-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Kill (the) Bill, Pt 2 (aka: I Want My Pony)
Author: BobR
Date: 12/18/2009 13:42:28
In Wednesday's blog, I pointed out the absurdity of "kill the bill and start over" mantra, because - realistically - there will be no starting over, and even if there was - what makes anyone think it would turn out differently? The Republicans want to kill the bill because they're against everything the Dems do, and those on the left want to kill it because it doesn't have [insert pet priority here]. I have to wonder if creative thinking and long-range thinking have been replaced with stubbornness and instant gratification?...
Is it a great bill?... even a good bill?.. No. It is a watered-down mediocre bill. Is it better than nothing? Of course it is:
Another take:
Yet another:
(bold-face mine)
Notice the highlighted phrase: several small but important steps... I - like my fellow liberals - are bitterly disappointed that this bill doesn't do more. But I am pragmatic enough to know that Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a working comprehensive health care system in the United States. Incremental reform is still reform, and lays the groundwork for future changes. To use baseball terms, it's better to hit 4 singles and score a run than to strike out with a home-run swing. So we get to first base this time... sure we'd like a home run, but a single is better than missed home run swing (aka: killing the bill). Even Howard Dean is backing away from his "kill the bill" position (although - like the "Dean Scream", once he let it out of the bottle, there's no getting it back in).
Some people say it's a giveaway to insurance companies - yet the insurance companies still oppose the bill. Why? Because it contains several steps toward regulating them. It seems some people want the insurance companies to suffer in a schadenfreud-like display worthy of the Republicans' obsession with punishment. I just want them to serve their customers and provide the service they're contracted to do.
Some people are upset that there's no provision for importing cheaper drugs from Canada. Do these people realize that the reason the drugs are cheaper in Canada is because they are subsidized by the Canadian government? Do we really want a program that essentially steals tax dollars from Canada?
The options at this point are to "kill the bill" and go with the House bill (and the Stupak amendment), get a bill out using the double-edged sword of budget reconciliation (where non-budget-related items could be removed by Republicans), or get the weak bill out, and merge it's best parts with the House bill in committee. That last option seems like the best strategic move to me. This would be particularly nice if the abortion coverage in the Senate bill was less draconian than the Stupak amendment; it could replace that amendment in the House bill.
The bottom line is: There are good strategic reasons to get a bill out of the Senate, even a weak bill. It will NOT be the final bill that gets voted on (and only needs a simple majority to pass) after the merging with the House bill. I understand why Harry Reid and other leaders in the Senate aren't articulating this - it would make it even harder for them to get the bill out, although I'm sure that all of the Senators involved know this.
We on the left just need to stop crying that we're not getting our pony. This bill gets us part of the way there, and the bill that ends up getting passed by both Houses and ends up on Obama's desk will likely take us even further. Patience people - this is all part of the process...
Is it a great bill?... even a good bill?.. No. It is a watered-down mediocre bill. Is it better than nothing? Of course it is:
I can get very stirred up by all of that. But I can also say this: The core provisions of the Senate bill -- expanding coverage to perhaps 30 million people; doing away with insurance company discrimination against those with preexisting conditions, preventing them from cruelly throwing the insured who suddenly need coverage off the rolls, and abolishing caps on insurance coverage (caps would seem to be the opposite of insurance) -- those are important accomplishments.
Another take:
What is in the Senate bill that is worth passing? A lot. I have blogged previously about elements of the House and Senate bills that will help a lot of Americans. I am pleading with my fellow progressives to first read the whole bill before you go over the cliff with Dr. Dean. If you read the whole bill, I think you cannot help but see the good that it will do. 1) Expand Medicaid 2) Train more physicians and nurses 3) Help young adults stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 4) Remove the discriminatory practices of the insurance industry related to pre-existing conditions and 5) Reform the way Medicare pays providers so that payment is related to outcomes not just volume. And I could go on. Major economists like Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford University and others have supported the cost containment in the Senate bill, while urging even more reform.
Yet another:
From any kind of progressive point of view it's hard to see how you could seriously argue that the current bill is a net harm. Sure, it makes compromises to powerful interests that are hard to swallow. But that's why they're called powerful interests: because they can kill your legislative priorities if you don't assuage them. In return, though, the Senate bill brings down insurance rates, expands Medicaid, offers the prospect of moderately priced insurance to tens of millions of the uninsured, forces insurers to take you on even if you have a chronic pre-existing condition, mandates minimum levels of coverage, and takes several small but important steps toward reducing the future growth of healthcare costs. That's an enormous advance for the progressive agenda.
(bold-face mine)
Notice the highlighted phrase: several small but important steps... I - like my fellow liberals - are bitterly disappointed that this bill doesn't do more. But I am pragmatic enough to know that Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a working comprehensive health care system in the United States. Incremental reform is still reform, and lays the groundwork for future changes. To use baseball terms, it's better to hit 4 singles and score a run than to strike out with a home-run swing. So we get to first base this time... sure we'd like a home run, but a single is better than missed home run swing (aka: killing the bill). Even Howard Dean is backing away from his "kill the bill" position (although - like the "Dean Scream", once he let it out of the bottle, there's no getting it back in).
Some people say it's a giveaway to insurance companies - yet the insurance companies still oppose the bill. Why? Because it contains several steps toward regulating them. It seems some people want the insurance companies to suffer in a schadenfreud-like display worthy of the Republicans' obsession with punishment. I just want them to serve their customers and provide the service they're contracted to do.
Some people are upset that there's no provision for importing cheaper drugs from Canada. Do these people realize that the reason the drugs are cheaper in Canada is because they are subsidized by the Canadian government? Do we really want a program that essentially steals tax dollars from Canada?
The options at this point are to "kill the bill" and go with the House bill (and the Stupak amendment), get a bill out using the double-edged sword of budget reconciliation (where non-budget-related items could be removed by Republicans), or get the weak bill out, and merge it's best parts with the House bill in committee. That last option seems like the best strategic move to me. This would be particularly nice if the abortion coverage in the Senate bill was less draconian than the Stupak amendment; it could replace that amendment in the House bill.
The bottom line is: There are good strategic reasons to get a bill out of the Senate, even a weak bill. It will NOT be the final bill that gets voted on (and only needs a simple majority to pass) after the merging with the House bill. I understand why Harry Reid and other leaders in the Senate aren't articulating this - it would make it even harder for them to get the bill out, although I'm sure that all of the Senators involved know this.
We on the left just need to stop crying that we're not getting our pony. This bill gets us part of the way there, and the bill that ends up getting passed by both Houses and ends up on Obama's desk will likely take us even further. Patience people - this is all part of the process...
