reticence. I’m not used to trusting politicians. We queers are used to being thrown under the bus.
Okay.
First of all, make sure you read this article about how private insurance companies have been treating people with HIV. So, that’s not good.
Now, in the Senate bill, we have the following:
So, right away, and child who has HIV cannot be denied coverage, and in 2014 the same will be true for adults.
We also have this important provision.
So, a patient facing a lifetime of expensive anti-AIDS cocktail medication doesn’t have to worry about using up all their coverage.
Finally, we have this:
So, you get your drugs without excessive out of pocket costs.
Sound good?
Thanks for the good news, Booman!