Dear Nervous and Frustrated House Democrat,
It’s up to you.
A few days ago, after a year of debate, you were on the verge of achieving a goal that’s eluded progressives for nearly a century: Creating a national health insurance program. But now the whole effort could fall apart.
When Scott Brown takes his seat in the U.S. Senate, the Republicans will have 41 members in their caucus--enough to stop passage of any bill if they stay united. They’ve promised to do just that when and if they get to vote on the final version of health care reform--the one that recent House-Senate negotiations produced.
You’re depressed: Brown inherits the seat that once belonged to Ted Kennedy, who had made health care reform a lifelong crusade.
You’re angry, either for taking politically difficult votes or compromising your ideals in order to move the process along.
And, let’s face it, you’re scared. If a Democrat can lose in Massachusetts, any Democrat can lose anywhere. That includes you.
Now you have a choice.
The temptation will be to drop health care, change the subject, and hope for the best. After all, the voters clearly don’t like what they’re hearing and seeing out of Washington. And health care is all they’ve been hearing and seeing for the last few months. The polls suggest more people oppose the plan than support it. And the right wing is having a field day with it.
But is it the product the voters don’t like--or the process? Truth be told, most people don’t even understand the basics of what this bill would do. (Truth be told, neither do a few or your colleagues.) But in the one state that has implemented a similar set of reforms--Massachusetts, it so happens--voters support the idea by large margins. That’s why Brown went out of his way to endorse the Massachusetts system, even as he criticized its analogue on the national level.
True, shelving the bill would end the dithering. But it would also solidify the public perceptions that are destroying you now. Listen to the complaints: You’re feckless. You don’t follow through on your promises. You don’t deliver progress. Giving up on the idea that’s been your primary preoccupation for the last year--and, by the way, a primary focus of the last presidential campaign--is not exactly a way to challenge these conclusions.
You'll have less political capital, making it hard to deliver progress on the economy or anything else. As for reelection, well, ask the congressional Democrats running in 1994 how failing to deliver health care reform worked for them.
Remember, Republicans will blame you for this bill anyway. Unless you’re among the few Democrats who opposed it on the first go-round, you’ve already voted for health care reform. And you can bet the Republicans will let voters know that come November. You’ll be the representative who voted for that awful liberal boondoggle that, thankfully, the Senate blocked at the final stages of deliberation. Or maybe you want to explain to constituents why you were for health care reform before you were against it.
On the other hand, if you find a way to pass legislation, then you have something to show for your efforts--an accomplishment you can tout, legitimately, as making people's lives better. Thanks to this bill, you’ll be able to tell people, insurance will become both more affordable and more reliable. Coverage will be there for people who don’t have it, and it will be better for people who have it already. The uninsured will benefit, for sure, but so will the insured--with a guaranteed benefits package, caps on out-of-pocket spending, cost control to slow down rising premiums, and more.
There's a problem, I know. These benefits will be abstractions when you run for reelection in the fall. The big structural changes to health care--the ones that guarantee good, affordable coverage for all--wouldn’t happen for several years. And without tangible benefits, voters will remain easy prey for Republican misinformation--the kind that nearly derailed reform over the summer and, undoubtedly, helped elect Brown on Tuesday.
But the people who constructed this reform plan aren’t stupid. They knew voters would be anxious to see results. And they designed the reform plan to produce such results. Health reform is full of what wonks call “deliverables”--tangible benefits scheduled to take effect mere months after the bill becomes law. Among them:
Seniors will see the Medicare “donut hole” start to shrink.
Families will get to keep kids on their policies past high school, until the kids are 26.
Preventative services will have "first-dollar" coverage, meaning you'll pay nothing out-of-pocket--that's right, nada, zilch--when you get a regular checkup.
People who are uninsurable because of high medical risks will get access to catastrophic policies, as a stopgap until full coverage becomes available in a few years.
The government will set up a website with information about different insurance plans, letting people compare benefits in standardized, plain English terms.
It will also make investments in the health care workforce--spending money to train or hire new primary care doctors, nurses, and direct care workers.
Insurers will have to fess up about how much money they divert from patient care to overhead and profits--and to set up systems for appealing coverage denials.
People will have the right to go to the emergency room--and women the right to see an obstetrician/gynecologist--without prior approval.
The list goes on.
You can do a lot with these ideas on the campaign trail. Visit a senior citizen home and talk about how their drug bills are coming down. Go to a community college, and chat with kids staying on their parents insurance. Shovel dirt at the construction site for new community clinics. Kiss babies while talking up the waived restrictions for OB/GYN care. Give speeches at job fairs for health care workers.
That last part should be particularly appealing--because, after all, jobs are really where you should be focusing your energy now. It’s important to pass health care but, for the political good of yourself and your party, it’s important to do it quickly. And that probably limits the ways you can proceed.
In theory, you could drag out negotiations--trying to reach an accommodation with a moderate Republican in the Senate to recapture the sixty vote majority you’d need to break a filibuster. Or you could rip up the bill, try to write and then pass a new one through the reconciliation process, figuring that whatever you got with just 51 votes was bound to be better than what you’d get with 60. If you can do that, hey, I'm all for it.
But count me as extremely dubious. There are no guarantees you’d get a better bill than what either house has already passed. In fact, given the constraints on what can and can’t be done through reconciliation, you’ll probably end up with worse. There’s no sign that any moderate Republican Senators, including the ones from Maine, are willing to start up negotiations again. The only thing certain about either of these strategies is a few more weeks of debate--which seems like certain doom politically.
But you can pass health care reform very quickly if you want. All you have to do is vote for the Senate bill, as written. Yes, I’m aware of its flaws. But it’s also far better than nothing. (Heck, if you're a centrist, you may think the Senate bill is even better than the original House one.)
Once the main bill is passed, you can always revisit it--perhaps right away, by passing a “patch” through the reconciliation process. If you're clever--and you are--you'll extract some sort of promise from the president and Senate leadership to make sure the patch gets enacted.
(Once that's done, well, maybe you can start building support for another important cause: Ending the filibuster and restoring majority rule to the Senate.)
I don’t want to mislead you: You could pass the Senate bill, which you may really not like, and still lose reelection. But passing health care reform would seem, if anything, to improve your odds of political survival. And if it doesn’t--if you’re doomed to lose anyway--enacting health care reform would give you a meaningful accomplishment in your record.
Think of everything you could do while serving in Congress. Would any single act be bigger than this? However imperfect, it will make a huge difference in people’s lives--and, quite likely, the evolution of the American social welfare state. You’ll be sparing financial or physical hardship for thousands of Americans every year, while delivering peace of mind--and safer, higher quality medicine--to literally millions of others. You’ll be saving the American economy and, along the way, helping people to stay healthy.
You can be a part of this moment in history--and, if you play your cards right, stick around in Congress long enough to enjoy it. It just takes some common sense--and maybe a little mettle.
Do you have those qualities? I guess we'll find out soon enough.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Print
The temptation to get something done runs up against some hard truths like the exemption for Nebraska and the lack of any real cost-cutting measures. I could only see passing this thing if the D's can collectively "man-up" (sorry for the phrase, but it's the best I can do at 6:30 EST) and gets rid of the anti-trist exemption for insurance, makes Nebraska pay its way, and similar measures that both spread the burden more evenly and keep costs down. Otherwise, this will turn into another expensive debacle like Bush's prescription drug plan. Good policy trumps good politics.
What is so depressing is that The Democrats cannot get done with huge majorities in Congress what Bush could with paper ... view full comment
The temptation to get something done runs up against some hard truths like the exemption for Nebraska and the lack of any real cost-cutting measures. I could only see passing this thing if the D's can collectively "man-up" (sorry for the phrase, but it's the best I can do at 6:30 EST) and gets rid of the anti-trist exemption for insurance, makes Nebraska pay its way, and similar measures that both spread the burden more evenly and keep costs down. Otherwise, this will turn into another expensive debacle like Bush's prescription drug plan. Good policy trumps good politics.
What is so depressing is that The Democrats cannot get done with huge majorities in Congress what Bush could with paper thin ones. Obama needs to channel his inner FDR and HST; Reid needs to have a séance with Majority Leader LBJ (read Robert Caro's "Master o fthe Senate" about how Frank Church was frozen out for not voting correctly on a very minor bill). This is Governing 101, and the D's failed their midterms.
Dear nervous & frustrated House Democrats,
Until comprehensive healthcare reform becomes law, even if that means passing the Senate bill as-is and attempting to improve it through follow-up legislation, do not bother asking for my financial support, my volunteer time, or my vote.
Yours, etc.
Dear nervous & frustrated House Democrats,
Until comprehensive healthcare reform becomes law, even if that means passing the Senate bill as-is and attempting to improve it through follow-up legislation, do not bother asking for my financial support, my volunteer time, or my vote.
Yours, etc.
Although I regret the loss of some of the reform measures in this mess, I'm afraid the whole is equal to much less than the sum of its parts.
Prediction: the Dems will fail utterly to patch together any kind of a win from this debacle, and will deservedly lose control of Congress. Then, like Clinton after '94, Obama may be able to get something worthwhile accomplished and save his presidency.
Although I regret the loss of some of the reform measures in this mess, I'm afraid the whole is equal to much less than the sum of its parts.
Prediction: the Dems will fail utterly to patch together any kind of a win from this debacle, and will deservedly lose control of Congress. Then, like Clinton after '94, Obama may be able to get something worthwhile accomplished and save his presidency.
The Dems are "failing" only because they spent months on the fool's errand of bipartisanship, and got the finger anyway. The Republicans' sole objective is to obstruct and then claim that the Dems cannot govern, meanwhile attacking everything the Democrats do with disgraceful lies. Their sudden infatuation with deficit reduction in the midst of a recession is exhibit one. Back to the 30s when FDR turned from fighting the depression to fighting the deficit and the economy sank a second time. But the Republicans don't give a damn for the well-being of the country, never have, never will. They are political terrorists and must be dealt with as the enemy. That does not mean full-bore attac ... view full comment
The Dems are "failing" only because they spent months on the fool's errand of bipartisanship, and got the finger anyway. The Republicans' sole objective is to obstruct and then claim that the Dems cannot govern, meanwhile attacking everything the Democrats do with disgraceful lies. Their sudden infatuation with deficit reduction in the midst of a recession is exhibit one. Back to the 30s when FDR turned from fighting the depression to fighting the deficit and the economy sank a second time. But the Republicans don't give a damn for the well-being of the country, never have, never will. They are political terrorists and must be dealt with as the enemy. That does not mean full-bore attacks on them every second (although constant attacks on them as the party that hates working people is a necessity). It means never taking them for anything but the enemy, never thinking that their support can be won, and proceeding accordingly.
It is fine to talk of huge majorities, but the dysfunctional senate does not allow the majority to rule. Everything must be done with that in mind -- except trying to seduce Republicans. The only way to get Republican votes is to scare the bejeezus out of them that their opposition to the well-being of Americans is going to cost them at the polls, as it should.
That is job number one for the Dems, clearly establishing the Republican party as being in opposition to the well-being of Americans. With a bit of popular support, things can get done, but public opinion comes first, second, and third. Public opinion is what you use to govern. Let legislation fail on Republican votes, so long as it is legislation that can be readily sold to the public as in its interest. In fact, make Republicans vote against America every day so that their obstructionism becomes their curse.
The single most telling thing is that the Massachusetts voters who are opposed to the Dems health insurance plan are overwhelmingly committed to their own, of which the national plan is more or less an analogue, to the point that Scott Brown publicly supports the Massachusetts plan. This puts the lie to the claims that the Dems are too liberal (hardly) or embarked on an undertaking that the public does not want. They have just made the mistake of forgetting to tend to the the never-ending political war while going about the business of trying to govern. The political war must come first because waging it and winning it, news cycle by news cycle, is the necessary predicate for governing.
The single most telling thing is that the Massachusetts voters who are opposed to the Dems health insurance plan are overwhelmingly committed to their own, of which the national plan is more or less an analogue, to the point that Scott Brown publicly supports the Massachusetts plan. This puts the lie to the claims that the Dems are too liberal (hardly) or embarked on an undertaking that the public does not want. They have just made the mistake of forgetting to tend to the the never-ending political war while going about the business of trying to govern. The political war must come first because waging it and winning it, news cycle by news cycle, is the necessary predicate for governing.
The bill is a piece of crap.
The voters of Massachusetts know it's a piece of crap.
Democrats in Congress know it's a piece of crap, and now they have a reason not to vote for it.
Jonathan, you're the only one left of the planet who doesn't know or won't admit it's a piece of crap. (BTW - Condolences on wasting a year of your professional life on a dead end theme.)
The bill is a piece of crap.
The voters of Massachusetts know it's a piece of crap.
Democrats in Congress know it's a piece of crap, and now they have a reason not to vote for it.
Jonathan, you're the only one left of the planet who doesn't know or won't admit it's a piece of crap. (BTW - Condolences on wasting a year of your professional life on a dead end theme.)
Dtouche,
If the voters in Mass know the bill is a piece of crap (either because it's Socialized Medecine or because it's not Single Payer), why didn't Scott Brown criticize the Mass health care reform that is already in place? Why were his criticisms of the Congressional bill limited to pointing out how it was a bad deal to Mass voters who already enjoyed all the protections that the bill would give to citizens elsewhere? Frankly, if I was a Massachusetts voter whose primary concern was health care I might have backed Brown because he was essentially promising to me that he would protect my existing health plans from being weakened or undone by Federal legislation. Not very altruistic of m ... view full comment
Dtouche,
If the voters in Mass know the bill is a piece of crap (either because it's Socialized Medecine or because it's not Single Payer), why didn't Scott Brown criticize the Mass health care reform that is already in place? Why were his criticisms of the Congressional bill limited to pointing out how it was a bad deal to Mass voters who already enjoyed all the protections that the bill would give to citizens elsewhere? Frankly, if I was a Massachusetts voter whose primary concern was health care I might have backed Brown because he was essentially promising to me that he would protect my existing health plans from being weakened or undone by Federal legislation. Not very altruistic of me as a voter, but perfectly rational. I suspect that exit polls would show that many voters shared this view.
Coakley should have told them that the Fed bill is the Massachusetts plan, that "going it alone" in Massachusetts is making it much more expensive for Mass residents to have the health care they want, and that the national bill is essential to relieving Mass residents of the cost.
It's probably true, but I wouldn't have wasted 10 seconds trying to find out. I just would have said it and insisted that the Republicans are determined to saddle Mass residents with high health care costs when they are completely unnecessary. That's how political war is fought. In fact, if it is a complete lie, so much the better. It is a very truthy lie and would have sold, just like the Republican insanity th ... view full comment
Coakley should have told them that the Fed bill is the Massachusetts plan, that "going it alone" in Massachusetts is making it much more expensive for Mass residents to have the health care they want, and that the national bill is essential to relieving Mass residents of the cost.
It's probably true, but I wouldn't have wasted 10 seconds trying to find out. I just would have said it and insisted that the Republicans are determined to saddle Mass residents with high health care costs when they are completely unnecessary. That's how political war is fought. In fact, if it is a complete lie, so much the better. It is a very truthy lie and would have sold, just like the Republican insanity that deficits when things are booming are fine but a problem when we are in recession -- the absolute reverse of economic reality but plausible to voters because they think the national economy is their household writ large and you pull in our belt when times are tough and spend when times are flush.
The Republican party is piece of lying crap. The voters know it is incompetent and incapable of governing and use it principally for the purpose of whipping the Dems. The voters know that only the Dems even aspire to govern, but will use the Republicans to whip them any time they are made unhappy with the difficulties of governing which the Republicans therefore do everything in their power to exacerbate. That's why the PR-partisan wars must come first.
Wow Cohn, talk about pipe dreams, do you think Stupak or the anti-abortionists give a rats ass about any of this is if theoretically one penny of taxes might, in a round-about way, go to support a woman having an abortion? It is far, far better to sacrifice the lives of millions of uninsured than to risk that happening. This alone sinks the bill, let alone the gutless cowards that are most Democrats, whose main goal in going to Congress is to stay there.
It's over. Fuck you Massachusetts. As to me, if it ain't too windy and it gets hot enough, I am going to the beach at lunchtime for a swim. I have insurance (I gotta admit, IMSS ain't bad, I never pay peso one for anything and I am not a Mexi ... view full comment
Wow Cohn, talk about pipe dreams, do you think Stupak or the anti-abortionists give a rats ass about any of this is if theoretically one penny of taxes might, in a round-about way, go to support a woman having an abortion? It is far, far better to sacrifice the lives of millions of uninsured than to risk that happening. This alone sinks the bill, let alone the gutless cowards that are most Democrats, whose main goal in going to Congress is to stay there.
It's over. Fuck you Massachusetts. As to me, if it ain't too windy and it gets hot enough, I am going to the beach at lunchtime for a swim. I have insurance (I gotta admit, IMSS ain't bad, I never pay peso one for anything and I am not a Mexican citizen or even Permanent residence). If the people in the bluest state are too fucking stupid to know what is at stake, than Americans deserve what they get.
-
"It just takes some common sense--and maybe a little mettle."
I agree but it must be seen like the Normandy Invasion: It didn't matter the first waves to hit the beach faced 90% casualties, once the plank on landing craft went down the 10% who survived made it by getting to and scaling the bluffs.
Democrats are scared shitless and they're going to be mowed down as they caucus.
No, I doubt many Democrats consider they're taking a one way trip in a Higgins boat. They can't think or spin their way out of this, they need to finish the mission to get beyond it.
-
-
"It just takes some common sense--and maybe a little mettle."
I agree but it must be seen like the Normandy Invasion: It didn't matter the first waves to hit the beach faced 90% casualties, once the plank on landing craft went down the 10% who survived made it by getting to and scaling the bluffs.
Democrats are scared shitless and they're going to be mowed down as they caucus.
No, I doubt many Democrats consider they're taking a one way trip in a Higgins boat. They can't think or spin their way out of this, they need to finish the mission to get beyond it.
-
". . . they need to finish the mission to get beyond it."
Agreed. Well said michael.
". . . they need to finish the mission to get beyond it."
Agreed. Well said michael.
Here's an idea: the day after Obama signs the bill (the Senate bill, passed by the House with no changes), introduce a bill to eliminate the "Nebraska exemption". Since Senator Nelson now admits that was a mistake, he should be the one to introduce it. The Republicans have criticized that "Nebraska exemption", so what are they going to do now - vote against repealing it? (Besides, I think that's the sort of revenue measure which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.)
Then other amendments might be considered, as long as the heart of the bill remains.
Here's an idea: the day after Obama signs the bill (the Senate bill, passed by the House with no changes), introduce a bill to eliminate the "Nebraska exemption". Since Senator Nelson now admits that was a mistake, he should be the one to introduce it. The Republicans have criticized that "Nebraska exemption", so what are they going to do now - vote against repealing it? (Besides, I think that's the sort of revenue measure which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.)
Then other amendments might be considered, as long as the heart of the bill remains.
I agree with the basic approach, outlined here in TNR, of passing the Senate version, holding on Pelosi's desk, and then introducing a bill of amendments in the Senate to fix all the glaring problems, including the "Nebraska exemption" and the lack of repeal of the health insurers anti-trust exemption. But don't bother with reconciliation. Let the Republicans filibuster a bill that fixes absolutely everything the public doesn't like about the bill or the process -- or pass it and end up where we should have been all along. Make them talk and lambaste them in the press the entire time they are talking. Insist that it shows the Republicans were to blame for everything crappy in the bill in ... view full comment
I agree with the basic approach, outlined here in TNR, of passing the Senate version, holding on Pelosi's desk, and then introducing a bill of amendments in the Senate to fix all the glaring problems, including the "Nebraska exemption" and the lack of repeal of the health insurers anti-trust exemption. But don't bother with reconciliation. Let the Republicans filibuster a bill that fixes absolutely everything the public doesn't like about the bill or the process -- or pass it and end up where we should have been all along. Make them talk and lambaste them in the press the entire time they are talking. Insist that it shows the Republicans were to blame for everything crappy in the bill in the first place. In fact, put it all in one bill together with tough regulations for the financial industry and a grab-back for the bailout costs. Give the public what it want in one place and let the Republicans squirm themselves to death.
"Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"
Note this quote from today's Times:
Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, said Wednesday that the Senate health care bill still looked good to him. And he said President Obama should press the House to adopt it.
Far from abandoning his yearlong effort to overhaul the health care system, Mr. Nelson said, “the president should persuade the House to pass the Senate bill as it is and send it to him for his signature.”
Then, Mr. Nelson said, Congress could “take a breath and make adjustments over time, to fix anything that needs correction.” While some provisions of the bill would take effect immediately, others would not kick in for several years, he noted.
“If the House would pass the ... view full comment
Note this quote from today's Times:
Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, said Wednesday that the Senate health care bill still looked good to him. And he said President Obama should press the House to adopt it.
Far from abandoning his yearlong effort to overhaul the health care system, Mr. Nelson said, “the president should persuade the House to pass the Senate bill as it is and send it to him for his signature.”
Then, Mr. Nelson said, Congress could “take a breath and make adjustments over time, to fix anything that needs correction.” While some provisions of the bill would take effect immediately, others would not kick in for several years, he noted.
“If the House would pass the Senate bill,” Mr. Nelson said, “a lot of misinformation about the Senate bill would be exposed, as people look at the new law.”
A little common sense, here, please. Jonathan is pointing out that the Dems have reached the point of no return on health care. To drop it now would be seen as an act of cowardice, of throwing in the towel.
The main points of the bill, in its current form, of not allowing insurance companies to behave in arbitrary ways and thus give the American people greater certainty and reliability in what coverage they will, in fact, receive, is probably still something most voters agree with.
So the Dems have no choice but to stay the course and emphasize those aspects of the bill that sitll retain their most widespread appeal.
Comparing all the logiistical approaches, it seem ... view full comment
A little common sense, here, please. Jonathan is pointing out that the Dems have reached the point of no return on health care. To drop it now would be seen as an act of cowardice, of throwing in the towel.
The main points of the bill, in its current form, of not allowing insurance companies to behave in arbitrary ways and thus give the American people greater certainty and reliability in what coverage they will, in fact, receive, is probably still something most voters agree with.
So the Dems have no choice but to stay the course and emphasize those aspects of the bill that sitll retain their most widespread appeal.
Comparing all the logiistical approaches, it seems the most practical thing is for the House to indeed pass the Senate version, at this point.
Open Letter to House Democrats:
If you let this fail, you will give Glenn Beck a huge crying orgasm.
Very truly yours, etc.
Open Letter to House Democrats:
If you let this fail, you will give Glenn Beck a huge crying orgasm.
Very truly yours, etc.
"On the other hand, if you find a way to pass legislation, then you have something to show for your efforts--an accomplishment you can tout, legitimately, as making people's lives better. "
umm, passing legislation doesn't really count as an accomplishment. passing any legislation, including this one, can make lives worse and thus be a major failure.
"Thanks to this bill, you’ll be able to tell people, insurance will become both more affordable and more reliable."
but this is exactly what people have been brainwashed about day in day out yet they don't believe it. and, though they might not always be able to articulate their reasons, their skepticism is justified. the problem with insurance ... view full comment
"On the other hand, if you find a way to pass legislation, then you have something to show for your efforts--an accomplishment you can tout, legitimately, as making people's lives better. "
umm, passing legislation doesn't really count as an accomplishment. passing any legislation, including this one, can make lives worse and thus be a major failure.
"Thanks to this bill, you’ll be able to tell people, insurance will become both more affordable and more reliable."
but this is exactly what people have been brainwashed about day in day out yet they don't believe it. and, though they might not always be able to articulate their reasons, their skepticism is justified. the problem with insurance in the US is, essentially, that there is too much of it, not too little. this bill makes this formidable problem, created by similar misguided notions, much worse.
-
From Nate Silver: "The best case is when you can simultaneously achieve both a policy and a political victory. More often, especially given the structural constraints imposed by the Congress, you'll have to settle for one or the other. But I would be very careful about any course of action which concedes victory to Republicans on both levels. Mistakes were made along the way to health care reform, but you've paid the political price for health care: now pass the fucking thing."
(We agree, but I liked the drama of my D-Day analogy)
-
-
From Nate Silver: "The best case is when you can simultaneously achieve both a policy and a political victory. More often, especially given the structural constraints imposed by the Congress, you'll have to settle for one or the other. But I would be very careful about any course of action which concedes victory to Republicans on both levels. Mistakes were made along the way to health care reform, but you've paid the political price for health care: now pass the fucking thing."
(We agree, but I liked the drama of my D-Day analogy)
-
Dear Senator Elect Brown -
Thank you for not being a total asshole today like everyone else in your party and a gracious winner. Please keep up the good work and consider doing something really radical: being honest as well as polite - pass the same health care bill for America that you supported in your own state.
Sincerely, etc.
Dear Senator Elect Brown -
Thank you for not being a total asshole today like everyone else in your party and a gracious winner. Please keep up the good work and consider doing something really radical: being honest as well as polite - pass the same health care bill for America that you supported in your own state.
Sincerely, etc.
In the main, I'm with Bob Powell. Give it up, guys, and get to work passing whatever you can *if you can.* But, if not, the blame for utter defeat of healthcare reform will be clear enough to voters when they see what they didn't get. I don't think Republicans are aware of how vulnerable they are on this, they will be seen as acting as arrogantly as the Dems if they refuse any form of healthcare reform. I think we should let them do their worse, and go down fighting the good fight, even as the fight is lost.
In the main, I'm with Bob Powell. Give it up, guys, and get to work passing whatever you can *if you can.* But, if not, the blame for utter defeat of healthcare reform will be clear enough to voters when they see what they didn't get. I don't think Republicans are aware of how vulnerable they are on this, they will be seen as acting as arrogantly as the Dems if they refuse any form of healthcare reform. I think we should let them do their worse, and go down fighting the good fight, even as the fight is lost.
Not only is an "all-or-nothing" stance wrong for the country, it's insane. It would persuade voters that we are fanatics and hysterics who don't listen, even though that would be untrue.
Not only is an "all-or-nothing" stance wrong for the country, it's insane. It would persuade voters that we are fanatics and hysterics who don't listen, even though that would be untrue.
Smart stuff Tgossard.
Smart stuff Tgossard.
Dear Nervous & Frustrated House Democrat,
These are uncertain times. Your constituents are watching to see what you will do now. They want results. They are asking what benefits have accrued to them since Congress convened a year ago. They may be willing to give you and your colleagues another chance--on health care, on climate change, on any number of issues--if and only if you can prove to them that you have their best interests at heart and can accomplish great things on their behalf.
Fortunately, there is one issue that will grab their attention, that will unite them behind you regardless of their party affiliation, that will return the political capital and momentum to you and those i ... view full comment
Dear Nervous & Frustrated House Democrat,
These are uncertain times. Your constituents are watching to see what you will do now. They want results. They are asking what benefits have accrued to them since Congress convened a year ago. They may be willing to give you and your colleagues another chance--on health care, on climate change, on any number of issues--if and only if you can prove to them that you have their best interests at heart and can accomplish great things on their behalf.
Fortunately, there is one issue that will grab their attention, that will unite them behind you regardless of their party affiliation, that will return the political capital and momentum to you and those in your party, both in Congress and in the White House. There is one thing you can do to accomplish all these tasks that, for your political future, cannot wait.
And so I respectfully advise you to do this: LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION.
Just think of the benefits to multiple segments of the economy: cosmetic surgeons, Frederick's of Hollywood, Crisco distributors, etc. etc. Not to mention the service providers themselves. You will likely move beyond partisan support to get bi-partisan support, along with gay-partisan support.
Hardworking Americans are watching their jobs go overseas, their home equities flounder, their medical bills soar. Now more than ever, they need the reassurance, the self-esteem boost, the deeeeep relaxation only a little professional strange can deliver. (You yourself may have, um, first-hand experience in such matters.) Congressman, make it happen. Carpe diem!
This is the kind of "stimulus package" that will actually mean something to everyday Americans, that they can get behind--or on top of!
Sincerely,
williamyard
Tgossard: Yes, that strategy worked great for Clinton who lost both houses of Congress in '96, and did *not*, per Powell, go on to accomplish worthwhile things. He merely presided over an economic bubble. Republicans will not be punished. Democrats will be punished for failing, just as they were in 1996. That's obvious.
Tgossard: Yes, that strategy worked great for Clinton who lost both houses of Congress in '96, and did *not*, per Powell, go on to accomplish worthwhile things. He merely presided over an economic bubble. Republicans will not be punished. Democrats will be punished for failing, just as they were in 1996. That's obvious.
Funny how we cite experts who support our positions.
I trust Harvard researchers Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, both MDs who have pointed out the flaws in the Massachusetts plan. Jonathan trusts a poll that says MA residents love their new plan. The latter survey was conducted (Jonathan reveals) by Robert Blendon, also from Harvard, who serves on the board of Assurant, an insurance company. Then there's Jonathan Gruber of MIT who has been paid mightily for his scholarly advice to the Administration. And at Stanford, Zeke Emanuel's Fresh-Thinking project takes advice from executives linked to WellPoint and UnitedHealth.
Ah--the groves of Academe.
Funny how we cite experts who support our positions.
I trust Harvard researchers Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, both MDs who have pointed out the flaws in the Massachusetts plan. Jonathan trusts a poll that says MA residents love their new plan. The latter survey was conducted (Jonathan reveals) by Robert Blendon, also from Harvard, who serves on the board of Assurant, an insurance company. Then there's Jonathan Gruber of MIT who has been paid mightily for his scholarly advice to the Administration. And at Stanford, Zeke Emanuel's Fresh-Thinking project takes advice from executives linked to WellPoint and UnitedHealth.
Ah--the groves of Academe.
There's no contradiction between a plan having flaws (presumably, correctable) and it being popular with a particular electorate.
There's no contradiction between a plan having flaws (presumably, correctable) and it being popular with a particular electorate.
Tgossard-
Who's advocating an all-or-nothing stance? The Senate bill is light years away from "all."
Tgossard-
Who's advocating an all-or-nothing stance? The Senate bill is light years away from "all."
Mr. Cohn, would you help out those of us who lack your expertise (and the time to study the legislation in detail)? What are the main differences between the Democratic proposals (to keep it simple, let's focus on the Senate-passed bill) and the Massachusetts law passed under Mitt Romney and voted for by Scott Brown?
Second question: what would happen if we took the Mass. law and tweaked it to apply nationally, and introduced that? (One could hold in reserve the threat of the House passing the current Senate bill, as a prod to Republicans). I don't believe for a minute that cynics like Boehner and McConnell would pay any attention, as they want "Obama to fail", but how would it play with th ... view full comment
Mr. Cohn, would you help out those of us who lack your expertise (and the time to study the legislation in detail)? What are the main differences between the Democratic proposals (to keep it simple, let's focus on the Senate-passed bill) and the Massachusetts law passed under Mitt Romney and voted for by Scott Brown?
Second question: what would happen if we took the Mass. law and tweaked it to apply nationally, and introduced that? (One could hold in reserve the threat of the House passing the current Senate bill, as a prod to Republicans). I don't believe for a minute that cynics like Boehner and McConnell would pay any attention, as they want "Obama to fail", but how would it play with the half dozen or so sane Republicans? Would such a bill be unacceptable to Democratic liberals? Is it worth trying under the heading of passing a more modest reform?
Among many things that puzzle me is why the Dems haven't called the Republicans out on the enormous cost to American business of employer financed healthcare. Simply tell business people that the quickest boost to their bottom line would be elimination or (at worst) significant reduction of those costs. Anyone trying to compete in global markets knows what this means. But someone, alas, has to connect the dots for them.
I'm all for the Public Option, but half a meal is still better than starving. Pass the f'rickin Senate bill and fix it with patches.
Among many things that puzzle me is why the Dems haven't called the Republicans out on the enormous cost to American business of employer financed healthcare. Simply tell business people that the quickest boost to their bottom line would be elimination or (at worst) significant reduction of those costs. Anyone trying to compete in global markets knows what this means. But someone, alas, has to connect the dots for them.
I'm all for the Public Option, but half a meal is still better than starving. Pass the f'rickin Senate bill and fix it with patches.