Fresh Off the River: Some Thoughts on Health Insurance Reform

you've been listing to Ezra too much (0.00 / 0)

That is the problem with Forward Montana bringing him in, he polluted minds with his nonsense.

Our worst case scenario this year isn't the passage of a "bad bill." It is the passage of no bill.

Bad for whom? Progressive aren't going to lose any seats by holding out for a public option (and Weiner announced there are 100 votes). But if Blue Dogs block a bill with a public option they'll lose a third or more of their membership in the midterms.

No matter how it plays out, it is good news to draw a line in the sand on public option. Saying progressives will kill a bad bill is the only way to get a good bill. And if Blue Dogs won't support a good bill then they'll lose when midterms are a referendum on insurance reform while Dem senate challengers are forced to campaign on the public option.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:23:04 AM CDT

I prefer a better bill to a worse bill, too (0.00 / 0)

But a worse bill is still better than no bill, and I'm not going to call a victory a defeat.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:49:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm totally fine seeing a bad bill killed by progressives (0.00 / 0)

Not only would it finally change the dynamics in DC for every other policy battle, but the Blue Dogs would lose a ton of their seats and progressives would pick up votes in the senate for a strong public option in 2011.

Because of all the added bonuses, it might even be the preferred way to pass a bill.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:04:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When I buy my next car ... (0.00 / 0)

I don't want you within ten miles of the dealership. You've got to be the worst negotiator ever.

One, you started out by backing down. That was my first clue.

Two, you're constantly saying things like

The clock is ticking and we're getting closer to the point where the perfect (or even the less-than-perfect-but-damn-amazing) can easily become the enemy of the good.

That's merely another way of saying you'll yield even more if you push us hard enough. I move here, and ask other readers at this site to support me, that you be penalized $100 every time you utter that trite loser losing lost phrase.

If there is one thing you should have learned as you meditated while on the rapids of the mighty Colorado, it is that right wingers do not respect weakness. You have given us weakness and constantly chide us to fight for less and then settle.

No bill is better than a bad bill. With no bill, we can go to work replacing the Baucus's and Conrad's and and Grassley's who represent less than 1% of the population but are undercutting reform for 100%.

---

by: Mark t @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:53:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

trite loser losing lost phrase? (0.00 / 0)

Is that seriously what you are reduced to?  Irrelevant motions,  insane outcries concerning your purchasing abilities and spittle-flecked judgments about words?  I mean really?

Lo, these many moons ago, I pointed out to you that Matt is not involved in the negotiations of our Congress.  You ignored me then, and continue to do so here. Yes, it must certainly be everybody else's fault that you might not get your way.  You're already convinced you won't get what you want, and have been for some time, so one might posit, using your thinking, that you are really the one to blame.

On the one hand, you hold that the Republicans have no power save propaganda.  On the other, you afford them great power through their expectations.  And yet, on the first hand, Democrats are the enemy.  They are caving because of the awesome power that Republicans don't have. I do wish you'd make up your mind, and stick to a narrative.  Your flip-flopping is making me dizzy.

Your desire to punish Matt with words does give rise to an intriguing question, however.  Just how in the hell is a raft trip supposed to teach anybody about what Republicans respect or don't, and why should that one give a shit?

---

by: Wulfgar @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 15:58:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, hi Wulfgar ... (0.00 / 0)

How's that game theory thing working out for you? What's your latest negotiating strategy? I'm sure it's clever as hell.  

---

by: Mark t @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 22:53:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Already (0.00 / 0)

Asked and answered, Mark.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:13:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're not getting this, Wulfy! (0.00 / 0)

I was ridiculing you for intellectualizing weakness.

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".
Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

You are Mr. Gregory, the guy who understands it all and doesn't know a damned thing, all at once.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:14:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you brought up Paul Begala? (0.00 / 0)

I was going to mention that you are agreeing with his position on telegraphing caving as clear evidence that you got too much sun on the river and should see a doctor.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:22:57 PM CDT

Rachel Maddow said everything needed (0.00 / 0)

on MTP yesterday:

MR. GREGORY:  Rachel, let me ask you this question.  What will progressives, what will liberals, the president's base accept as reform?  Do the independent voters he's courting out in Colorado and Montana need to be placated, a big part of his base, or not?

MS. MADDOW:  ... I don't think liberals monolithically feel one thing about this.  I think most liberals would probably prefer a single payer system, honestly.  But ultimately, if the president decides that he's going to go with a reform effort that doesn't include a public option, what he will have done is spent a ton of political capital, riled up an incredibly angry right wing base who's been told that this is a plot to kill grandma, and he will have achieved something that doesn't change health care very much and that doesn't save us very much money and won't do very much for the American people.  It's not a very good thing to spend a lot of political capital on.

If we allow a mediocre bill to satisfy the left's desire for comprehensive reform, then the dems will go into the next rounds of elections in '10 and '12 with a huge disadvantage. To Maddow's analysis I'd add that Obama and meek democrats in Congress will have lost the support of the left and progressive base that carried them to power.

It would be the ultimate bait-and-switch. And an active, progressive electoral base doesn't respond to this sort of legislative defeat by picking up the banners to carry on.

The strength of the bill coming out of Congress predicts democrat success in the foreseeable future. It also gauges the success of the teabagger strategy that the republican party is deploying against Obama and the dems. Get a poor bill? Then we will see nothing but increasing teabaggism until the dems have been run out of D.C. with their tail between their legs.

If Obama and the dems didn't have the leadership to see through comprehensive reform then they never should have attempted it. They should have started with a tepid insurance reform bill and called it good. Because that is where they seemed to be ending up.

---

by: JC @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 13:26:59 PM CDT

Your analogy (4.00 / 2)

Matt - First thing, welcome home and glad the trip was safe and fun.  You needed it.

Now, on to your analogy.  If, as you wrote, you learned that you have to line up your raft BEFORE you go into the rapids (which is certainly true), then you must now be able to see that you didn't do that with the health care debate, unfortunately.  Instead, you followed the Baucus line into the rapids - a line that, for some unfathomable reason, said the middle of the river was the place to be and half the rowers had to be Republicans.  You're still blaming Grassley, but he only has an oar in the water because Max gave it to him.  They're "good friends" remember? As for the other two Republicans in the Gang of Six, well, Max gave them their oars, too, so where's the great surprise that suddenly health care "reform" (which the Repubs oppose) is headed for the keeper hole?

Remember the somewhat bitter exchanges we had on whether or not starting in the middle (or right of middle, actually) was the way to achieve health care reform?  Remember how many people here posted for single-payer and how adamantly you opposed that as a political non-starter (because Max said it was "off the table")?

In rafting (and climbing) vernacular, that was called "beta" Matt.  Some advice on what lay ahead from those who had run lots of rapids before.  Many others besides myself said "don't start there, demand real reform because it's gonna get watered down in the end anyway."  We didn't do that because we wanted to hack you, Matt, we did it because, at least speaking for myself, about a quarter century of negotiating legislation, regulation, environmental cleanups, etc., teaches the lesson that you don't start with what you'll settle for in the end -- you start with what you want, or slightly more, and play the process out to the end.

The depth of your mis-perception on this issue is revealed in your statement "I'll be honest, I was really hoping we'd have a bill out of the Finance Committee by the time we returned..."  What, did you forget that Congress, like you, was on vacation for the last two weeks?  Or did you really believe all that spin coming out of Baucus and his sycophants?

Well, here we are, spinning out of control in the rapids while the Tea Baggers throw rocks down from the surrounding cliffs and laugh their butts off at the "reform" rafters.  The administration can't even seem to get it's act together, let alone the Senate.  Sebelius says one thing, Obama says another.  The public option, which was already a compromise, has now been (or will soon be) compromised.  

As you undoubtedly know by now, moving rafts, especially big, heavily-loaded rafts, is no simple task.  They spin easily enough, but changing lines downriver is another thing altogether.  Your reference to "backferrying out of it" is certainly accurate in describing how futile and difficult it is, but it also accurately describes the situation in which we now find ourselves with "reform" under the nutty steerage of Captain Max.  So what's left to fight for?  Why should we pull our shoulders out of the joint to backferry?  And oh my, if the right-wingers and their Republican pals have risen, zombie-like, from the political boneyard, what happened to the supposedly superior organizing powers of the left?

Fresh off the river is fine...but the raft in which 300 million Americans are lashed is still in the river, tumbling end over end, throwing entire segments of the population into the foaming waters -- and without life jackets, I might add.  Time to put those lessons you learned on the Big River to work on Big Politics, Matt.  Time to give up the middle and get back to reading it and rowing it to get where we want to go, not just where the corrupt currents of Congress take us.  

You certainly must have developed some muscles pulling on those oars, so how's about pulling on the progressive oars now that you're back?

---

by: ochenski @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 14:10:58 PM CDT

There is no bill bad enough that you are against it. There is no bill good enough that the teabaggers are for it. (4.00 / 1)

You don't know what you are supporting, but support it you do. Teabaggers don't know what they are opposing, but oppose it they do.

The teabaggers are intellectually dishonest; They make stuff up they can be opposed to.

You are intellectually dishonest. You make stuff up that you can be in favor of.

No wonder we can't can't get good public policy passed. For too many people on opposite sides it's not about good public policy.

PS
Here some important analysis of some of the bills currently in congress and of some of the arguments made by the "any bill is better than none" crowd.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/2...
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/0...
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/1...

---

by: Steve W. @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 14:26:12 PM CDT

If you like analogies ... (0.00 / 0)

Rafting seemed to work for you. Here's another: You are in a poker game, You've never played before, apparently. You're holding a strong hand. You elect to fold.

Then you tell us that since you didn't go all-in, you didn't lose as much as you might have otherwise.

But you lost.

You cannot fine-tune Democratic strategy to get something when you don't know how to fight for it. Obama, if he wanted, could wrangle deals and turn some votes. He doesn't want to. That should tell you something.

Washington Rule #3: You can support any idea in principle, and fight implementation every step of the way. That's all Obama has done - talk a good game while secretly fighting you.

There you have it, I'm afraid. There's no good to come out of this process. There's no winning, no matter how you want to twist it. Doing nothing creates a new imperative down the road, and perhaps, just perhaps, Democrats and progressives will sort out who is who, get organized, and make it happen.

In the meantime, take one lesson to heart: Electing Democrats is not the answer. If it was, we'd have reform.  

---

by: Mark t @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 22:38:32 PM CDT