Truer words have never been spoken. And the frontlines of the war on Christmas is right here on BSG, where heathen phillies fans post about their secularized christmas celebrations. :D


On Bachmann/Grayson and their ilk, hell, it's kind of funny that conservatives were so afraid of Franken making a mockery of the senate, when he's become a model representative. It's probably their worst nightmare, in that regard. 'Real' politicians are much more buffoonish than the actual comedian.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:equating hannity and msnbc seems a bit weak, though. msnbc is liberal for about 5 hours a night from 7-11 (where Maddow is pretty darn informative and fair by any account), then it goes back to its prison documentaries

just a quibble sir

You want to talk about informative? I've learned more about the War on Christmas on Fox than anywhere else.

That just suggests you're not watching enough Colbert.

No, wait--that's another holiday

oh boy, Ben Nelson is now on board:

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

What they're referring to in the latter is there are currently two levels of coverage in general Medicaid plans. One is non-money payment, where doctor bills, hospitals, physical and mental, and prescriptions are covered by the HMO contracted by the state or the general ACCESS plan. Then there is medically-needy only, where prescriptions aren't covered, along with a few other things. The latter is usually for adults 21-59 without a need for a health-sustaining medication or a disability, but meet toher conditions (based on the state in which they live). Children, at least in most states, always get the first plan. I guess now everyone in his state of Nebraska would get prescriptions, regardless of previous necessity. So, if a doctor prescribes a tougher antibiotic, they don't have to pay out of pocket anymore. Great idea, but also sort of weird that he only cared enough to get it 'free' for his state, but apparently it's cheap (how cheap?).

It is a funny small thing of which no one will take notice, but the impact will be seen at my place of business. Tons of people who need medications but can't afford them now will be able to, and they'll see a definitive benefit to this. It really will be an increase in a more universal type of coverage for poorer working folks, usually mothers with kids with a crappy job that doesn't offer health insurance or the insurance is too expensive for them.

OK, let's tick away at the reasons republicans don't want to vote for this bill:

Instead of a public option, the final bill would allow private firms for the first time to offer national insurance policies to all Americans across state lines. Those plans would be negotiated through the Office of Personnel Management, the same agency that handles health coverage for federal workers and members of Congress.

Starting immediately, insurers would be prohibited from denying children coverage due to pre-existing conditions. A complete ban on the practice would take effect in 2014, when the legislation seeks to create a network of state-based insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, where people who lack access to affordable coverage through an insurer could apply for federal subsidies to purchase policies.

Insurers competing in the exchanges would be required to justify rate increases, and those who jacked up prices unduly could be barred from the exchange. Lifetime limits on coverage would be banned and annual limits would be "tightly restricted," aides said, until 2014, when they, too, would be banned entirely.

OK, so there is no public option. People can buy insurance from other states, something the likes of John Barrasso wants. Pre-existing conditions are gone. There would be exchanges, yay free-market place! And people would be offered plans 'the same as members of Congress get'.

So how many Republicans who previously raised these concerns will switch their 'no' vote, do you think? LOL. We've already seen where a guy like Lieberman is now against his own damn idea because someone he doesn't like, well, likes it. Politics is just a game to so many of these people. It's really quite sad. This is really just a moderate step at regulating the marketplace and making sure consumers have a fair shakes at things. There's nothing in the bill that's outrageous or 'marxist'. It's amazing to me that this party line BS has taken form on the republican end. It seems to me the only thing NOT moderate in this is leaving a woman's right to choose for poor people up to the legislative body of the state in which they reside.

Jim Inhofe gets cool reception in Denmark:

The ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hoped to spread two messages in Copenhagen: Global warming is a hoax, and there’s no way the Senate is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill.

The senator didn’t have any meetings scheduled in Copenhagen, and he did not see chief U.S. negotiator Todd Stern or the members of the House delegation, who were not scheduled to fly in until later in the afternoon.

But Inhofe’s aides eventually rustled up a group of reporters, and the Oklahoman — wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots — held forth from the top of a flight of stairs in the conference media center.

“We in the United States owe it to the 191 countries to be well-informed and know what the intentions of the United States are. The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen.”

A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”

“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”

One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”

Inhofe ignored the jab, fielded a few more questions, then raced to the airport for the nine-hour flight back to Washington.

After Inhofe left, some reporters were still a bit confused about what had happened and who he was.

I am not a fan of elected officials or former presidents/important folks going overseas and talking ish on the sitting commander in chief.

That said, it is worth pointing out to these foreign reporters who have no idea how our political system works that the president can't enter into treaties without the consent of the Senate, and any legislation regulating carbon emissions is a bit more complicated to enact than the president agreeing to do it with some foreign leaders in Denmark.

Jonathan Chait makes an insightful point about the Republicans' health care strategy and its consequence: by essentially reducing the possible outcomes to either "bill fails" or "bill passes on narrow partisan grounds," they ensured that anything that did pass would be much more consequential and ambitious than a bipartisan measure likely would have been.

At the outset of this debate, moderate Democrats were desperate for a bipartisan bill. They were willing to do almost anything to get it, including negotiate fruitlessly for months on end. We can't know for sure, but Democrats appeared willing to make enormous substantive concessions to win the assent of even a few Republicans. A few GOP defectors could have lured a chunk of Democrats to sign something far more limited than what President Obama is going to sign. And remember, it would have taken only one Democrat to agree to partial reform in order to kill comprehensive reform. I can easily imagine a scenario where Ben Nelson refused to vote for anything larger than, say, a $400 billion bill that Chuck Grassley and a couple other Republicans were offering.

But Republicans wouldn't make that deal. The GOP leadership put immense pressure on all its members to withhold consent from any health care bill. The strategy had some logic to it: If all 40 Republicans voted no, then Democrats would need 60 votes to succeed, a monumentally difficult task. And if they did succeed, the bill would be seen as partisan and therefore too liberal, too big government. The spasm of anti-government activism over the summer helped lock the GOP into this strategy -- no Republican could afford to risk the wrath of Tea Partiers convinced that any reform signed by Obama equaled socialism and death panels.

Personally, I probably would have been happier with a smaller, bipartisan measure that put more emphasis on cost control and included a longer time horizon to expand coverage, as I think that would have been more politically durable. (I believe there's a non-zero chance that this passes and is then repealed before it goes into full effect, if the Republicans somehow take back both Congress and the presidency in 2013.) But the Republicans' total lack of good faith or seeming interest in seriously negotiating--really, even the acknowledgment on the part of Republicans that the current system is a multifaceted disaster--meant that it was either a partisan bill or nothing.

Maybe most of them believe that this will be a disaster as sincerely as Democrats did when they refused to engage on Bush's effort to privatize Social Security. But given the eagerness to demagogue things like Medicare cuts that were a fraction of what McCain proposed a year ago, it certainly seemed like politics was the motivating factor.

I think this may come back to bite back hard on the Republicans. You can't really undo it for one (look at Medicare part D--is anyone seriously talking about a redo on that mess?) and it's too easy to say "these guys are just obstructionists".

That's not to say that the opponents of reform haven't scored a tactical victory at least on the rhetoric of the bill. Polls pretty clearly indicate that. So I could likely be wrong here.

But even so, I think long term Republican strategy is doomed.

Also, on the polls that show opposition to the plan and unhappiness with Obama--what portion of that opposition are those who say it doesn't go far enough? 10? 5?

TenuredVulture wrote:Also, on the polls that show opposition to the plan and unhappiness with Obama--what portion of that opposition are those who say it doesn't go far enough? 10? 5?

Probably about 10, and those are the biggest problem for Obama and the Dems. The Republicans who oppose the healthcare bill and most of the independents in opposition are the same folks who voted against Obama in 2008. Obama won handily without them. The 10% of the opposition that comes from Dems are largely folks who voted for Obama in 2008 and will sit on their hands in 2010 and 2012. These folks are analogous to the Gene McCarthy brigade, most were voting in their first election that primary, most did not vote for Humphrey in the general, and most did not vote very often thereafter. Like McCarthy, Obama inspired folks to believe the American political system is something other than what it actually is, a world in which a 60-40 majority in the Senate is almost meaningless if the opposition takes an obstructionist approach. A world in which compromise is necessary, vested interests will always have influence, and what they view as 'right' is not the majority view, even in their own party.

heh?

I think the health care compromise may clinch re-election for Blanche Lincoln. And I think the Republicans are stupid enough to sink millions into a campaign to try to beat her. That's after they spend millions among the 7 or 8 announced Republican candidates in a primary.

Snowe sez no

I can't decide how much of this is sincere. She has something of a point, but (sadly) the Senate just doesn't work like that right now. And it's been a freakin' year working on this.

That she gives those two other Republican yutzes in the "Gang of Six" any credit for good faith detracts from her credibility in my eyes. There was never a chance they'd vote for anything; the only question is whether Baucus understood that or not.

If the NRSC had told Specter they'd be behind him 100%, and he stayed a Republican, then health care reform would have failed, right?

There's still plenty of time for the Democrats to screw this up

Republican prospects in next year’s North Dakota Senate race would look very promising – but only if popular Gov. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) decides to run against Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)

A new Rasmussen poll shows Hoeven handily leading the three-term senator by 22 (!) points, 58 to 36 percent. That’s particularly impressive, given that both candidates hold strong approval ratings: Nearly one-third of North Dakota voters (31 percent) view Dorgan “very favorably” while only 13 percent view him “very unfavorably.”

But Hoeven has rock-star appeal in North Dakota, with a majority of voters (53 percent) viewing him very favorably – virtually unheard of in Rasmussen surveys. Only five percent viewed him very unfavorably.

If Hoeven doesn’t run, Dorgan’s re-election chances improve considerably. He leads former Senate candidate Duane Sand by 15 points, 52 to 37 percent. Those numbers suggest that Hoeven is the only Republican with a real chance at ousting Dorgan.

Please run, you jackass. The seat is yours for the asking. Pick off a few seats this cycle, and there's a real chance to regain the majority in 2012.

jerseyhoya wrote:Please run, you jackass. The seat is yours for the asking. Pick off a few seats this cycle, and there's a real chance to regain the majority in 2012.

and then what?

Then we're the majority

jerseyhoya wrote:Then we're the majority

oh

I didn't expect much more from you, frankly.

The last 2 sentences of this not-really-very-good Harper's piece on health reform ("Understanding Obamacare") capture the national political/governance dilemma pretty well:

Republicans, having lost their status as the party of business, have become the party of incoherent rage. It is difficult to imagine anything good coming from a system that moderates the will of corporations with the fantasies of hysterics.