CalvinBall wrote:does it really matter though? the republicans have been dragging their feet with 40 people. i dont think one more person is really going to change that until the democrats get it together.

Maybe I'm being naive, but would it harm the Democrats to scale things back a bit on healthcare? I actually think they've won the debate, it's just a matter of when and how they make changes. 2-3 years ago, Republicans wouldn't have done a thing re healthcare. Now they'd be happy to agree to portability, purchasing insurance across state lines, group purchasing power for small businesses, etc. Granted it's not what the left is looking for, but it's more than the country has been willing to do in the past. I think people might actually see it as a positive that they moved things along, but demonstrated the ability to listen to other points of view and do things incrementally.

I'd seriously consider going back to schips expansion passed by large margins in Congress and vetoed by Bush. That's clearly a framework for expanding access to coverage.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'd seriously consider going back to schips expansion passed by large margins in Congress and vetoed by Bush. That's clearly a framework for expanding access to coverage.

Didn't the Dems already pass that?

cshort wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:does it really matter though? the republicans have been dragging their feet with 40 people. i dont think one more person is really going to change that until the democrats get it together.

Maybe I'm being naive, but would it harm the Democrats to scale things back a bit on healthcare? I actually think they've won the debate, it's just a matter of when and how they make changes. 2-3 years ago, Republicans wouldn't have done a thing re healthcare. Now they'd be happy to agree to portability, purchasing insurance across state lines, group purchasing power for small businesses, etc. Granted it's not what the left is looking for, but it's more than the country has been willing to do in the past. I think people might actually see it as a positive that they moved things along, but demonstrated the ability to listen to other points of view and do things incrementally.

Most of the people I'm reading--admittedly center-to-left wonky types like Ezra Klein--argue that the bulk of the Democrats' plan is pretty close to what people like Bob Dole were proposing in the '90s. Even if that isn't entirely true (and remember that Dole and Bill Frist at one point endorsed the Senate Finance version), it's already "scaled back" from single payer, to public option, to limited Medicare buy-in, to the very modest package we have now.

There's also the fact that the Republicans seem much less interested in policy substance than winning the fight. If they'd negotiated in good faith, it actually would be a better bill already: you'd have stronger cost controls, probably, and definitely tort reform. But they just wanted to give the Democrats a bloody nose. Electorally this was probably the smart call; as "public service," it's disgraceful.

I guess a final point is that in my (probably limited) understanding of this package, a lot of it has to go together. You can only change the rules of insurance (portability, no more refusal for pre-existing conditions, etc) if you impose the universal mandate; you can only impose the mandate if you provide subsidies for low to middle income families, etc. And under budget rules, you can only do any of this if it's deficit-neutral or better--which means the Medicare "cuts" that Republicans suddenly find so unconscionable.

TenuredVulture wrote:Brown in 2012? Is he the new Romney? What is it with conservatives and Massachusetts Republicans?

He drives a truck, didn't you hear?

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I'd seriously consider going back to schips expansion passed by large margins in Congress and vetoed by Bush. That's clearly a framework for expanding access to coverage.

Didn't the Dems already pass that?

I don't think it was as extensive as the 2007 bill. I don't know for sure though.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I'd seriously consider going back to schips expansion passed by large margins in Congress and vetoed by Bush. That's clearly a framework for expanding access to coverage.

Didn't the Dems already pass that?

I don't think it was as extensive as the 2007 bill. I don't know for sure though.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/schip.vote/

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:does it really matter though? the republicans have been dragging their feet with 40 people. i dont think one more person is really going to change that until the democrats get it together.

Tell me more

explain to me where i am wrong. the democrats can't even figure out what they want amongst themselves. that is the main problem IMO.

Yeah, they passed S-CHIP. That's why poor kids are all Bolsheviks today.

At one point I rather naively asked (probably on here, but maybe not) why we didn't just incrementally move toward universal coverage by lowering Medicare eligibility and raising S-CHIP eligibility until they met in the middle. But coming up with a good answer to that question--aside from "we can't afford it" (which is defensible but IMO ultimately incorrect; it's the incredibly wasteful status quo we can't afford)--would entail explaining why some statism is okay but not more than that nebulous amount.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:does it really matter though? the republicans have been dragging their feet with 40 people. i dont think one more person is really going to change that until the democrats get it together.

Tell me more

explain to me where i am wrong. the democrats can't even figure out what they want amongst themselves. that is the main problem IMO.

Because now if they figure out what they want among themselves that's no longer enough

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:does it really matter though? the republicans have been dragging their feet with 40 people. i dont think one more person is really going to change that until the democrats get it together.

Tell me more

explain to me where i am wrong. the democrats can't even figure out what they want amongst themselves. that is the main problem IMO.

Because now if they figure out what they want among themselves that's no longer enough

which i get but it is hard to worry about that without even being able to leap the first dozen or so huge hurdles these people cant agree on.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:does it really matter though? the republicans have been dragging their feet with 40 people. i dont think one more person is really going to change that until the democrats get it together.

Tell me more

explain to me where i am wrong. the democrats can't even figure out what they want amongst themselves. that is the main problem IMO.

Because now if they figure out what they want among themselves that's no longer enough

which i get but it is hard to worry about that without even being able to leap the first dozen or so huge hurdles these people cant agree on.

There's a 95% chance they would have passed some form of health care reform in the next month or so if Coakley won yesterday. I'd say that's no better than 50/50 right now. Seems like the negotiations they were doing were producing substantive compromises between the House and Senate teams. Now they have to go back to the drawing board. If you don't think that makes a difference, no matter what side you're on, I don't know what to say to you.

95 percent? where are you getting that from? i had no idea it was that close.

dajafi wrote:Yeah, they passed S-CHIP. That's why poor kids are all Bolsheviks today.

At one point I rather naively asked (probably on here, but maybe not) why we didn't just incrementally move toward universal coverage by lowering Medicare eligibility and raising S-CHIP eligibility until they met in the middle. But coming up with a good answer to that question--aside from "we can't afford it" (which is defensible but IMO ultimately incorrect; it's the incredibly wasteful status quo we can't afford)--would entail explaining why some statism is okay but not more than that nebulous amount.

I think the Democrat's could call the Republicans bluff on a lot of the incremental reforms I mentioned (even Karl Rove was suggesting them the other day). This would hopefully lead to some sort of cost containment. If the Republicans obstruct, there's a treasure trove of video that the Dem's could use come November.

In the meantime, if they suggested using some of the excess TARP funding to specifically pay for what you mentioned above, people might actually go along with that, versus just spending it simply because it's there. They could point out that it would be spent on the American people, versus some "unknown special interest".

cshort wrote:

dajafi wrote:Yeah, they passed S-CHIP. That's why poor kids are all Bolsheviks today.

At one point I rather naively asked (probably on here, but maybe not) why we didn't just incrementally move toward universal coverage by lowering Medicare eligibility and raising S-CHIP eligibility until they met in the middle. But coming up with a good answer to that question--aside from "we can't afford it" (which is defensible but IMO ultimately incorrect; it's the incredibly wasteful status quo we can't afford)--would entail explaining why some statism is okay but not more than that nebulous amount.

I think the Democrat's could call the Republicans bluff on a lot of the incremental reforms I mentioned (even Karl Rove was suggesting them the other day). This would hopefully lead to some sort of cost containment. If the Republicans obstruct, there's a treasure trove of video that the Dem's could use come November.

Maybe. (And I honestly don't know about the TARP scenario--though my guess is that the administration wants to use that money for a Jobs Bill.) But I'm starting to think that the difference between the two parties' governance largely boils down to the fact that the Democrats have committed to deficit-neutrality with big new programs--a decision that always will entail pain through spending cuts or tax increases--while the Republicans blithely piled up trillions of bucks in unfunded obligations through the wars of choice and Medicare Part D (not to mention the tax cuts which did so much to create durable prosperity).

edit: Admittedly, this was something the Dems ran on in 2006--a return to pay-as-you-go. But it hasn't exactly shielded them from charges of fiscal profligacy, nor has the "emergency situation" explanation for the stimulus and bailouts... despite the fact that even most conservative economists acknowledge the necessity and value of these actions.

Maybe this is all my partisan bitching. But I don't even hear our local Republicans defending the substance of their officials' statements and actions.

dajafi wrote:

cshort wrote:

dajafi wrote:Yeah, they passed S-CHIP. That's why poor kids are all Bolsheviks today.

At one point I rather naively asked (probably on here, but maybe not) why we didn't just incrementally move toward universal coverage by lowering Medicare eligibility and raising S-CHIP eligibility until they met in the middle. But coming up with a good answer to that question--aside from "we can't afford it" (which is defensible but IMO ultimately incorrect; it's the incredibly wasteful status quo we can't afford)--would entail explaining why some statism is okay but not more than that nebulous amount.

I think the Democrat's could call the Republicans bluff on a lot of the incremental reforms I mentioned (even Karl Rove was suggesting them the other day). This would hopefully lead to some sort of cost containment. If the Republicans obstruct, there's a treasure trove of video that the Dem's could use come November.

Maybe. (And I honestly don't know about the TARP scenario--though my guess is that the administration wants to use that money for a Jobs Bill.) But I'm starting to think that the difference between the two parties' governance largely boils down to the fact that the Democrats have committed to deficit-neutrality with big new programs--a decision that always will entail pain through spending cuts or tax increases--while the Republicans blithely piled up trillions of bucks in unfunded obligations through the wars of choice and Medicare Part D (not to mention the tax cuts which did so much to create durable prosperity).

edit: Admittedly, this was something the Dems ran on in 2006--a return to pay-as-you-go. But it hasn't exactly shielded them from charges of fiscal profligacy, nor has the "emergency situation" explanation for the stimulus and bailouts... despite the fact that even most conservative economists acknowledge the necessity and value of these actions.

Maybe this is all my partisan bitching. But I don't even hear our local Republicans defending the substance of their officials' statements and actions.

It hasn't shielded them from charges of fiscal profligacy because there's a two trillion dollar deficit this year. It's not all or even mostly the Democrats fault, but jesus, you going to argue they're being responsible either? I think most Republicans don't defend Republicans' fiscal responsibility because they're disappointed with the fiscal record of the Bush administration and the GOP congress.

CalvinBall wrote:95 percent? where are you getting that from? i had no idea it was that close.

I dunno. I made it up. I think they were close. Maybe it was more like 85% and that got cut to 40% yesterday. Or 91.3% slashed to 28%. My point is that yesterday dramatically cut the odds of health care reform passing, because now if Republicans really want to drag their feet, they can. Unless the Dems pass the Senate bill in the House, that is.

jerseyhoya wrote:It hasn't shielded them from charges of fiscal profligacy because there's a two trillion dollar deficit this year. It's not all or even mostly the Democrats fault, but jesus, you going to argue they're being responsible either? I think most Republicans don't defend Republicans' fiscal responsibility because they're disappointed with the fiscal record of the Bush administration and the GOP congress.

What would you have had them do? Everybody agreed that some stimulus was necessary, and anyone in good faith agrees that at the very least it's ensured that things didn't get much worse. The bailouts I guess are more debatable and certainly don't sit as well with me... but both started under Bush and had bipartisan support.

Yes, the deficit has gotten worse, and nobody is happy about that. It's terrifying. But that's what happens in a downturn: spending goes up to cushion the blow, while revenue drops. If we'd followed the McCain course of massive cuts in government spending, unemployment probably would be over 12 percent now and GDP likely wouldn't have turned around yet.

As for Republicans' evaluation of their own record on fiscal issues, I can credit that they feel Bush and the DeLay/Frist congresses were irresponsible, even if they don't talk about it above a mumble. But what about going forward? Brown just campaigned on big new tax cuts and zero reductions to Medicare, I have a hunch he'll be a supporter of any bump in defense spending that's proposed, and I doubt he'll be a strong voice for big cuts to discretionary spending (never mind that you could cut it all, every cent of it, and still not get us back to balance). If that adds to less debt, I'm not seeing how.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:95 percent? where are you getting that from? i had no idea it was that close.

I dunno. I made it up. I think they were close. Maybe it was more like 85% and that got cut to 40% yesterday. Or 91.3% slashed to 28%. My point is that yesterday dramatically cut the odds of health care reform passing, because now if Republicans really want to drag their feet, they can. Unless the Dems pass the Senate bill in the House, that is.

gotcha. i guess my point was more just that this doesnt change how inept the democrats have been over the past few months with this whole thing. they have had an incredibly huge majority, one bush never had, and still cant get it done.

Democrats blast off their own feet:

I live in Barney Frank's district, and I called his office this morning. To my surprise, he took my call and I asked him why on earth couldn't the House simply pass the Senate version of the health care bill. He told me straight up that the votes weren't there to pass the Senate bill. He said that labor is totally against it, the abortion caucus is against it, and more than a few progressives were against it.

I asked him about Democrats' prospects in the 2010 election if they don't get something done on health care. He told me it would be worse electorally for Democrats if they passed the bill versus dropping it and facing voters having done nothing. I told him I disagreed with him on that point, but I suppose he knows more about this stuff than I do. I hope.