I think it's Liebercare related but I thought we were beyond that now that Obama had surrendered keep to the Fen Causeway
I'm not a fan of Jane. To be honest, I thought long ago that Jane needed to be fitted for a straightjacket. From the Lieberman-in-Blackface incident -- I hate Lieberman, and I'll endorse a lot, but that was truly way too far -- to accusing all of the blogging world that disagrees with her of being in the pocket of the insurance industry during the summer and early fall to paying bloggers I once really liked -- slinkerwink, in particular -- to go on dKos and post things which have bee demonstrated to be laughably false over and over again, I just can't take Jane Hamsher seriously, and her viciousness and lashing out suggests some severe psychological issues to me.
My impression is that, while occasionally right, she's often wrong and makes herself unreadable by being an incredibly nasty little shit. Which is par for the course at FDL, historically.
I, honestly, have to wonder where the money's coming from on Jane. Have for a while. Even when I'm inclined to agree with the underlying point, her behavior is bizarre and has been for years.
Mostly, I'm tired of the blogosphere's drama, hence only really reading Atrios, Boo and Krugman -- the three grownups -- on the American ones. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I think they're still in campaign black and white mode. Governing is dirty and their disappointment is sad to see.
Personally I always had a soft spot for them and spent a lot of time on FDL 3 years ago. But i left a long time back. keep to the Fen Causeway
Booman is a troll with a blog. Don't worry about him, I only do it occasionally because he's a bottomfeeder that puts up stuff nobody else will print and then the DNC pushes it. But of his own, he's meaningless.
...is way over the line. Of all the bloggers out there, I think Boo has, far and away, the best grasp of how the Senate actually works and how to go about the strategy of the legislative process. So far, he's been close to 100% accurate, as far as I can tell.
And certainly nobody can accuse Boo of having never been down in the trenches fighting for real, working-class people knowing his history.
You could accuse him of being wrong on this or that, and I think I've read enough of his stuff to know he'd probably be pretty quick to admit to it if it were clearly so. But a "troll," "bottomfeeder," "meaningless" -- and from the blogger whose allies now apparently include the cast of Fox & Friends and Grover Norquist?
The fact that she also seems to attract an army of drooling morons to whatever her position is on a given issue -- and whether she's clearly right or clearly wrong -- is a bit disturbing.
The fact that many of them are polluting dKos and others is worrying, too. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Yeah, all that old "blogosphere" stuff is done.
It would have really turned on itself if Obama had lost in November 2008, but instead by winning the Senate, House, and presidency the implosion has been more drawn out. Winning 60 seats in the Senate was an accident the Democrats did not want.
This happens when you have only yourself to blame for your shortcomings. The Democratic Party and its supporters are the problem now. But they needn't worry, soon the Republicans will teabag themselves back into office and the Democrats won't have to worry about governing anymore. They can go back to claiming to need more Democrats.
It could have been different if Obama was a strong, bold leader rallying his netroot supporters to fight for his legislative goals, but instead he decided to ask for a banquet while demonstrating he's perfectly willing to settle for table scraps.
The left is splintered into one side, which is too ideological, and another side, which is too moderate/"pragmatic" (I'm not sure who's pragmatic here, quite frankly). I'm inclined to agree with the idea that if we can't get a public option, we should kill the bill, yet I'm sympathetic to Krugman and Boo's argument that the stronger cost controls can wait, and that the uninsured need those subsidies now rather than our ideological fight and long-term knowledge.
But maybe that's just "Eat shit and shit ponies later" and doomed to failure. Or maybe it should be seen as a small, but significant win, and guys like rootless2 are right when they say the left is always willing to suffer the big loss because next time we'll get the big win (shrug) So I dunno, WTF?
If that makes any sense.
Meh. Like I said, thank god for Bowl Games. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
The annoying thing about all of it is that I find myself agreeing with all criticisms of everybody. Obama's a pansy, and Jane Hamsher is nuts.
LMAO.
The looming failure of the Obama administration stems from what didn't happen 10 - 15 years ago. The Progressives didn't sit down, do some analysis, come-up with policy prescriptions, and a way to sell them.
Right now the political climate in the US could be changed if the leaders of the Progressive Caucus and the Left, in general, weren't second and third rate bottom feeders.
But they are, so it won't.
As was noted all the way through the primaries, Obama made no secret of what he was. But it is amazing how much people were willing to project an entirely different collective persona upon him that could never deliver on the expectations that had built up.
As I said at the time "..nobody could, but Obama won't even try". And he hasn't. keep to the Fen Causeway
P.S. Glad I'm an old dude without kids. I don't hang out with the super-wealthy and they're the only ones smiling, other than the "Jesus is coming" crowd. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
ok he isnt McCain or Palin, but he still isnt good enough by a long shot. Every time hes had the oppertunity to stand up and be counted, to make his position felt as the man who's worthy to be remembered in history, he's taken the big words but small gestures route from what I can see. By taking this route where he's taken the easy way out he's perhaps destroyed any faith that a percentage of the youthfull vote has in future politicians. Im n saying that people should fight against the current health bill, as any extra person you can get coverage for is a victory, (And any that will still be at peril of losing houses or without coverage are still going to be the most cynically betrayed) Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
By taking this route where he's taken the easy way out he's perhaps destroyed any faith that a percentage of the youthfull vote has in future politicians.
OBAMA: Not as Terrible as Bush!
I've had my own run-ins with Jane, and yet she invites me to post occasionally on FDL, which I sometimes take her up on. I'm willing to overlook things in order to promote a mutual agenda when there is one to promote.
The attacks on slinkerwink, one of the most fundamentally decent human beings I've ever met, that have been happening at Daily Kos ever since she got hired on by FDL, have been beyond despicable. Those attacks are profoundly disturbing and, as far as I can tell, entirely without justification.
But enough of the personalities. This dispute is, as I hinted at above, symptomatic of something deeper. What Obama has done is a classic example of basic neoliberal politics as practiced by non-conservatives - use progressive rhetoric to reassure the base and ensure they won't block corporate-friendly deals that are cut without meaningful progressive input and engagement.
We've seen it with Clinton, we saw it in Britain with the Labour government and in Canada with the Liberal government. The end is always disillusionment on the part of the base and the alienation of the independent/swing voters who sooner or later vote for conservatives who at least speak a direct language that they then follow through on exactly as expected. Canada's Liberals lost the '06 election, and Labour is going to experience a punishing replay of the 1979 election sometime next spring.
Health care reform, regardless of what we think of the contents of the bill, is beginning to resemble a pyrrhic victory. Sure, a bill gets done, but at a huge political cost. Instead of consolidating his base, Obama has split it. Instead of having progressives and other Democrats united to explain and defend the bill to moderates and swing voters, Obama has some progressives trying to explain and defend the bill to other progressives, in a process that is getting increasingly ugly and divisive.
Those sort of tactics are effective at producing short-term gains, but they have never proven effective at building a long-term and strong political coalition that can hold together to beat back the right and produce changes that can outlast the tenure of a particular president or Congressional majority. One could argue they're not intended to do that, but to ensure that progressives don't block a corporate-friendly deal. And the world will live as one
There's nothing anti-progressive about giving people healthcare, which this bill does. What all the screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth is about, is that it's not bigger and better or done the exact way we'd want or hope.
A political victory is never pyrrhic if it produces results (I realize only us old folks will have personally witnessed this for our side). If this passes, it will produce actual, huge, concrete improvement in millions of lives (unlike the neo-lib stuff you cite). This will overcome any political hurt feelings now. If it fails, we won't get another chance and it will be a disaster. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
In theory insurers are now obliged to spend money on actual health care, not on lunches, private jets, prostitutes and lobbying. In practice anyone with political experience knows that they will do everything they possibly can to make those clauses impossible to enforce. Until an insurer is sued, fined or forced out of business because they are not obeying the letter of this new law, those clauses remain meaningless.
Many of the flaws of the system - random and expedient exclusions, and refusals to pay not being the least - remain more or less unchallenged.
So it's almost entirely a political bill, designed to placate the base and make it possible to say that Obama Delivered, while not actually annoying anyone with money.
More than that, it's revealed Obama as a slimy little opportunist, who is unwilling or unable to change the status quo, and whose MO remains fine speechifying, with as little political and economic leadership as he can get away with.
This is a triumph of expediency, and the end of Obama's political momentum - not the beginning of the progressive renaissance that he worked so hard to persuade his supporters of.
It's true that it's as good as could be expected, considering Obama's lack of interest in real reform. But that's a receipt for mediocrity, not a recipe for continued improvement.
But it's not giving people healthcare - it's forcing them to buy healthcare from third party providers who do not have their interests at heart, at prices which they may not be able to afford, with stiff penalties if they can't make the payments.
The penalties involved cannot be more than 2% of your income or $750, whichever is more. Most people - a huge amount of people - will be eligible for Medicaid, which is a de facto public option, or subsidies. So far as I can tell, anyone to whom the $750 would apply wouldn't consider it 'stiff.' And there's a cap on premiums, limiting them to 8% of your income which, as Drew said upthread, would be a godsend to most people.
It's not an entirely political bill, as you claim - it's got 900 billion concrete bucks behind it. You say it ignores flaws in the system, and at the same time acknowledge it addresses some flaws, but predict they'll never be enforced. So damned for the stuff they include and damned if they don't?
it's revealed Obama as a slimy little opportunist, who is unwilling or unable to change the status quo, and whose MO remains fine speechifying, with as little political and economic leadership as he can get away with.
Obama's lack of interest in real reform
I'm not sure where all this vitriol comes from. As angry as the left got at Clinton, and for much better reason, I never heard this level of character assassination directed at him from 'our side.'
I mean, really "with as little... as he can get away with" - seriously? You're calling him lazy?
And he has no interest in reform? So I guess that's why he's come closer to achieving an unprecedented bill which establishes healthcare as a responsibility of government than the multiple presidents who have tried and failed before him.
But just to be clear that I understand your position: $900 billion to get healthcare for most people, reigning in the worst excesses of one of the most powerful industries in the world, saving countless lives, risking his entire political career to do so, and setting a legal and historical precedent that no one's ever been able to achieve makes him an uninterested slimy opportunist? I'm not following the reasoning here... Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
He's an opportunist because his campaign was a lie. He's on the record campaigning for a public option on many occasions, and then last week he says 'Nah - didn't say that.'
That is not the action of an honourable man, and it certainly makes his true intentions - whatever they are - suspect.
And it's not a $900bn bill - it's a $90bn bill that runs for at least ten years. In public spending terms, that's pocket money. Compare with $680bn per year for defence.
Now considering the current system is legalised mugging, it's certainly a step up from that, for at least some of the population. But I don't think it's realistic to pretend that this is a move to a Euro style health system. And I would still want to see some kind of punitive action taken against insurers when - and it will be when, not if - they start pushing the limits of what's legal, or they begin to use creative accounting and other tricks to minimise their obligations.
The key point is that Obama hasn't been actively pushing for change - he's allowed others to fight it out, and has reliably contradicted himself, to the extent that it's impossible to know what he himself believes, wants, or stands for.
If that doesn't make him slimy, it certainly makes him a poor leader.
He's pushed for the congress to come up with a healthcare bill (which is a change). Allowing 'others' to fight it out is exactly what the system over here is designed to do -- congress legislates. As I said elsewhere, I find it frustrating as well, but respect that he respects the system enough to actually, y'know, not circumvent it.
And I think it's a bit of a reach to say his whole campaign was a lie because you have one article seeming to contradict one aspect of it. He campaigned for healthcare reform, he's pushing healthcare reform. He supported a public option within that reform and, so far as I'm aware, has never come out against it. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
That all being said, the politics of this has been botched badly, perhaps fatally. Progressives have nothing clear to hang their hat on. They wanted a public option, but Obama was never serious about providing it. Progressives were willing to accept an opt-out, even an early Medicare buy-in.
Politically, giving progressives that bone would have made all the difference. The personal attacks and sniping we're seeing would be much more muted and there would be much more unity of purpose, helping grow support for the bill.
That matters, because the bill's key elements don't kick in for another 3 or 4 years. That's plenty of time for the reform to be framed negatively, especially if premiums rise before the full implementation is taking place. If progressives haven't been fully brought on board, then it's going to be very difficult to maintain political support for this, especially when there are other reasons to be concerned about whether Democrats will win the 2010 and 2012 elections.
What I see as fundamentally neoliberal about this, though, is the way it is being sold. Progressives are told that even though they didn't get anything they asked for, they should still like the final product. And if they don't, they'll be attacked for not liking it. On a very basic level, that is extremely poor politics - support is gained and coalitions maintained by giving someone what they want, not by denying someone what they want and telling them it's for their own good.
Further, this cramming down of progressives has been the hallmark of neoliberal politics in the US since the Carter Administration. Neoliberalism works by telling people they should forget about their desires, and instead accept a raw deal they didn't buy into out of fear or compulsion. The deal may offer them tangential benefits that are very real and worthwhile, but the deal is stacked to primarily benefit the wealthy, and everyone knows it. Progressives who object to this arrangement are then told that they're selling out the cause by rejecting the deal, that they're being wreckers or don't care about suffering or are willing to let people die to make an ideological point, whatever the issue is. It's one big "Sister Souljah" moment, all designed to ensure progressives don't make trouble for a corporate deal.
There remain very real and plausible concerns and doubts about the effectiveness of what's in the bill, it's not just concern about not getting one's way. But that merely reinforces the neoliberal nature of the bill, and helps explain why progressives are so split on it - a split that cannot be mended, at least not on this issue, not until the second half of the next decade. And the world will live as one
It wouldn't be FDL without the victim mentality. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Because she's leading the charge to 'kill the bill' on healthcare and people are fighting for healthcare, not just as if their lives depend on it, but because actual lives depend on it.
It's one thing to push for improvement -- I'm all for fighting and shifting the Overton window -- but it's another thing to hear calls from the left to actually STOP progress because it's not 'good enough.'
We have a fragile coalition and a conservative political environment. This isn't just some fanatical saber-rattling that won't make a difference, this is like the Nader debacle, where the extreme faction actually could make a difference. A difference which makes the right prevail.
I think it's Liebercare related but I thought we were beyond that now that Obama had surrendered
This, combined with your comment the other night that you thought the bill might be more harmful than the status quo, shows how widespread and successful this negativity has been -- a LOT of people have this attitude. So it's a huge fear that the bill won't be passed at all, which would be madness.
While it's not everything I could wish for, the bill would be a huge step forward in this country and, as I mentioned before, would save countless lives. Passing it would be an historic victory. Killing it would ensure that we won't have healthcare in this country for decades -- it won't come up for a vote again in my lifetime, which could be considerably shorter if Jane gets her way. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I don't expect humanity from republicans, nor even from Blue dogs. But I think the attitude of the WH has been, being charitable, ambivalent about what is the headline legislation of Obama's first term. They may not have had the strongest hand, but they played it so badly that entire books of political kabuki will dissect the many mistakes made along the way. keep to the Fen Causeway
This is a reduction of the allowed overhead for insurance companies by 50 to 60%. Huge.
There are a number of other provisions that will strongly curtail the slice insurance companies are allowed to take. So when people say it's a boost to these companies, that they've been bought off, I wonder what math they have done.
The argument against mandates is also effectively an argument against solidarity.
So the arguments seem silly to me and to have right wing or glibertarian overtones. Somewhere along the line it seems FDL stopped pushing the overton window and started playing meme lab for the RNC.
you are the media you consume.
It appears to me that a lot of people who are disappointed in Obama and calling him a failure or a sell out, really want him to be a George Bush of the left and 'ram' changes through. There's two problems with this -- the main one being that Obama is working within a hostile environment. Bush was working from a very powerful foundation the right had been laying for at least 35 years on the executive level.
Reagan had the same goals as Bush, yet didn't act like him in office. Why? not because he was better, but because he was operating in an environment where Bush-like moves would not have been possible. Say what you will about the right - they're hard workers! I've paid attention this whole time and can say with confidence that decades of work went into creating the environment which made the last presidency possible.
We flat-out do not have that environment, and Obama is smart and temperate enough to know it. If we want a liberal president who can take bold action without getting pummeled, we have a lot more work to do first.
I think the second reason is probably that Obama really believes his own ideals that one shouldn't actually BE a Bush-like dictator and instead should work within a democratic frame of action. While I find that frustrating because things aren't moving quickly, I respect it.
I agree books will probably be written - I just don't think they'll be about Kabuki. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
we have a lot more work to do first.
I think you got it there.
Sanders Strengthens Senate Health Bill - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
Sanders notes some other positive elements of the Senate bill. "We can talk about the politics, and all of our disappointments," he says, "but at the end of the day you're gonna have 31 million more people who have health insurance--taking us up to some 94 percent [covered]. That's not an insignificant achievement and we shouldn't become too cynical about it."
Sanders notes some other positive elements of the Senate bill.
"We can talk about the politics, and all of our disappointments," he says, "but at the end of the day you're gonna have 31 million more people who have health insurance--taking us up to some 94 percent [covered]. That's not an insignificant achievement and we shouldn't become too cynical about it."
Those people who can vote against providing healthcare for that last six percent are morally and ethicaly bankrupt. Throwing 18 million people under the bus is one of the most disgusting political actions possible. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Obama has those same tools - formal and informal, Constitutional and political - at his disposal. He has so far not chosen to use them the way FDR and LBJ did. Obama made little to no effort to pressure the Senate to embrace a public option. Obama could well have done so. Senators are not all powerful - they have bills they want signed, programs they want funded. Presidents often use those as leverage to get Senators to do what they wish. That may not have been Madison's vision, but it has been a part of American politics for nearly 80 years.
Obama is pursuing his agenda, which is a basically neoliberal agenda. As with the neoliberal agenda, there are elements of it that are attractive to progressives, otherwise neoliberalism would never have survived 30 years in this country. But his agenda is not a progressive agenda, and it is not the agenda of FDR or LBJ.
Obama could well have chosen a progressive agenda, and could have taken advantage of the 2008 political victory to make that a reality. He decided that wasn't what he wanted to do, and so here we are, with some of the left siding with Obama, and some of us not, at least on health care.
I feel confident about how this will end - in reinforcement of corporate power, some reforms that help people but remain vulnerable to the eventual return of the right-wing in a few years' time, a return that would not have been inevitable had a more progressive path been taken.
That is the fate of not just American center-left neoliberalism, but Canadian center-left neoliberalism and British center-left neoliberalism. And the world will live as one
I understand your criticisms and concerns and even share some of them. My main contentions are that 1) Obama may have the same tools, but a completely different political climate -- plus, neither example cited was up against the sort of corporate and media monoliths that exist today; 2) fighting to improve the bill is great - calling for killing it is destructive -- I don't think there's any question that it will establish healthcare as a duty of government and save lives, and 3) the vitriol and assigning of bad motives that I've been reading is stunning.
The rhetoric in this debate has gotten really heated, which is understandable, so I want to add that I always appreciate your thoughtful replies, even when we disagree (so, yes, the offer to take you to Phillipe's French Dips on your next visit is still on). Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
But from the UK perspective, the vitriol, such as it is, is fueled by Obama's increasingly uncanny resemblance to Blair - another leader who was willing to give populist devils their due to somewhat less than the minimal extent needed to assure votes, while secretly believing fervently in neoliberal aims and means, and supporting the corporates against the people they feed off.
When people voted for Blair in 1997, they voted for someone who wasn't a grasping and condescending Tory.
They got someone who was a grasping and condescending Tory, but who was willing to splash some cash around to keep them quiet and voting on demand.
Obama looks very similar. People voted for someone they thought would represent them and fight for them. Instead they've been given someone who seems intent on fighting them, putting them in their place, and managing already low expectations of what they can expect from a Democrat.
