Look, There's definately some reasonable debate to be had on whether the bill in congress is better or worse than nothing. I think we can have this debate without resorting to namecalling or accusations of treason or forming a circular firing squad.
Paul Krugman thinks its still worth passing. So does Nate Silver, and obviously Barack Obama.
Howard Dean thinks the bill should be killed, so does Markos and Bernie Sanders. I think it ought to be killed too, but what the hell do I know (full disclosure: I am a random 20 something from Texas with no relevent expertise in this issue whatsoever). But all these people I respect think different things, so it seems like Lieberman has us all right where he wants us...
After posting some rants in comments yesterday about how horrible the bill is, I sat down and read up on the issue more, and now i'm totally split.
I hate the idea of a mandate, but admittedly, you can't really have universal coverage without a mandate. Insurance companies can't cover people with pre-existing conditions without a mandate, or people would simply buy insurance when they need to use it and then drop it after. That would send insurance premiums and health care costs in general skyrocketing. Universal coverage will lower costs, because the less people have insurance, the higher hospital bills are--when hospitals take people with no insurance for no compensation, they have to make up the money by overcharging everyone else.
The more people who declare bankruptcy because of medical bills, the more everyone else has to pay in premiums and health care bills, to make up the money they never paid. And then there's the whole issue of preventative care, where issues that should have been resolved months before cheaply never get resolved until its an emergency, increasing not only death but also costs.
Having everyone in the system should reduce insurance costs for everyone already in the system.
The question is, how much of that is going to get shaved off on the top of the insurance companies? My concern, is, basically, i don't trust the insurance companies to actually care for people rather than cover them. in which case we're back at square one and out a bunch of money. I have no doubt that insurance companies will still find some way to scare off people with pre-existing conditions (possibly by limiting access to specialists), and will claim "fraud" every chance they get to continue rescission as usual. I really have no faith whatsoever that the insurance regulations in this bill will be even remotely effective. But i can see the other side of the argument, maybe this bill will do some good, with the subsidies and expansion of medicaid, to increase the overall amount of care, not just coverage.
But let's admit it: the public option we've been fighting for has been mostly a token/throwaway option for months, having been watered down to nothing and, now, finnaly, at last, strangled in the proverbial bathtub. I honestly never liked the medicare expansion idea much, but that idea only lasted a week. So there's really very little new in this latest compromise.
What I really want is universal single payer, but apparently Tom Coburn won't even let them vote on it (...to the great relief of many middle of the road democrats, no doubt).
But obviously, the more you weaken the bill, a breaking point is going to come at some point for everyone. At some point, people are going to say "this bill is worse than nothing". Some sooner than others.
It seems to be about 50-50 now, and, well, that's exactly where "the Liebergeld" (as Krugman calls him), wants us, doesn't he? Split right down the middle. Kossacks calling Obama a corporate sellout, and Nate Silver calling us all "Batshit Crazy" for opposing this bill. It's really been a depressing week, hasn't it?
well, look:
I disagree with Obama on this bill, but he's not a corporate sellout. I think he's trying to do the best he can trying to get anything remotely progressive through a senate with 40 republicans and Joe Lieberman. This is not an easy job, i don't envy him. And it seems he's willing to put up with a worse bill than I am, to try to get things done. The image of him parading around like Lyndon Johnson kicking ass is really impossible, so forget about it. Obama has leverage with exactly 59 senators. He has no leverage with Lieberman, or any of the republicans. Any efforts by him to legislatively "punish" any of the 41 senators mentioned, would be blocked by the 41 senators mentioned. so forget about it. Being "tougher" and "stronger" and having "leadership" isn't worth jack squat, when you only have 59 votes from the start and no leverage over the other 41. Obama's conciliatory approach did not work. Maybe it even backfired. But really, there's no point in attacking Obama over this, the votes were simply never there.
And I'm also not going to jump on the bandwagon and start bashing Ben Nelson or Mary Landreau. They're the best senators we're going to get in those blood red states. I'm not going to bashing the blue dogs either. They hardly vote as a block, and they're certainly better than republicans. They're not the problem. Lieberman is the problem, republicans are the problem. If there were any moderate republicans, we could trade our squishy moderates for their squishy moderates. there arn't any moderate republicans. Kicking our red-state moderates out of the tent doesn't help us, it hurts us, what we need to do is kick republicans out of the senate in 2010.
Don't give up on 2010. The pundits who say we'll lose can all go to hell. They're all idiots anyway, and they're always wrong. It's not nearly 2010 yet, and look at the map:
We've got plenty of pickup opportunities, especially in the senate. We're in a very good position to win the red open seats in Missouri, Ohio and New Hampshire. We can hold Chris Dodd's seat, we can hold Biden's seat, We can hold Gillibrand's seat, and we'll be damned if we lose that senate seat in Illinois. Burr's numbers are looking terrible, we can beat him too. The republicans look like they're about to make a human-sacrifice out of Charlie Crist, so if we play our cards right, we can pick up that Florida seat too. And If Kay Bailey Hutchison ever resigns like she says she will, we'll have an open seat right here in Texas. So many opportunities, really, and we just need one more vote.
The people who say we have 60 senate seats are wrong. We have 59. Lieberman is not a democrat. Who cares if this bill passes, if it passes we'll need to improve it later, if it doesn't pass we'll need to pass something else. Either way, let's get that 60th seat in 2010, then get someting done.