@bmacs27, I've got a few concerns about this lump sum idea. One is that you'd replace medicare with it, which seems like a bad idea right off the bat. Second, you push the problems with predictability of cost from government and insurance companies which must only worry about large pools of people and statistical averages, onto individuals who have literally no way of predicting their individual lifetime health costs. Third, any potential savings people make by limiting their spending benefits the US Treasury not themselves. Fourth, you're still leaving people without a safety net, both in the case of severe illness, or simple poor planning.

Those seem like huge issues to me, and the bit about savings benefiting the Treasury seems like a political poison pill to boot.

As for Barasso calling for HSA's, he wasn't actually presenting a policy prescription. He just said he liked HSA+Catastrophic insurance because it makes patients control their own costs. Obama was right to call that a rich man's solution, because you need to have enough disposable income to be able to save enough to cover out-of-pocket medical costs, and currently those are still largely driven by the bad incentive structure of our existing insurance system (in other words, they're ridiculously high).

You said, "If Obama would allow himself some humility here, and pitch a new proposal partially drafted by Republicans, I think he'd win the support he needs." I think this is a deeply misguided statement. The assumption here is that Obama's plan is some radical, left-wing proposal that's antithetical to Republicans, when in truth, Obama basically took previous Republican reform bills as his inspiration.

Since Obama pre-compromised in this way, Republicans just moved the goalposts, and said that Obama's plan is Stalinist health care, and if he wants to be reasonable, he has to drop the public option. So they dropped the public option. Republicans said instead of the House's surtax, they wanted to the tax exemption on employer benefits reduced or eliminated. So the Democrats did that too. The Republicans said they didn't want an employer mandate, so Democrats dropped that too. The Republicans said that they didn't want health insurance subsidies to pay for insurance that covers abortion, so the Democrats added language that did that too. Republicans said that they didn't want insurance companies to be required to cover end of life counseling (DEATH PANELS!!!), so Democrats dropped that too. Republicans said that they didn't want illegal immigrants covered, so Democrats put in strong language forbidding it, and setting up a system for enforcing it.

I could go on like that for quite a while longer. Republicans have been involved in this process from the beginning, and have extracted a ton of concessions from Democrats, in return for absolutely zero votes. The whole time, their rhetoric hasn't softened one iota -- it's still Stalinist, Nazi-ist, Socialist, Fascist Health care that's going to bankrupt our government, bankrupt our citizens, and get everyone killed, grandmas first.

That kind of thing makes it politically impossible for Republicans to turn around and say "well, now it's not so bad".

Obama started with a very moderate, bipartisan bill, especially considering the sizable majorities he still enjoys in both chambers of Congress. The idea that he needs to compromise more with Republicans is ludicrous.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now is another great voice. But Bill Moyers will be missed.>> ^highdileeho:
>> ^highdileeho:
No offense, but if anyone is interested in real journalism, who's intrests aren't cynicism, and ratings, but objective reporting on all the issues in America, then watch bill moyers. I'm sick of seeing people applauding all these baffoons. youve been duped, we don't even know what good journalism is anymore, and most of the younger generation have probably never heard it at all. Mostly because It's boring and depressing, but at least it's classier than poppycock.

Nevermind, I was just going to catch up on the news to discover todays show is a farewell episode.
god, i hope we haven't just lost the last sane voice we had left that was giving us our information.

>> ^dag:
Filling the Alan Colmes token liberal vacuum at Fox.


His views are not so easily rendered in any one light. I have a fair amount of respect for him though. He went into Israel during the whole Hezbollah thing, and when he came back the "Mel Gibson hates jews" things was the top order of the day. As they transitioned to black, he muttered something to the effect of "Ya, there is a war going on and people are dying, but lets talk about Mel Gibson, that's important". It was so sarcastic that I can't convey it in text

I hadn't heard the term before so I don't know the different cultural applications of the word but between soft dung/diarrhea or caramelized popcorn it doesn't look like a good thing. Here's Wikipedia's definitions:

Poppycock - Anglicized form of the Dutch pappekak,[1] which literally means soft dung or diarrhea (from Dutch pap pap + kak dung) - is an interjection meaning "nonsense" or "balderdash".

Poppycock is also a brand of candied popcorn. Though it is marketed in a variety of combinations, the original mixture consists of clusters of popcorn, almonds, and pecans covered in a candy glaze. Other specialty combinations include mixtures with emphasis on cashews, chocolate, and pecans.[2]
>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^brycewi19:
Poppycock: A word you'd expect to be dirtier or more painful than it really is.

I think perhaps this might have something to do with it :-D.

Your video, Shepard Smith strikes again! (Re:Bipartisan HC Summit), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thank you. Corrected.

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
horsefeathers! bullpucky, even!
i said good day, sir!

btw, in his case it's Shepard.
was going to just update the tags, but i can't correct the title, so you might as well do both.

>> ^brycewi19:
Poppycock: A word you'd expect to be dirtier or more painful than it really is.


I think perhaps this might have something to do with it :-D.

this analysis

Where I think you, Maddow and Yglesias err is that you commit the all-too common mistake of mistaking 'Republicans' for 'Conservatives'.

Let us be blunt. GWB was NOT 'conservative'. Just because he supported the Military and opposed stem-cell research & abortion does not make him or any other Republican a conservative. No real conservative would have increased spending like GWB did. A true conservative does not increase federal power. He cuts it. He does not increase spending. He reduces it. He does not reduce freedoms (like Bush did). He increases them. There is a big difference between RINO big goverment 'compassionate' social conservatives (So-cons) and fiscal conservatives like Tea Party folks who want to cut taxes & spending. I know that the left likes to lump them all into the same bucket to make an easy target, but I stridently disagree with the position.

Yglesias is saying fiscal conservatives screwed things up. Such a statement is completely false. No fiscal conservative was running the show with GWB in office. He was all about so-called compassionate conservativism, and 'new tone' bipartisan social spending crap. So from where I sit, it is you and Yglesias who are trying to pull the false equivalence rhetorical fast one here. You're trying to have your cake by lambastic fiscal conservatism (which hasn't been practiced for decades) by using a bunch of RINO So-Con liberal Republicans as your example. That may fly with the less educated or the ignorant - but not with me.

In any case, it isn't germaine to the thread. Maddow is neither (A) original or (B) a journalist. Or are you suggesting that O'Rielly, Hannity, and Beck are original journalists? Because they point out Democrat hypocrisy all the time. Journalists report news. Journalism is very dry by nature, and is objective. Hacks advocate. Hacks are sensationalist by nature, and slanted. They are not the same. Which brings me to...

Pennypacker - blah blah moronic blah blah.

Merely because you disagree with my words does not make them moronic. Such a statement is a very Maddowian ad hominem approach. Very illogical.

Journalism is the conveyance of newsworthy material.

If it helps you to compartmentalize - then put the word GOOD in front. I'm talking about journalism as a field that can be respected and considered professional, fair, and neutral. There are all kinds of 'journalism' if you want to Yellow Journalism or gossip rags. But NEWS is another animal (or should be). In the true sense of the word Beck, Maddow, and all other opinion pundits are not 'journalists'. If you want to say guys like Limbaugh and Olbermann are journalists then that's your affair, but most other people are a tad more disciminating.

If he reported objective conditions i.e. facts without blind assertions he would qualify.

If this is your standard, then you have agreed with my original argument. Maddow is just as guilty as the rest at making things up. Her opinions about the Tea Party in particular. She grossly misrepresents them. During the protests last fall she routinely cherry picked isolated fringe radicals out of far larger, less salacious crowds and painted them as if they represented the Tea Party as a whole. This was just like when Limbaugh picked the whacko goons out of the anti-war rallies and said they were all kooks. Don't pretend to me that Maddow is somehow 'journalistic' and the other opinion pushers are not. Sell that bridge elsewhither.

1. She has a popular following. She's part of popular culture.

I would argue 'popular' is a term that only applies to a bigger audience than her measley average. The 3 AM test pattern has as big an audience as her show, but that doesn't make it an 'audience', or popular.

She's a journalist because she diggs deeper into a topic to find accurate support for any commentary she might interject to grab
viewers/listeners.

I perform that function here for the sifters. Does that make me a 'journalist'?

And not simply your subjective opinions/assertions.

Physician, heal thyself.

1. The health care plan as of today is a failure. Pull the bills that are currently in the House and Senate and toss them in the trash. They are hopelessly compromised with corruption. Until ALL versions of the Health Care bill are currently erased from the equation there is no reason for the GOP to lift a finger.

2. The GOP has already published (several times) their ideas. They have routinely and consistently been rejected by Obama. Obama keeps making vague, slippery dodges of this issue. "No economist I have talked to agrees with this approach..." Oh really? What economists? What were their names? When did you talk to them? What did they say, specifically? Who witnessed these alleged conversations? Sadly, Obama is a man who you have to apply this level of rigor to his statements. He 'claims' a ton of crap, and there is never any evidence to support it. The fact remains that the GOP has already supplied Obama with a very detailed plan. It's on their website right now. The GOP doesn't need to show up at another stupid Obama summit to go over it again.

3. Political stupidity to even offer the appearance of consultation with an administration as disingenous and full of lies & deception as Obama & the current congress. If the GOP goes the Democrats will claim (no matter what actually happens) that the Republicans agreed with everything they wanted. The Democrats want a few RINOs to show up so they can now claim the bill is 'bipartisan'. They may toss in one or two concessions, but the fundamental bill will be unaltered. Why should the GOP tie itself to such an epic fail? The public doesn't want it.

4. You also can't ignore Obama's attitude at the GOP retreat. He was invited to a GOP event and he did absolutely nothing except shake his finger at them and whine for 2 hours. Why should the GOP talke to him when it is plainly just another chance for Obama & the Dems to gripe at them for not 'letting' them do whatever they want (despite the fact that Dems have both houses).

The political reality is that the Democrats own both the House & Senate with overwhelming majorities. The fact that Obamacare didn't pass is a Democrat problem. They don't need the GOP except as a scapegoat. The polls are clear. Over 70% of US citizens have rejected Democrat health care reform. The Democrats needs to flush the entire thing and start all over with a genuine bipartisan bill based on the GOP's proposals as a starting point.

To finish - I'll quote a certain "Senator" who was talking about a certain "President" who is talking about a certain "initiative"...

"The fact of the matter is, is the president has been on his tour, and everywhere he goes the numbers just get worse. The American people have voted on this proposal and really what you have is a situation now where I think that the president and the Congress are going to need to figure out a way to save face and -- and step back a little bit. And if -- if they let go of their egos -- listen ... I've gotten in an argument and then at some point in the argument it dawns on me, you know what, I'm wrong on this one and it's -- it's -- it's irritating, it's frustrating. You don't want to admit it, and so to the extent that we can provide the president with a graceful mechanism to -- to say we're sorry, then I think that would be -- that would be helpful."
Wise words, eh? Senator Obama spoke these words. Maybe he should listen to himself...

I'd like to address this in a more bipartisan fashion. What should representatives elected by the people, for the people do?

Their goddamn jobs.

Okay, you invoke the phrase "checks and balances" -- at least in my civics education, that was always defined as the interactions between the 3 co-equal branches of government, the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, aka The President, The Supreme Court, and the Congress, and the various ways they can veto (and override) one another.

The Constitution sets up the Senate as a majority rule house, that's why there are two Senators from every state, and a Vice Presidential tie-breaker. The filibuster itself is more of a bug in the rules of the Senate that has been exploited, and never has been exploited this much at any other time in the history of the United States. The only major legislation that was held up before the 1990's by filibuster was the civil rights act. The period for debate on the Senate health care bill was the second longest in history -- the only one longer was the debate on entering World War I (the debate on de-funding the Vietnam war, Civil Rights, and Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton's impeachment...all shorter).

Now we can't even get Republicans to agree to a vote on confirming Obama's appointee for the TSA (though that one's a hold, not a filibuster, at least not yet).

You say the bill would've been improved by the minority. In what way? I've followed this process closely, and I've heard of no proposal Republicans have made that would have included something they wanted, in return for something Democrats would have wanted. They were all proposals that would've only gutted a core aspect of the legislation, or they were non-controversial and passed on a bipartisan or unanimous basis. Despite the latter amendments (of which there were many in committee), Republicans have demagogued throughout about how they'd been "shut out" of the process. Republicans outside the process (like yourself) have echoed this, loudly, despite the basic reality of it -- they had a seat at the table, they just weren't willing to make any concessions at all.

For example, Obama literally said to Republicans that he's open to incorporating their version of tort reform into the bill, but wanted to know what they'd be willing to give him in return for it. Their answer: nothing.

As far as the mid-terms, I do think Democrats are likely to wind up losing a net of 1-3 Senate seats in 2010, meaning they'll still be at the exceedingly large majority of 57-43, and they'll probably still have a 50+ seat majority in the House. So what then?

What incentive is there for Republicans to work with Democrats if being obstinate pricks gives them electoral success? Their maximum incentive to make deals comes when they're so far in the minority it's the only way to influence legislation -- a 60-40 Democratic majority, say. But the Republican party of today is still refusing to compromise even under those circumstances. If they win elections based on that in 2010, why wouldn't they just double down, and hold Congress hostage from 2011-2013 and force Democrats to either pass nothing, or pass Republican legislation? Then, after that shoot to win the White House on a campaign that says "kick those do-nothing uncompromising socialist Democrats out"?

Personally I think the filibuster needs to go precisely because of that dynamic. A time will come again in my lifetime where the shoe is on the other foot, and I guarantee you that I'm going to be telling Democrats to filibuster everything Republicans do, big or small (unless Republicans transform into a very radically different party). I'd rather see the Republicans and Democrats pass their legislative agendas, and let the American people hold them accountable for the results, without letting our representatives wiggle out of their promises with "but the minority party we crushed in the last election wouldn't let us do it!" I think it would moderate the campaign promises, as well as break us out of this cycle that keeps us perpetually saddled with a status quo that few are happy with.

Also, remember how angry you were that they pushed Bush's tax cuts through via reconciliation rules because it broke down the fundamental checks and balances of our Democracy?</snark>

I wish they would've had the balls to privatize social security that way. We'd have wound up with President Howard Dean in '04.

>> ^Doc_M:
"Ever unpopular" to the American citizen chief. Sorry to disturb your dreamland, but there are people that disagree with you to the extent that freedom means.


Go google the public option polling again, you are grossly misinformed.

The public option always polled in the 55-70% support range, and has been more popular than the reform package generally in every poll I've seen.

As for your lament about the two party system being broken, do you really think more parties would help? The likliest "new" parties would start on the extreme right (libertarian/tea party) or to the left of Democrats (green/progressive). Neither would be more likely to compromise, given that their entire existence would have come from their otherwise uncompromising ideological stances.

Without changing the overall adversarial nature of politics these days, there is no such thing as bipartisan agreement.

As for the argument that the Republicans offered amendments that would've let them vote for it, that's horseshit, and I hope you already knew that. Republicans were never going to vote for this bill unless Democrats accepted their first amendment, which would've stricken the entire bill and replaced it with one penned by the insurance industry Republicans. They were never willing to truly compromise; they would never agree to let us make the bill more liberal in one area in exchange for it getting more conservative in another.

For example, what could we offer Republicans to get them to vote for a bill that allowed every American the choice of buying into Medicare? Anything?

It's simply naive to think that there were any Republicans who would've ever voted yes for the final bill. At best, we might have gotten Snowe or Collins to vote for cloture, but given the pressure they got from the right, I doubt there was a compromise that could have been made that would've won us either of their votes.

For that matter all Snowe said she wanted was the public option to be triggered, but now it's gone entirely. Why didn't she announce she'll vote for cloture and prevent Ben Nelson from making the bill more anti-choice? It's not been a big focus in press coverage, but it's not like they haven't asked her.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Put it back in, and make the bastards stand up there and publicly filibuster. Then we can run that footage against them during their next campaign.

That's just it. The split is up to 16% now. So if they DO filibuster, you'll have 40% going NOOO and 56% going hooray.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Doc_MI love that you think there's such a thing as untapped bipartisan consensus. What idea isn't in the Senate bill that you think would be supported by more than 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the Senate?
What Republican alternative plan do you think would earn support from more than 5 or so Democrats?


^ Reasons why a two party system is not productive or useful, number one. Republicans did propose amendments and changes that would convince them to get on board. They were broadly rejected with the exception of the ever-unpopular public option that was a deal-breaker for many people. Without that option, it might pass; with it, not a chance. That is clear. Of course I should add that some of those amendments were probably worthy of the circular file.

>> ^Doc_M:
I'm 6:
Not even THEY know what they're voting on...

No, you're #4, with "DIE HIPPIES!" written in the margin.

I love that you think there's such a thing as untapped bipartisan consensus. What idea isn't in the Senate bill that you think would be supported by more than 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the Senate?

What Republican alternative plan do you think would earn support from more than 5 or so Democrats?

I'm 6:
Not even THEY know what they're voting on...

They're rushing it beyond reason for no reason. Something so large, so extremely risky, and so experimental ought not to be dived into with such reckless abandon. They spent FAR more time on "no child left behind" and even with that amount of time, it was still less than ideal to be generous. I vote dump the entire thing and start over with some actual bipartisan consideration. As with any bill this large, I say if you can only convince half of those whom we've elected to lead us that it is a good idea, the whole thing is a failure. In addition, last I checked, a large majority of US citizens don't want it to pass. The Dems are worried they'll lose their political capital if they can't pass it? Maybe, but if they DO pass it, they'll anger an enormous number of voters, more or less sealing their fate in 2010. Meanwhile, the media is only interested in the craziest loons on both sides. After all, they make good headlines and talking points. The people with their heads screwed on straight aren't getting their message out 'cause no one wants to feel like their watching CSPAN.