No problem!
And the soccer game sentence is me marvelling at being from a different planet than my teammates, not saying it's not a good thread topic.
I'm about to take a couple Sudafed.
Clonazepam rules, pdf! I've heard that the brand-name stiff is much better than the generic, but I've never tried it.
While we're hanging out before or after, no one will mention the health care vote, and if I mention it, no one will really respond.
Yeah, that's been more or less how it's been in the last few days with everyone I've spent time with. Eyes glaze over. My poor housemate asks patient questions from time to time:
me: blah blah Bart Stupak blah blah reconcilation blah blah Tea Partiers
him: In the Senate?
me: No, in the House. The House of Representatives.
the brand-name stiff
Is that one of the side effects?
They should have scheduled the vote for before the basketball games end.
Stupak's voting yes. The bill will pass (unless the Senate manages to fuck this up too).
You know that I meant "stuff," apo.
I want to kill Stephen Lynch, though.
Duuuudes. Stupak is a yes. I guess along with his posse. I think this means there are enough votes to pass. Unless DeGette, the pro-choice women's leader/spokesperson, can't stand the freaking executive order and refuses to vote yes now or something, along with her posse.
I cannot believe this has come down to Stupak et al's misreading of the language of the bill in the first place. Mind-boggling.
10: Is that what his press conference now is about? I saw something about him denying the reports to that effect ("...until there is a deal, my vote is no" or some such).
13.2: Well, it's not a good-faith misreading, right? He, like much of Congress, has a boner for being the deciding vote.
Now a brand-name boner. The Stiffpak.
What is the "Gatorade" provision?
16: I don't know what his deal is. Having listened to him on CSPAN radio a few times, I suspect he may just be stupid, and that it is a good-faith misreading. And I hope you appreciate the self-control it takes not to riff impolitely on his name.
I checked into DKos for the first time in a long time earlier today, and I see there's a sidebar poll there: should we primary Stupak? Hm. I don't know what's involved there, so I wouldn't want to cast a premature vote.
The Stiffpak.
"Stick one in your Yooper pooper today!"
And I hope you appreciate the self-control it takes not to riff impolitely on his name.
Apparently, I do not appreciate it.
instead of acknowledging that Rich Trumka squeezed their nuts until they cried.
And you wonder why they seem unconcerned with lack of access to birth control.
Squeezing one's nuts is awful for unborn life.
22: I haven't been following the details of those members' rationales for their projected no votes. I thought Altmire was on about the deficit and uncontrolled spending rather than abortion. Perhaps not.
As long as there are enough votes to pass the damn thing, I can't manage to care about individual no votes, though it will be interesting to see which, if any, Dem no voters are unseated come November.
I checked into DKos for the first time in a long time earlier today, and I see there's a sidebar poll there: should we primary Stupak? Hm. I don't know what's involved there, so I wouldn't want to cast a premature vote.
I've already given money to his primary opponent through Act Blue. Back to the U.P., Bart.
ActBlue! I'd forgotten about that site for some reason. Silly me. Thanks.
I'll be playing indoor soccer. While we're hanging out before or after, no one will mention the health care vote, and if I mention it, no one will really respond, which is one reason soccer is the greatest of sports, everyone plays.
I don't believe for an instant that Stupak genuinely misread the bill. He just had to some some excuse for caving after having his months-long hissyfit of principle.
32: I'm pretty sure he was convinced that it would provide subsidies to people in insurance plans which cover elective abortion. Hence the framing that 'taxpayer dollars would pay for abortions.'
My understanding is that in fact, additional insurance coverage for a potential abortion would be cleaved off from the main insurance plan offered, and would have to be paid for with a separate check by the citizen to cover that added opt-in portion of the plan. So no, the subsidies don't cover the abortion part of the plan.
There was a rather funny exchange in the House Rules Committee meeting yesterday in which a few yes-vote Dems just kept saying flatly: Um, no, you're wrong. It doesn't cover that. It just doesn't. Where are you getting this from? This is absurd. It doesn't say that. &c.
33: I don't know. Maybe so. Does he want to overturn Roe v. Wade as well? I don't know what he gains, or gained, from this.
Either he's stupid, or he's craven. I don't really know what his local constituents think about all this.
I was listening to some of the debate and vote in the House earlier---it's been a while since I've listening in real time to congressional proceeding---and I was astounded anew by what pissant little bitches the Republicans manage to be at even the most boring, routine moments.
Here's an example: all of these backbenchers are taking their turns requesting unanimous consent to revise and extend their remarks in opposition to the bill. Fine. The leadership prepared a little formula that would get the point across without rousing the ire of the speaker, who's supposed to keep track of time: if too much editorializing gets into the request, the speaker is supposed to dock time from that side. The Republicans keep trying to play a little game with the Speaker (who just so happens to be Jesse Jackson Jr., so all of this has a weird racial angle, too). The standard version is "in opposition to this flawed health care bill." Bachmann's version is "in opposition to this dangerous health care bill." One that got dinged was "this flawed and I believe unconstitutional health care bill." But much more common was the just kind of smarmy: "this flawed health bill." Just like truncating Democratic to Democrat, it's not something you can successfully call them out on. It just grates that they're so ideologically correct that they'd make sure to elide the "care" from the "health care reform."
Petty, preening motherfuckers. They really are unbelievable.
36: Ah. Yeah, I thought the separate check thing seemed a bit silly.
Money is fungible, and Stupak is not dumb.
The better way to understand Stupak's intent, and the original language, is to reverse it:
"No woman may have an elective abortion while receiving federal medical funds, or covered under a policy that in whole or in part or in any way receives federal funds."
A lot of this contempt for Stupak directly implies an equal contempt for his outraged pro-choice opposition, as if the opposition to Stupak were fighting over a triviality, and is contemptible.
38: For another audience, the useful bit of theater is: "The liberals kicked ass on that Stupak bullshit - they sure do know how to negotiate. We're No. 1! We're No. 1!"
With all the treachery and fecklessness throughout this process, you really have to hand it to Pelosi. Assuming no last-minute glitch, she got it done.
41.--But at that rate you might as well make it illegal to get an abortion while on welfare or income assistance of any kind. There's only so much firewalling that's possible as long as abortion is still legal.
But in the meantime, everyone just play along with the political theater and pretend to be really upset about the consequences for choice, OK? Oooh, that bad Congressman Stupak.
Motherfucker should still get primaried to Kingdom Come.
Another way to look at the broad implications of the original Stupak language is that even if abortion was covered under a separate policy, Wellpoint would then be able to offer cheaper policies to women or some other demographic, and money being fungible, that would in a sense, be federally funding abortions.
And this is about insurance, where costs in one sector are financed by profits/savings in another sector. The fungibility of money is at the heart of insurance.
The fungibility of money is at the heart of money.
And according to what I know, since there are states with these restrictions, there are no separate abortion policies offered by any insurance company, although there are really only two anyway, anywhere in the US.
The Executive Order is unlikely to be a huge concession, but it is a concession, and small incremental steps is how the forced birthers have won.
Stupak will very likely pass in a future Congress, and I would not be shocked if the real deal was a secret Obama promise not to veto it when it does pass.
45: But under that argument, food stamps count as funding for abortion, because you can use that ever so fungible money you save on food to have an abortion.
I have no doubt that Stupak would try to deny food stamps to women who have an abortion, but you can't count his argument as reasonable.
48:Fuck off, knecht.
You would define my every word, if not my every breath, as trolling.
I think you should deny food stamps to pregnant women as an attempt to incentivize not having an abortion.
I oppose the federal funding of currency.
Stupak will very likely pass in a future Congress, and I would not be shocked if the real deal was a secret Obama promise not to veto it when it does pass.
What I heard was that Obama made a side deal with Stupak to resign and appoint the pope President-for-life if Stupak votes yes. Sure, mock me if you want, but if you don't believe that inhuman monster Obama is capable of everything up to and including nuking the moon in the furtherance of the farthest right's theocratic agenda, then you have no right to call me crazy.
You would define my every word, if not my every breath, as trolling.
A brevity and clarity sorely lacking in the OED.
In Massachusetts (or so I hear) you can use food stamps to pay for an abortion if you promise to eat the fetus.
If you're pregnant and you have sex and your baby gets pregnant, and then you abort your baby and eat it, could your baby's baby continue to live and develop in your stomach?
55: it's also acceptable to toss them in Lake Populism (that's what we renamed Walden Pond when we filled it with gasoline and started using it to drown all the poor black people.)
The restrictions on Community Health Centers would not have been enough to flip Stupak so completely. I have not read the language of the Executive Order to see if there is more.
Obama has not exactly been a dependable defender of the liberal social agenda, and if Stupak passes both Houses with Democratic votes (which it would), it would be out of character and in contradiction to his rhetoric for him to veto it.
There were 54 Senate votes against Stupak in this Congress. Democrats will certainly lose five seats in November.There remains the filibuster to stop Stupak in the next or future Congresses. Right?
I have not read the language of the Executive Order to see if there is more.
Yeah, I mean, why would you?
Infinite ectopics!
Jan Swammerdam thought that children were preformed in their parents, who were likewise preformed in their parents, "even original sin may stand on this principle as on a firm foundation, since all mankind have been laid up originally in the loins of their first parents."
60:Here you go, tweety
It's worse than I thought. It may be Stupak, administered by the States.
WH didn't show EO to ProChoice Caucus
56: How would your baby get pregnant in your stomach? Actually, feel free not to answer that.
Neil: google "abdominal pregnancy" or "ectopic pregnancy".
Also, forgive me for not responding to your solicitation to email you about intentions. If you wanted to send me a draft of something, though, I would be happy to read it…
I can't remember where I heard about a woman with no vagina who became pregnant following, first, some kind of injury to her midriff and, second, swallowing sperm.
64: I'm glad you can link to widely available text. That speaks well of you. I'm done for now, though. Feel free to boring-and-stupid up the thread free of my mockery.
Anyhow, the sperm swallowing was first, which lead to her getting stabbed, which lead to the pregnancy.
My "first" and "second" indicated logical, not chronological, priority.
hopefully the Leadership will punish him in some other memorable way
Hahahahahaha! You are just adorable.
The only exception to the no $ for abortions? Those performed by handguns.
Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with further barriers to obtaining an abortion, as I do not have a uterus.
77: Connecticut and Florida, mostly.
76: I liked you better when... oh wait, no, I never liked you.
Here yesterday as zombie commenter, no?
I cried because I had no vajazzle, until I met a woman who had no vagina.
I realize I'm behind the times, but I just found out yesterday that Arizona has eliminated CHIP.
I don't know anything about the state budget, but it sounds appalling. Is there any rational excuse for this, or is it just plain we-got-ours hatefulness?
83: No, no excuse at all. CO tried to do this six years ago but failed, thank goodness. It's beyond appalling and all the evidence you need that the GOP is a death cult.
. Is there any rational excuse for this, or is it just plain we-got-ours hatefulness?
Well out in the desert they life is hard and only a hardscrabble, god-damn independent, cowboy kind of libertarian can survive, thanks to as many undocumented immigrants as needed to run the economy, a bunch of large military installations, and a shit-ton of water pumped in from other parts of the country. So they don't need no leechers who can't fend for themselves.
Whoah. Okay, I was a little, well, "meh" that this thread brought stras back, but Gonerill? Boss! Next up, read and Cala!
Gonerill hasn't been completely gone.
Maybe if Obama passes immigration reform we'll get ogged back.
What was the offensive statement that was just stricken?
86: Cala's got a life now.
86: Cala's got a life now.
Oh thank you very much.
86: What? Is IIR -- and was zombie commenter -- stras? Is that the idea? Really? Wow, I totally haven't been following these things.
I thought we were supposed to maintain the polite fiction that we don't try to guess at previous commenters identities.
Anyway, when is Isle of Toads coming back?
91: Yeah, zombie commenter is actually stras, and bob mcmanus is actually ari.
Well, thanks, ari and Gonerill. I guess.
While I'm asking -- is the state-revenues-decreased-due-to-high-gas-prices thing being floated by this commenter true? It sounds plausible, but I know so little about this stuff that I can't tell if it's 55% of the truth or .05%.
I didn't mean it that way, Gonerill. I'm Becks-style light. Cala is too busy to comment. I figured that you were too busy. Your commenting probably reflects the fact that your life has slowed to a civilized pace.
I thought we were supposed to maintain the polite fiction that we don't try to guess at previous commenters identities.
I bet you'd like it that way, OPINIONATED GRANDMA.
YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK UP SONNY MY USB EAR TRUMPET ISN'T WORKING
OP: Had dinner tonight with a couple of doctors, they at least knew the general outline of the debate, but had no clue about the whole Senate bill vs. House bill vs. reconciliation, although they had heard the name Stupak. Confirms as fiction the idea that somehow the Dems would pay a price for using reconciliation for anything they legally could when
Friggin less than symbol.
Confirms as fiction the idea that somehow the Dems would pay a price for using reconciliation for anything they legally could when <1% of the country understands what's going on.
102: I just remembered I could stream it, so I have it on in the background now.
102: Me on the time delayed TV. Let me know if anyone swears. I love that the House managed to get the student loan stuff in too. Are they getting rid of Perkins loans too. Those should be added on to direct loans.
99 + 101 are both depressing and reassuring. The Republican rhetoric -- taxpayer funding for abortions! shifting 1/6 of the economy to government takeover! -- will continue to have a foothold. On the other hand, not many worries about the whole "ramming it through" in a "totalitarian" manner business?
I looked at CSPAN for 10 minutes, agreed with some commenter somewhere that it was like watching paint dry, abandoned.
Me. It looks like the chairmen each organize a handful of speakers, and I wish I knew how many committees were left to go.
Thank God for Thomas Reed. I can't imagine what all this would be like if a House minority had the power of a Senate minority.
"America is the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind" - that Ryan twat from WI.
Paul Ryan (R-WI): "America is the most pro-human idea in the history of humankind."
Is he writing an undergraduate essay?
oudpwned, and apparently I misquoted.
Ryan says even if this bill passes, the fight's not over. Sounds like they're losing hope.
I was surprised that the white, mushmouthed South Carolinian was a pro-reform Democrat. Apparently because I am a racist.
clerk.house.gov appears to be down, but I remember there being a running record of current floor proceedings there - "floor summary" or something like that. Also, the Majority Leader's site posts daily schedules. At this point, though, I think they've gone through everything but the health care reform, so watching C-SPAN is the only way to know when the vote will be.
Nice job breaking history, Democrats.
Awesome, Pence the idiot repeating his line about how you can't be saving money because you're spending money.
Pence is quoting Reagan from 1964. No word on whether he'll go on to urge following that speech and abolishing Medicare.
I think Pence just accidentally said, "Togay." Heh. Eleven-year-old me chuckles.
Maybe if Obama passes immigration reform we'll get ogged back.
This is how religions start, isn't it?
For those not watching, which will soon include me: CSPAN estimates voting to begin at about 10 eastern.
Whose house is this? Does anyone know?
Occasionally someone just stands up and asks unanimous consent for permission to insert remarks (as opposed to revise and extend remarks, which is more common). I assume that means they didn't get around to preparing a statement?
Just guessing, but inserted remarks may also be too long for the time allotted (maybe including extensive quotations from elsewhere) and they just want to get their words in the record.
As a full fledged member of the American people, I would very much support a government takeover of healthcare in this country. I wish this bill did that.
If we close the donut hole, what are we left with? A world of bialies?
If it were the right bill at the wrong time, or the wrong bill at the right time, would you support it?
108: Is he writing an undergraduate essay?
That's the astounding, or astonishing, or confounding thing about so much of this: Guys. Some of us have figured out that you're making remarks to be recorded for the history books, and for sound bites, rather than debating, but from any other perspective, maybe even from that one, you sound like a complete idiot.
It's not unlike teaching to the test: this is legislating for the media echo chamber. Of course this is how most major legislation occurs, though: by this point all the persuasive work has been done.
Oh, and that was Paul Ryan. Mastermind behind the frightening Republican budget proposal.
I prefer to think of it as a slanket.
122: Maybe, but wouldn't they value possible TV face time more than getting the entirety of their remarks in the record?
129: I would assume it depends on what remarks they're inserting. And on the kind of publicity the rep wants. Representatives can be quite anonymous on a national level while quite successful on a local one. And there's also the possibility that they lost the battle within the party to get actual face time.
Strange things can go on with inserted remarks, too, but I doubt this is one of those situations.
Paul Ryan (R-WI): "America is the most pro-human idea in the history of humankind."
Ryan is considered the most brainy / intellectual of the young House Republicans and a likely future leader.
McManus is right above about how pernicious the original Stupak language was...would have gotten the government involved in driving abortion out of private insurance plans. Terrible precedent. The Senate abortion language satisfies Hyde.
"I've never operated on a Republican or a Democrat cancer in my life." True, sir, but I'd prefer a Republican heart transplanted into me than a Democratic one.
Maybe someone with parliamentary knowledge will come along and explain the remarks procedures.
The clerk's site is back up, so here is the the floor summary for today. Apparently, someone had words, and then they were taken down.
126: Must be the first time anyone was ever reminded of something Ford said.
Damn, when people in the gallery get kicked out, it's like in a baseball game when someone runs on the field, they won't show what's actually happening, everything just stops for 30 seconds.
Part of the unanimous consent requests are to allow more editorializing, where they can say "in opposition to this piece of donkey shit" but if they go too far they can be docked time.
...as opposed to future generations already born.
Has someone proposed a trillion dollar overhaul?
I fundamentally object to a lot of things, Eric. I say we all get to provide lists.
They should stop spending money they don't have- and this bill will do the opposite. So it will start spending money the government does have?
I agree people opposed to abortion shouldn't have to pay to have abortions.
I thought we were in the people's house, but it turns out that we're at a crossroads...
Does Cantor actually believe a word that he's saying? I'm not sure if it disturbs me more to think the answer might be "yes", or "no".
Both Whips have now spoken. Not sure if that means anything in particular.
People who oppose abortions will get them for free? That's unconscionable.
If we close the donut hole, what are we left with? A world of bialies?
If the hole gets closed, then the donut you started out with is just like a donut hole, from a bigger donut! Which means that we're actually just making the donut hole BIGGER!!
Sweet, final confrontation is Boehner vs. Pelosi smackdown.
The House is such a let down when they vote because they don't go to the roll call.
Inquire all you want, motherfucker.
Whenever someone says "with respect", you know they mean the opposite.
I've wondered, are there deliberative bodies in other countries that go through this process, but actually with some intent to communicate with one another? You know, like actually debate the merits of proposed legislation, rather than just wasting a bunch of time? Or is it just silly talking points the world over?
I think most deliberative bodies use the convention of delivering remarks to the chair rather than to each other.
Do we have to go through another one of these with the Senate, too? I confess I'm not sure how the reconciliation vote looks. (That is what we're doing, right? Or am I like super confused.)
But I now realize I have no evidence in support of that belief.
Hey, Rep. Camp. You're supposed to say "colleagues on the other side of the aisle" not the party name. How uncouth.
We're doing the Senate bill immediately (?) followed by the reconciliation bill.
157: I don't know if reconciliation has other procedures, but for normal votes there's a some number of hour debate period before the votes.
Ooh, looks like Grayson's coming. He's usually fun. In a good way.
Wait, the Senate still needs to do the actual reconciliation vote, right?
155: like those parliaments where they get in fistfights! Those are awesome.
156: But is it a meaningful exchange of ideas, or a waste of time?
Really, why do this? If everyone knows it's a waste of time (and barely pretends otherwise), why not do nothing in legislative session but vote? I know politicians like cameras, and speaking in front of them, but normal people don't pay attention to this stuff. They could say all this in the press, or directly to their constituents, etc., without wasting all this time.
Phooey, Grayson was the only one I would probably have enjoyed watching.
Yes, but if the Senate defeats it, the original Senate bill still becomes law.
The Senate reconciliation vote could easily be much tougher than the House. Reconciliation allows unlimited amendments; as I understand it the only way amendments can be stopped is for the parliamentarian to rule them "dilatory" which will be controversial. If the Rs really try to, say, do amendments for weeks on end then I presume that leadership can still step in with some kind of nuclear option.
I suspect in small countries, genuine exchange of views sometimes goes on.
165- The floor debate is almost a complete waste of time, especially because leadership on both sides doesn't let any surprise stuff happen. Committee markups are still pretty active in determining actual policy.
169: He just asked for unanimous consent to revise and, etc.
Boehner's starting.
I rise tonight with a sad and awful tan.
I know politicians like cameras, and speaking in front of them
There's an argument that cameras are the reason there's no real debate.
**Somehow, I still managed to be shocked by the disingenuous fuckery.**
Boehner actually sounds vaguely like Leonard Nimoy.
But they way they've structured reconciliation makes it such that blocking it means the Republicans are protecting all the crappy deals they just spent 10 weeks criticizing. If they block the fix then the Nebraska deal becomes law.
I turned off the TV. Can't watch or hear Boehner without feeling sick and angry.
"Do you really believe that if you like the health plan that you have that you can keep it? No, you can't!"
Is this really the time to mock the president in a floor speech?
Republicans oppose cuts in Medicare, right?
If he's going to do the "No we can't!" mockery he really should have alerted the chorus to the line first.
"Dignity of the House". Funniest line of the night.
That sort of failed. Have you read the bill? Yes! Have you read the manager's amendment? Yes! HELL NO YOU HAVEN'T! resulted in some confused teabaggers.
186: You can't remember what is not.
Will you grant that request, Mr. Speaker?
"No, we can't."
"Do you really believe that if you like the health plan that you have that you can keep it? No, you can't!"
Let me know when the litany reaches "Do you really believe you can have different races can mix publicly without pollution?" or some equivalent thereof.
I almost forgot whose House this was!
This is my favorite episode of House, M.D. *ever*.
Boehner probably doesn't even know that teabaggers were for reading the bill for more than rhetorical reasons. They really did want to read it.
How much more time does this guy have?
Bohner's got a nice smoker's cough, there.
No turning back? So Republicans won't campaign for repeal?
Quick, somebody ask me the secret to comity.
Since we're all C-SPAN nerds, can I ask, why the standing ovation?
Because these are the last two big speeches.
You can't flub the declaration! Come on!
(By the way, if you're in the mood for 700+ comments worth of schadenfreude, you're welcome.)
Republicans oppose both Medicare and cuts in Medicare, fake accent.
I thought we were supposed to maintain the polite fiction that we don't try to guess at previous commenters identities.
That's just the kind of thing Ogged would say.
163,167:AFAIK, if Pelosi (and Byrd) signs this bill, this can go to the President's desk tonight.
Pelosi does have the option of holding the bill on her desk until the end of this Congress (January?) by not signing it, but (I think) at that point it goes to the President. She might plan or have promised to hold the bill through the reconciliation process.
The Senate has no further function as to this bill, with the possible exception of Byrd's signature.
But with a winning vote tonight, and Obama's signature, we have a law.
Also, are you all actually watching Republicans screech away on the House floor? Why not just shove bamboo splinters under your fingernails?
Republican hate for Pelosi is something I don't really get. I have a cow-orker who loves hating her but can't begin to mount an argument over what bugs him. It's weird.
There are two bills, bob. One will be done, the other goes to the Senate.
"A child with diabetes who is bipolar" -- is that what she said?
But with a winning vote tonight, and Obama's signature, we have a law communist tyranny.
Why not just shove bamboo splinters under your fingernails?
My insurance doesn't cover that. Yet.
There are two bills, bob. Our will be done, on earth as it is in the Senate.
219: Well, it's not the only thing I was doing.
I think Republicans support government coverage for that procedure.
Republican hate for Pelosi is something I don't really get.
1. She's a Democrat
2. She's powerful
3. She has a uterus
God, I hope she ends with, "God bless America- and Socialism!"
I read somewhere that the signature of Pelosi must happen in "open session" so she could sign and certify on TV tonight. I don't know if "open session' means on the floor or while the House is in session.
And no, I don't know what happens if January comes and the bill hasn't been signed by Byrd and Pelosi.
Obama will want a big ceremony at the White House when he signs of course.
No, no -- all rise and sing: Debout, les damnés de la terre! Debout, les forcés de la faim!
I like how she sort of giggled at the line "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition".
So even though Boehner and Pelosi were only yielded 1 minute I assume convention is that the party leaders aren't subject to the time limits?
being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition"
This bill covers sex-change operations??
Did Pelosi's "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition" just get boos?
Goneril, is this good enough for you?
No, "écrasez l'infâme!"
"Proud and also humbled" once more.
Pelosi has great hair. Much better than Boehner's.
225:But the second is related to the first. The first is not in any way dependent on reconciliation.
The HCR bill can go to the President tonight.
i wonder if it would be good or bad if we just got rid of the 'washington' thing and all congresspeople just lived in their actual district
I think they decided against deem-and-pass. Not sure if that means the passed Senate bill needs to be actually signed by the President before they can proceed with the second vote on reconciliation.
173: I was thinking about his horrible orange brown hue the instant he rose.
Turns out even Obama's commented on Boehner's hue.
Actually, I rather like health care reform.
oudemia, she said "or one who is bipolar."
Ok, I'm going to ask a dumb old person question- if people are arguing with each other on Twitter, is there any way to follow it, or is the purpose of responding just between the people arguing? When someone tags a tweet as a response, you have to scroll through the other person's entire feed to determine what it's responding to, right?
well if you took an antipsychotic for your bipolar, you'd have greatly increased chance of diabetes.
246: OK -- that makes more sense! She sort of stumbled over it.
looking at the bill post-passage, GOP process complaints sound much more like losery-sourgrapes than they do pre passage.
Back when there was a fee on tanning salons as one of the pay-fors on the Senate bill (since removed), staff called it the "Boehner tax".
If you're at all progressive, Pelosi is one of the greatest House speakers ever.
247: If they've used the "reply" function, then the timestamp is followed by "in reply to (user)" in gray, and that's a link to the tweet (ugh) being replied to.
247: Sometimes the response says "in reply to" and you can click on that area of text and get to the tweet responded to. But it can depend on the kind of client the twitterer is tweeting on. Twitter seems to be a long way from providing access to old tweets in any easy to use way.
Am I the only one freaked out by the fact that C-Span muted the sound, so this is all happening like a silent film?
248: That's very true of the atypical antipsychotics.
Shouldn't C-SPAN be playing classical music?
Ah, that does work in this case- I was trying to find out what Yggles was arguing about, turns out nothing HCR related.
She's certainly the best I've ever seen.
twitter is one of those things that is clearly inferior in every way to prior technology, but one of the inferiorities influenced the culture of use in a way that was useful (people not being so longwinded)
254: I suspect the floor microphones don't pick up much at all past the person speaking before them. Generally this afternoon it was completely silent when nobody was talking, including when the chair had just called for order; they might have changed this during the Pelosi and Boehner speeches for more atmosphere.
254: I'm more bothered by how they have a countdown clock that updates every 9 seconds.
They removed the Bohner tax? Man, this bill is weak...
The sound came back on, SEK.
Wish it were an hour or two earlier. For once I wish that I weren't on the east coast. 7:30 would seem too early. (end mcmanus style rambling)
Why can't they vote faster than this?
I'm too old to use twitter. I don't understand when the comments are ended, when people are replying and how you can find the person's next tweet. Facebook is so much simpler.
261: Listening to the Senate a few years ago, when the mic wasn't muted it would pick up bits of conversations near the guy calling out the roll call.
262: they have a countdown clock that updates every 9 seconds.
Hmm, 9 seconds is 1% of the allotted time, but it is out-of-sync if it is that.
I await the final tally with bated breath and a heightened sense of anticipation: will Rush Limbaugh have to leave the country?
I too don't get the length of the voting- they had about 2/3 of the votes in the first 2 minutes. Are the remaining 20 people in the bathroom, not aware there's a vote going on?
And the American Experiment is officially over! (Or something.)
Well, 7 if you include Republicans.
269: They were saying on MSNBC some of them were waiting for others to go first. Because they're pussies.
Better than Tip O'Neill, apo? I can't really judge these things. I definitely think she's awesome. All day I've been saying how glad I am that she's in this job and not Dick Gephardt.
Damn, I was hoping it would be 216 or 217 because then you know some Republican would claim the vote is invalid because when the House has no vacancies the required number is 218.
219 .... somebody lied? or did they release some Stupakoids? I thought it was heading for low 220s.
219 I believe.
So, how is the Senate goign to handle the reconciliation portion? And when will they be doing it? Are they taking a break too?
281: I was guessing they'd released them, since CA said he thought the count was 224.
First they have to defeat the motion to recommit.
Oh, I guess first they have to vote down a motion to send the bill back to committee.
Senate reconciliation should be this week, after the FAA bill is passed (tomorrow, most likely). Senate recess due to start on Friday, but doubt they will recess until the bill is passed.
The roll call should be here in about an hour or so.
The clock wasn't even an exact 9 second interval more like 8.94 seconds.
I don't know what is going on anymore.
Crapaud de Nazareth, it takes a lot of chutzpah to spend the whole day screaming socialist takeover, and then advocate a motion to recommit in order to "fix the bill's flaws"!
Roe v Wade was voted on by Congress? Everyone has gone mad.
251:If you're at all progressive, Pelosi is one of the greatest House speakers ever.
Maybe the best. Did some reading, Rayburn may have not been the most progressive, but a lot was accomplished (90% taxes) and much was preserved, and Dem's kept the House for decades.
I also look up John MacCormack, Speaker of the 60s whose reputation has suffered. There were many young Congresspersons who thought JM too conservative in 1968. I'm shocked. But much was done. Mike Mansfield also deserves more credit than he is given.
160 (?) bills passed by the House, waiting in the Senate. Yes, disregarding any differences in substance, Pelosi is among the most impressive politicians I have ever seen. Historical. She makes me proud to live in her time.
Yglesias posted on this, but the thread decomposed. I even looked up Callan(?). ca 1905.
ari also posted on this, but had to, just had to, precede praise of Pelosi with calling Obama the bestest President evah a top 15 President. So much for ari.
Grandstanding over abortion--an attempt to try to peel back the cover Stupakoids got from the Executive Order promise.
293: Before just about any first vote on passage, I think, there's one last chance to make a motion to recommit the bill to committee. So that's what this is.
The other vote didn't have one of these because it was already done when they passed the bill the first time.
I think.
I have no idea why all the discussion is abortion, though.
293: They're just trying to spook the Stupakoids into going along with the motion to recommit. Futile, one assumes, since they can already theoretically be pilloried for voting for the bill.
This whole "other side of the aisle" thing has me wondering. Do they rearrange the desks to move the aisle every time the balance of power shifts in the House? Is it just a vast enough room that the aisle stays in the same place, and one side has fewer people in it? Or is the aisle purely metaphorical?
And why the hell doesn't C-SPAN have chyrons to ID the chyrons?
Don't applaud that dick, he's the one that dragged the abortion issue into the whole HCR.
Ok, at least he's being a team player now.
A man having a bad hair day life.
a top 15 President
I said top ten, actually, at least as of tonight. And rather than saying I "had to", I think it would have been been more evocative if you had said that I "couldn't resist".
"Those who are shouting out are out of order!"
"NOOOOOO! WE'RE NOT! NOOOOOO!"
Do applaud the lime green blouse/orange cravatte combo behind him.
Is the corpse of Ted Kennedy propped up behind his left shoulder?
The shouting is fun! Why do we have to have such boring rules in our legislature?
Is Bart Stupak trying to ward off his primary challenger? Why is he getting all this time?
302 - They rearrange the desks at the start of every session; there's a fun history of the Senate Chamber desks out there.
Hey, did CSPAN just put up phone numbers for us to vote too?
316, thank you. It appears that leg room is a spoil of defeat.
Okay, which Republican just voted (temporarily) against the motion to recommit?
What did they do when there were more that two viable parties? Was it run like a parliamentary system, if you voted for the speaker/leader who won you got less leg room?
SEK, I didn't stay for long (or read many of the comments), but I did enjoy the link in 212 more than a kind person would.
316: I believe there are some Senate desks with bayonet marks left over from the time Union soldiers were quartered in the Capitol during the Civil War. Apparently they tried to carve up Jefferson Davis's old desk with all kinds of graffiti.
The original Senate desks from the revolutionary period were burned up when the Brits torched DC.
I don't see why any TV show takes calls over the phone now that there's chatroulette.
I'm back from soccer! Anything important happen?
"Excuse me, what does your penis this about H.R. 3590?"
'this' s/b 'think' in 331.
327 to 328.
So America is now officially socialist? Or not until Obama signs on the dotted line?
Looks like there might be a primary challenger to Stephen Lynch. I hope that he loses over this. Plus the woman is pro-choice.
335: I am already wearing my little cap!
Any sense on whether Harry Reid will be able to get the reconciliation bill through the Senate?
The roll call for the Senate bill is out.
He has signatures from >50 Senators saying they'll support it, the only question is the procedural crap that might get thrown up.
339: Huzzah, Perriello. I will volunteer for you.
Amazingly, the "oppose-line" callers sound even stupider than the Republican politicians.
340: I heard that, but it was my understanding that Senators could add an unlimited number of amendments in reconciliation, unlike in the House. So, could the Senate pass a completely different bill?
Presumably the 50 will also defeat any amendments. The question of unlimited amendments is whether Biden will have to rule them out of order, which will lead to another predicable poo-flinging session about tyranny and ramming objects down people's throats.
342: I know, right? That nurse woman who said that everybody had coverage regardless of insurance status was ridiculous. Maybe she's never seen the billing department.
Is there a list of the signatories?
343: you (Republicans) can theoretically advance an unlimited number of amendments. Democrats will vote against them all.
Does Cao think he's fooling anyone or does he just figure he might as well go with the party since he probably can't beat a non-indicted Democrat in his district?
345: They provide equally good care to the insured and to the incredibly rich uninsured. So what's the problem?
344: Surely that's not actually a "question". Maybe instead you mean "The annoyance of unlimited amendments is that Biden will have to..."
They cut off an opposed caller! Help, he's being oppressed!
334: While a challenger is going to presumably have a little help from Rich Trumka and company, I don't immediately smell momentum behind Harmony Wu as Southie's next representative. But it's been a while since I was in the neighborhood.
Here are the Democratic no votes: Adler (NJ-3), Altmire (PA-4), Arcuri (NY-24), Barrow (GA-12), Berry (AR-1), Boren (OK-2), Boucher (VA-9), Bright (AL-2), Chandler (KY-6), Childers (MS-1), Davis (AL-7), Davis (TN-4), Edwards (TX-17), Herseth Sandlin (SD), Holden (PA-17), Kissell (NC-8), Kratovil (MD-1), Lipinski (IL-3), Lynch (MA-9), Marshall (GA-8), Matheson (UT-2), McIntyre (NC-7), McMahon (NY-13), Melancon (LA-3), Minnick (ID-1), Nye (VA-2), Peterson (MN-7), Ross (AR-4), Shuler (NC-11), Skelton (MO-4), Space (OH-18), Tanner (TN-8), Taylor (MS-4), Teague (NM-2).
Megan, it took all my strength not to comment for the joy of it, so I applaud your ability to read a few comments and leave.
Somebody needs to give Colin Peterson a noogie.
(Also, the shorter version of that thread is here.)
Republicans sure don't seem to be having any problem voting against the reconciliation bill. I was a little puzzled by the suggestions upthread (which I'd also heard elsewhere) that they would.
Apparently someone on the floor yelled out "baby-killer" while Stupak was speaking.
341: The gentleman from Virginia and I were college contemporaries. I didn't know him, but we have several friends in common.
359: Since the reconciliation bill fixes all several problems with the Senate bill, Republican who vote against it are technically voting for the Cornhusker Compromise and other odious chunks of the sausage.
It was taking fucking forever. I had to get up here to complain, and then I heard a shout emanating from the other computer.
C-Span reports that Obama exchanged a hi-5 with Rahm Emanuel. That kind of brings down my mood just a bit.
359: e.g., 157. (Which was explicitly referring to the Senate, I think, but what's the difference?)
357- Well, it opens them to (factually true) charges that they're voting in favor of all the "back room deals" they've spent weeks complaining about, and their response to explain what they were really voting on will be no less than 3 paragraphs. That's usually a situation where the roles of the parties are reversed.
They should now vote against recognizing Iwo Jima since we are now become the fascists.
I'm going to bed, but only because I got permission from Commissar Obama.
341: Do it, Stanley. Perriello is totally fearless, a fantastic guy to have in a reddish district like his.
My ? was about suggestions that Republicans would have problems voting no on reconciliation. Did anyone think they'd vote yes?
I think politically it's stupid because they know it's going to pass anyway. They should try to block it procedurally but support it in the final vote, much like many of the judges they filibustered who ended up being confirmed 99-0.
362: I'm not hyper optimistic about the Southie portion of his district, but there are other parts. Also, there are a lot of luxury condos going in there post Big Dig which have attracted yuppies, who are presumably pro choice.
(364 was supposed to refer to 177, not 157.)
I get that the Republicans face charges of inconsistency, but that doesn't seem to stop them from doing lots of things, like talking about how horrible it would be to cut medicare.
Do it, Stanley.
I plan to. It's a weird district. Draw a triangle to the southern NC border with Charlottesville at the top.
There are real advantages to representing the Know Nothing constituency.
An awful lot of people, pro and con, really do seem to think we've just mandated the government takeover of the health care sector.
376: There are pro people who think that? Where do they get their news?
To make sure I understand, the previous caller opposed this health care bill (as disastrous socialism), but thinks Medicare needs to be dramatically expanded, since its reimbursement rates are too low?
The southern NC border?
The part where we Virginians get fishy about NCers. Do you blame us?
Has anyone ever polled people to see if they think Medicare is a private program?
BTW if you are still watching CSPAN--Obama talking now on the News channels.
That's Anthony Weiner, right? He should be an auctioneer.
An immediate resignation! Shouldn't he make it effective tomorrow or something?
Who should/will resign immediately? I turned off the CSPAN.
383: I was thinking the same thing.
377: the pro people typically don't put it in those words, but they seem to think we're getting something far more ambitious than we are.
They're being covered by their own private medicare.
Come on, Yahoo!, a headline like "Democratic-controlled Congress clears historic health bill" makes it sound like there's something wrong with the way it was passed. It's just Congress, even if only one party votes yes.
385: As of 11:45 PM Nathan Deal is done, so he's not voting on the Guam resolution.
I liked the caller on CSPAN earlier who was upset that the bill would cost $10 trillion. The host asked him where he got that number, but didn't push back against it, or compare it to the national debt ($12 trillion) or the federal budget ($3.5 trillion).
Deal is an ex-Democrat who was a chairman of teh Health something Committee and was until a few minutes ago teh ranking minority member of that committee.
Tonight's vote is not a victory for any one party totally a win for us!
The host asked him where he got that number, but didn't push back against it
In context, that felt like push-back, at least to me.
I watch C-SPAN, I can even watch the crazy Republicans, but I just can't watch the caller sections.
395: That's follow-up. Push-back would at minimum be "I'd like to double-check that figure, it sounds large" and would reasonably be, "Since the entire national debt is only slightly larger than that, I think you are mistaken."
376, 377: It would appear that they get their news from my high school facebook friends. (I will not engage, I will not engage.)
I AM TAKING MY BALL, MADAME SPEAKER, AND I AM GOING HOME.
So do we have to go to work tomorrow and shit?
On the collective farms, no less!
AND RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA AS I ALREADY ANNOUNCED.
It's hard not to get the idea that these horridly ill-informed and confused call-in people (or facebook friends) aren't exactly outliers.
Well, of course, 404. It's almost impossible to be well-informed.
I certainly don't know what's in this particular bill, or whether it's actually going to become the law, or when. Ezra Klein told me that one thing had become law back in December and that didn't happen. After this issue is finally dealt with we can look at the actual details of what got passed and see what we think of it, if anyone cares.
It just occurred to me that OPINIONATED GRANDMA can no longer sleep peacefully, now that the Democrats have put the elderly at the mercy of the panels-to-come.
Yes, possibly, 405, but I hope you know that Medicare is a government program.
SARAH PALIN'S NEW HAIRDO IS TOO RETROGRADE
(I will not engage, I will not engage.)
Oh man, is this difficult. I've hidden several FBers I know from HS, not so much because I don't want to see their status updates, but because it's so tempting to comment on them.
Yahoo!'s current headline: "Congress clears bill extending health care to tens of millions"
I guess they read this thread.
Happy days! This is a good thing. Not a very good thing, but a good thing nonetheless. Kieran puts it best.
Job's a good 'un.
Meanwhile, in schadenfreude, fremdscham, and probably quite a few other German adjectives: I have trouble getting to sleep and always prepare some little sheep-counting style exercise to help.
Tonight, I am going to imagine an endless line of Dems receiving their worldly punishment and alternating between long drops and short drops. First a long drop, then a short drop.
Reminds me of watching the troll freakout in 2006.
Both Herseth-Sandlin and Chandler got a lot of netroots support, since they were 2004 special election pick ups. Arcuri sucks for doing that.
Forgive my ignorance, OFE. What happened in the UK in 1911 vis a vis health?
Would like to know more about the National Insurance Act. Frankly, for the people who were covered by it, it sounds more advanced than our new U.S. system.
417. Ninepence for fourpence. The Wikipedia article is short but accurate.
The National Insurance Act, 1911. Read it here. Interestingly, it was largely designed by William Beveridge, who also designed the NHS 3o years later.
I hope that the Parliamentarian doesn't rule against any of the reconciliation bits, because then we'd need 60 votes to override him.
And that took two general elections, the intervention of the king, a threat to create hundreds of new members of the Lords, and substantial change to the constitution before it passed. Change is difficult.
422: No, Biden in his role as presiding officer can override the Parliamentarian.
359: Since the reconciliation bill fixes ... problems with the Senate bill, Republican who vote against it are technically voting for the Cornhusker Compromise and other odious chunks of the sausage.
It'll still all be Obama's fault. Hinderaker explains:
The health care battle is just beginning. Next, the Senate will try to enact the House's "fixes" to the original Senate bill. Some Senators say that won't happen. If not, then President Obama has the option of signing the original Senate bill--now passed by the House--Cornhusker Kickback and all. I assume he would do that, but the resulting blowback from House Democrats, not to mention the American people, would be something to behold.
426: The comments to that post are even funnier than the post.
Is there no recourse to the tyranny of the majority?
Jesus wept, that's incredibly stupid. Clearly, McMegan has a very different understanding of the word majority to everyone else.
That's right, Obama's a big lying liar for running on healthcare and then passing it, when people make campaign promises they're supposed to break them!
As far as Rs voting against reconciliation- the ads write themselves. "Representative X claimed he was against the back-room health care deals, but then he voted FOR those deals twice (footnote: H. reconciliation res # & motion to recommit.) He also voted for billions more in bank handouts at the same time (footnote: H. reconciliation student loan amendment number.) Representative X- he claims to be on your side, but he's just another Washington politician."
I demand the tyranny of the majority prevent the party with the most votes imposing its will on the minority!
Although, is it too late to include a special exemption for libertarian economists?
As some commenter at Pandagon remarked, Stupak should be a political action committee for stupid.
I was WRONG in 251. The Boehner tax is still in the bill! Take that, John!
It's the cosmetic surgery tax that was taken out.
McMegan is a dog that thinks she's people. Alternately, she's a mark that thinks she's a smart, which means she's always going to be puzzled by the fact that she keeps going home broke. It still blows my mind that The Atlantic hired her.
If you don't find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances.
you mean like passing big capital gains tax cuts on a 51-50 vote using reconciliation? Oh, wait...
they persuaded the country that they didn't want this bill
Good god. She's the poster child for truthiness.
437: The Atlantic's a mark, too.
What's really telling is how bad the comments thread is. Remember, this isn't Malkin or Breitbart or Nut-ional Review Online - this is the bleedin' Atlantic Monthly, and they're babbling about StrengthThroughJoyCare. Stupidity loves company.
432: The internetz disappoint me.
I'm disappointed in *myself*. I had actually commissioned some blogging-related Stupak hair photoshopping a while back and yet only ended up with this (Stuputin).
I've put in a request with my peeps for your idea, but they're claiming classwork or some bullshit like that.
I found this bit of gloating from Kathryn Jean Lopez to be revealing:
Congratulations, Democrats. Beginning now, you own the health-care system in America. Every hiccup. Every complaint. Every long line. All yours.
It's true, too. The liberals' key disadvantage is that they take responsibility for outcomes. That's also the liberals' key advantage, though.
It still blows my mind that The Atlantic hired her.
And made her an editor for business and economics.
438 - As her commenters note, this was nothing compared to Medicare Part D, which is possibly the most egregious procedural strong-arming in my lifetime. But hey, who can remember the dim history of six and a half years ago? Damn this tyranny! Damn Obama and his unpaid for tax cuts and wars!
439: Come on Kraab, take a minute and contemplate the horror of living in a country where zombie lies amplified by the Media Freak Show did not win the day. Will no one think of the pundits?
426: What I found just jaw-dropping about that is that she thinks that "After what Democrats did, Republicans won't play nice anymore," is a plausible threat. When have they played nice in the last couple of decades.
445: Right, including the 3-hour vote extension in the House (at 3:00 AM), the order to turn off the C-SPAN cameras, the false cost estimate and on and on. Imagine any *one* of those items happening in this climate.
Q: What's the difference between the national political media and a beshat bed?
A: Nothing.
443: what worries me is that almost none of the major provisions in this bill go into effect until 2014 (!). Expect the Reps to try to stick all the problems of fucked-up existing system in the intervening years on Democrats too.
As far as Rs voting against reconciliation- the ads write themselves. "Representative X claimed he was against the back-room health care deals, but then he voted FOR those deals twice (footnote: H. reconciliation res # & motion to recommit.) He also voted for billions more in bank handouts at the same time (footnote: H. reconciliation student loan amendment number.) Representative X- he claims to be on your side, but he's just another Washington politician."
That sounds like a pretty weak attack ad, coming from someone who also voted for all those things. Or are you thinking of primary challenges?
A: Nothing.
You can clean a bedshat bed, though.
452: My first answer was, "You can burn the sheets." But that would have been mean.
That sounds like a pretty weak attack ad, coming from someone who also voted for all those things.
House Democrats voted against both of those things.
454: Oh, right. I misread that comment.
In my defense, my coffee maker is broken.
(By which I mean my wife is not home to make coffee for me.)
D'oh, I'm sure there is a plastic cup and a microwave there.
I'm going to take off my capitulationist hat for a second and put on my anarchist balaclava to say that I am very dubious about this entire enterprise. I want working class people to be healthy, but frankly, I have to doubt that this law will accomplish that. The rot in our healthcare system is deep and systemic. Bad care for free or cheap is still bad care. The inputs into our system that cause people to be miserable -- bad air, water and food, long hours in unsafe jobs, violence (both state-sponsored and not), and the lack of an ability to change things -- aren't and can't be addressed by a bill like this one, or even a unicorns and pie public option/single-payer/totally nationalized system. I'm glad that, for a lot of people I know, this will keep the wolf from the door for awhile, and I sure hope that the worst aspects of the compromise can be ameliorated to some extent. As much as I have been continuing to make common cause with liberals, I still feel, very strongly, that anything imposed by the government will be deeply, deeply flawed at best.
I'm now hopelessly confused about when different provisions in the bill go into effect. Does anyone know a good guide?
461: I think everything is in effect by 2014, but I'm not sure on what kicks in before then.
I want to know which things kick in in time for people to enjoy them before the 2012 election.
hey, in case you read any posts about 'Obama's Waterloo', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3gX47rHGg
But what goes in effect before the November elections?
This thread at Ezra's is touching, because 98% of the comments are simple fact-based questions about the bill and how it will effect people. No death panels in sight.
This is a short list of what kicks in instantly, though there are more things in 2011 and 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/he-top-ten-immediate-bene_b_501748.html
463: The anti-rescission measures go into effect right away, which is pretty important to me personally. I have a sufficiently complicated medical history that a big bill from the hospital would almost certainly lead my insurance company to dig up some pitiful excuse to avoid paying and I'd end up in court trying to get them to honor their obligations.
Per 467, the big things that immediately go into effect are:
* No preexisting condition discrimination for children's insurance
* Donut hole closure (keep the government away from my Medicare!)
* An end to lifetime and annual payment caps
* Rescission illegal except in cases of fraud
469: those apply to employer-provided plans as well, not just in the individual markets, right?
No death panels in sight.
Not even in 2014? I've got a little list ...
The major provisions (exchanges and subsidies, mandate, Medicaid expansions, ban on preexisting conditions and medical underwriting) go into effect in 2014. A whole grab bag of provisions go into effect before then, but most are comparatively minor:
--$5 billion for high-risk pools. Tiny compared to scope of problem.
--tax credits for small businesses to afford care -- these are actually fairly substantial.
--ban on preexisting conditions for kids. But no controls on prices they can be charged.
--80/85 percent minimum medical loss ratio requirement.
--no copays for preventive care.
--dependents can stay on parents insurance till 26 years old.
--controls on lifetime and annual benefit limits.
--$10 billion more for community health centers.
--insurer appeals process for denial of care; this is less important than it looks as internal appeals processes are already in place in most cases.
471: They'd surely not be missed...
pwned, you have to get up early around here. Missed the donut hole.
The anti-rescission measures go into effect right away
rescissions are already illegal and have been for years, this is one of the more Potemkin parts of the bill. The problem is enforcement.
The Times has a handy little interactive whoosiwatzit of the provisions and timing.
Does the donut hole closure go into effect as soon as Obama signs the bill, or sometime later in the year? If it happens soon enough, that might be enough to swing the midterms right there.
Via Jon Chait, here's McMegan 19 days ago:
I have never seen conservatives and liberals so divided ... in beliefs, not values. On the one hand, there are people like the TNR crew, and Jonathan Bernstein, Andrew's guest-blogger, who seem to think that this it's the next best thing to a done deal. Meanwhile, all the conservatives and libertarians I know think that it's pretty much hopeless, because Pelosi can't get it through an increasingly rebellious House. To our jaded eyes it looks as if everyone who can is looking for an excuse not to vote for a bill that is unpopular with their constituents.
The opinions on both sides seem so confident, and so incompatible, that one group of people is clearly borderline delusional.
467: Related-ish: why does Huffington Post always load so slowly? Is there something in the code or something that's slowing up my internetical gears? It's annoying, and I'd read it more if I could make that not the case.
475 - I thought the key was that rescission is now illegal unless the insurer can demonstrate fraud, putting the burden of proof on the insurer to show intent? I tried to follow the lawyerly argument about this but, I confess, couldn't.
472: That's an important reminder - for those of us who are disappointed with Obama - that the non-attack on Iran is a huge accomplishment that followed pretty directly from his election. He'll never get credit for it, the same way that Gore would have never gotten credit for the non-attack on Iraq, but it's still a huge consideration.
--tax credits for small businesses to afford care -- these are actually fairly substantial.
These seem to me like they'll be pretty huge -- as in, likely to provide a not-inconsiderable number of people with healthcare, and likely to make the fabled small businessman pretty happy with the democrats -- in effects both electoral and non-.
How come Native Americans are excluded from the mandate? Not that this is crazy, just that there must be more to the story than I know.
483: They had reservations?
</rimshot>
rescissions are already illegal and have been for years, this is one of the more Potemkin parts of the bill. The problem is enforcement.
Wasn't there a whole troop of insurance execs being questioned by Congress last year, saying things like "Yes, we call that rescission." "Yes, rescission is a priority of ours, in order to avoid fraud." "Yes, of course we intend to continue using rescission as long as our competitors are."
McMegan's blog needs a Death Panel, the sooner the better.
Healthcare stocks are up this morning, whatever the hell that means.
491: Let me introduce you to the idea of a "random walk"...
So, a guy with whom I was good friends when we were frosh (nearly 20 years ago at this point) is now a conservative country lawyer with impressive jowls and a lot of Baptist social connections, that kind of thing, and he's been wringing his hands and clutching his pearls all morning on the Facebooks. I am loving it. At one point he directly and literally equated the passage of insurance reform with 9/11. My only reaction to that is to laugh. I can't think of any other honest response. I guess a part of me should be pissed off at that comparison but fucking A, I'm laughing too hard to make a fist.
Plain old piracy, DeLong style, from Reuters.
---
WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT
*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011
*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.
*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.
*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.
*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.
*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012
*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013
*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.
*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.
*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.
*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014
*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.
*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.
*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015
*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018
*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.
---
493: I've been resisting all day querying how on Earth some of my conservative colleagues made it past the death panels on the way to work today.
475: The Senate bill makes rescission illegal except in case of fraud or intentional material misrepresentation. Is that the case currently, or will any misrepresentation do?
493: Troll his facebook comment threads, you know you want to. Give in to the dark side.
I confess to a minor trolling. I commented:
*FWEEEET* Overuse of mindless national tragedy as a metaphor or allusion, five yard penalty, still first down.
497- From the most egregious anecdotes, any misrepresentation will do, even if not on the part of the insured (e.g., a nurse accidentally wrote "2001" instead of "2002" on a chart so they considered the condition to be preexisting and denied subsequent coverage.)
that "except in case of fraud" seems like a giant loophole. just put on the insurance application 'please list all medications you have ever been prescribed and taken.' get a date wrong on one, FRAUD!
493: Yeah, my fundie FB friend is decrying the death of democracy today and lamenting how the cost of this bill will lead to higher taxes will lead to stay-at-home mom's being forced back to work, violates the right to at-home parenting, steals our money to give others health insurance which is not their right...
It bugs the hell out of me that this is the response of an adamant "Christian." To the extent I can even claim to understand the bill, I can totally see having problems with it. But really? The objection from an outspoken person of faith is "It's taking my money to help poor people!" Sigh. Camels, eyes of needles, etc.
497: I thought (maybe wrongly) that this has all been a matter of state law until now, and the rules vary some from state to state. Typical standard something like "material misrepresentation", which is a lower threshold than fraud (no need to establish intent). Of course, that standard appears to have been regularly abused.
I'm - perhaps naively - pretty sure that the culture around recission will change as a result of this legislation, so that the disgusting technicalities and bad faith set-ups, ie 501 and others, will be discontinued.
Obviously there are more important things at issue, but I was pleased to discover that someone is called "Zack Space", even if they voted the wrong way.
491, 494:Well, it isn't so much about profits.
It is about the mandates, and lack of price/cost controls.
Contemporary FIRE derives much of its...value...from expected secure future flows of funds. Think of a mortgage, and mortgage derivatives. Think of a credit card, where they almost prefer you don't pay down the principal. An income stream may be (?) as valuable, or more valuable than cash. You can't leverage cash.
The expectation of the mandates, and likely further privatication* of American healthcare, will open the window for the Insurance Cos to borrow billions at high leverage ratios to expand. Who knows what Wellpoint will be buying, since I think they already own half the insurance industry. Providers? Hospitals and drug companies?
*If the exchanges work, whatever "work" means, there isn't that great a difference between a lower-middle class family getting subsidies to buy insurance and a lower class family getting gov't paid healthcare. I guess everyone is expecting future changes to go in the direction of Medicaid & Medicare, but Obama's neo-liberalism might to gradually move Medicare and Medicaid into the insurance exchanges.
We will learn a little more from the commission. I don't know how this will all shake out.
502. Christians like 'charity', where the needy publically humiliate themselves and the more holy very generously give them scraps. socialism, where the poor steal money, is not the same thing.
Sigh. Camels, eyes of needles, etc.
You liberals and your biblical literalism ...
502: I roughed up some friend of a friend on FB who insisted that the only reason that "Americans" fair so badly in various CDC and WHO outcomes statistics was only because of "the minorities," so basically Americans were doing really well. The real ones, anyway.
507 - if insurance cos owned providers, that woudl be the best thing. you could squeeze providers under the pretext of squeezing insurance companies.
so basically Americans were doing really well. The real ones, anyway.
That's basically how I interpreted all the griping about how we already have the "best! healthcare system! in the WORLD!" Nice to know someone's putting it explictly.
I'm not sure I get the "fraud" exception. The standard now is generally fraud or material misrepresentation, the difference between the two being intent. And from the insurance company's perspective, under the current system you can see why this would be a concern: if they knew you had condition [x], they'd have been charging you a higher premium all this time. (And, conversely, in order to obtain a lower premium, or to obtain coverage at all, individuals under the current system might have a strong incentive to misrepresent their health history.) But now we're going to have community rating, and a ban on denials for pre-existing conditions. Given those rules, I'm not sure I understand what incentive anyone would have to misrepresent their medical history.
So, on the one hand, I don't see why anyone would try to do that, and it's hard to see how an insurance company could build a case of fraud. (Which again, differs from material misrepresentation in that it requires proof of intent. What's the alleged motive?) So it seems like the carve-out shouldn't be a big deal.
But, on the other hand, given all that, I'm not sure why there's a carve-out for fraud at all. I can't see any legitimate reason for it, which makes me worry that it's only purpose is to allow continued abuse by the insurance industry.
... and his dad is called SOCRATES SPACE ..
I'm getting pissed off in a thread on a technical blog written by a conservatarian chemist. Not sure why it bothers me so much that he's so wrong- e.g., claims the whole bill passed through reconciliation so they hid all the costs, if they had stated the real costs it never would have been allowed. I mean, Someone is Wrong on the Internets! But I guess it's because there are normally discussions of technical topics and data analysis and scientific literature, and they he comes out and spouts demonstrable BS without a care.
The Dangeral Professor makes a funny.
I'm not sure why there's a carve-out for fraud at all. I can't see any legitimate reason for it,
Oh, lying about your kid being under 26, or being your kid at all, etc.
I'm coming to realize that 516 should not be read to the tune of "The Day the Music Died".
493: literally equated the passage of insurance reform with 9/11.
I look for Sarah Palin to have a bullhorn moment at the entrance to someplace like the Mayo Clinic (or the HQ of UnitedHealthcare):
ex-half term Governor Palin: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!
Teabaggers: [Chanting] Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill!
ex-half term Governor Palin: The real Americans -- The real Americans send their love and compassion --
Teabagger: Down with Socialism!
ex-half term Governor Palin: -- to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for makin' the nation proud, and may God bless America.
Teabaggerss: [Chanting] Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill!
517: oh, that makes sense--I wasn't thinking of "rescission" in that context. (Still no coffee.)
Would you like me to start a thread called Help Brock Get Coffee? We could contribute tips.
It's important for your coffee to be so light, so delicious, and green. That's what's so fun about coffee.
507: You can leverage cash. Your bank is probably doing it right now.
508 is only true for one particular subset of Christians. I know a lot of Christians who are gentle and humble and all that hippy crap. A fair number of them dedicate their lives to making other people more secure, healthier, and better. Close friends who are Christians are currently working in various third world countries making concrete positive improvements in the lives of people who are in literal danger of starvation.
My father was one of these Christians, as is my mother (my Mom could go on a substantial killing spree and still end up in the Karmic black). My Uncle, his family, and the in-laws are of the sanctimonious hypocrite variety. Rich and comfortable, always looking for a reason that the less fortunate deserve their suffering. Charitable giving goes entirely to the church, and some tiny fraction of that is used as 508 suggests, with the rest paying hangar fees on the pastor's private jet.
Despite being a bit of a militant atheist I cannot bring myself to dislike Christians or Christianity as a faith. It's complicated and messy, and some people find ways to make it all about themselves, but a lot of others do actually try to make the world a better place and do so because of their faith.
No, I'm just bitching. There are several coffee shops within close walking distance--I'm waiting for a repairperson to show up at my house, and after that I'll be able to get myself to one if I really wanted.
527: We admire your pose of a stiff upper lip, but we can tell that you're already too enervated to get up from the couch.
515: is that the guy who does the "Things I Won't Work With" posts? Dammit! I like those! I totally see your point!
Despite being a bit of a militant atheist I cannot bring myself to dislike Christians or Christianity as a faith.
In theory, I'm completely indifferent to Christianity, and believe that it's just a rorschach blot for the Christian to map their own personality onto.
In practice, obnoxious people map their obnoxiousness onto Christianity around me all the time and I use the religion as shorthand for the people.
527: where on earth did you find a coffee machine repairperson?
515: I have a technical blog that I keep all politics off for that very reason. I know from referrer links that a significant number of wackjobs link to me. I'm also on the blogroll of a guy who hated my guts from various comment threads on politics blogs.
The wingnuts infecting my FB space are saying 1. "It's a sad day in U.S. history. Welcome to the Socialist States Of America!" To which I say, "Don't I wish!" And, 2. my current fave, " My Christian neighbor who is a pediatric oncologist is now learning Hebrew just in case she has to relocate to Israel to get paid. Very sad....." You mean Israel, where they have government-run healthcare?
515, 529: He's always been a dick when it comes to political issues.
British conservatives plagiarise teabagger Web campaign, invite people to use a Twitter hashtag that they're scraping and displaying on the front page, don't moderate the tweets....or even check they don't contain arbitrary JavaScript. FAYLE.
526 is exactly right -- and part of why the "egads! my tax money will help the poor" attitude among professed Christians bugs me. I count myself Christian (albeit perhaps a bit eccentric/unorthodox about it), and that kind of thing just makes me was to scream YOU ARE MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!
534: a fact I had happily avoided knowing until now.
530: That was one of the eye-opening things about moving to the South. In the Northeast, "avowed Christian" means the little old ladies who check names at the polling sites on Election Day. In the South, "white + avowed Christian = asshole".
I am kind of disappointed that my FB world is entirely immune from wingnuttery. A relative of my writing partner wrote on her "Go Pelosi, wield that gavel" status update that "this is it for America, once the illegal immigrants all get on the rolls." I thought long and hard about whether to engage before going with "one of the reconciliation provisions allows Pelosi to hit Eric Cantor in the fruit basket with the gavel. Just once, but at any time in the remainder of the session."
She deleted her comment this morning. Sigh. Why won't anybody play with me?
My FB feed is also largely wignuttery-free, except for a couple of libertarians who have been entirely incomprehensible:
An old farmer who had worked his crops for many years had his horse ran away one day. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors said "Such bad luck". "We'll see," the farmer replied. Then the government passed healthcare. The Democrates rejoiced. The Republicans wept. "We'll see" said the farmer who knew the theatrics of bo...th sides were simply to distract to the people away from the truth.
541: I hope I never find out what he meant by that, because I'm pretty sure if I contemplate it for long enough, I will achieve a state of satori.
The hide button is my friend. Somewhere out there my BIL is undoubtedly howling with impotent rage, but not on my facebook page.
541: I've heard that story before, but it was in the context of " 'Quit whining about how cold/hungry/injured you are,' said the crusty old guide, launching into another of his salt-of-the-earth parables," not partisan politics.
"Today I've woken up in a whole new world where passion has died and the fire doesn't burn. Where risks can't be taken and dreams aren't fulfilled because Big Brother is there and Freedom has been killed. Lose your job or just want to be lazy? Don't worry! Get in line and you'll be paid in a hurry! Want to spend like crazy and never repay? Just call Geraci*, your problem is solved in a day. No more sweat, no more tears, no more hardship, no more fear. Sit back, rest awhile, the easy way is here. And while you close your eyes, you'll never see, that Freedom has died almost silently."
* Obnoxious attorney with annoying commercials about filing for bankruptcy.
541: The cosmic circularity of 541 gave me a vision of the Great Nothingness and now I'm ascending into it. Goodbye!
Despite having a decent number of GOP dead-enders and glibertarians in my feeds, I'm seeing almost nothing at all from any of them about the bill.
545: Hah, hah, motherfucker. I completely beat you to enlightenment on that one.
I'm always amazed more of you don't combust, or go around twatting people. That kind of level of stupidity must take Olympian self-control to get over.
544:"Sit back, rest awhile, the easy way is here [...] Freedom has died"
These two statements seem to be in direct contradiction with one another. You don't have to work! You can get money for free! YOU'RE BEING OPPRESSED!
I know a lot of Christians who are gentle and humble and all that hippy crap.
Tell them they're making the rest of us look bad.
go around twatting people
I believe that's your specialty.
re: 551
I think you're misunderstanding the verb, "to twat".
I'm always amazed more of you don't combust, or go around twatting people. That kind of level of stupidity must take Olympian self-control to get over
Sigh. If only I had that kind of self-control. I do need to hit the hide button.
From my one nutter-butter FB friend (an acquaintance from HS):
Make no mistake. This bill will fund abortions and abortion clinics. It will raise your taxes. It will lower profits not JUST for insurance companies, but for ALL companies who provide health coverage to employees. It will create lower standards of care. This will be done at the expense of the hard working American, as usual. Bills like this eventually will weaken America to the point where she is no longer a superpower, and then what? You don't want to know. Trust me. Don't say I didn't tell you so. You heard it here.
She! Who still refers to countries as ladies…laydeez?
If Obama had Nixonian instincts (which I don't for a moment believe), he would be subtley needling the 'baggers and provoking them into ever more outrageous displays of fanaticism, much as Nixon hung the student radicals around the necks of liberals.
Obama doesn't need to do anything subtle. Every moment he remains President they get a little battier.
* Obnoxious attorney with annoying commercials about filing for bankruptcy.
Awesome! Debt collectors are sad too!
I found this bit of gloating from Kathryn Jean Lopez to be revealing:
Congratulations, Democrats. Beginning now, you own the health-care system in America. Every hiccup. Every complaint. Every long line. All yours.It strikes me that people on left-leaning blogs have said almost the same thing, at various points of time, about George Bush and the Iraq war, and it never quite worked out that way.
Yes, that's a potential analogy ban, but I think the public at large doesn't spend that much time keeping score of what each party does. It's frustrating at times, but there's something good to that as well. A practical effect something like, "however this was enacted, at some point everybody owns it (see Medicare part D)" which is probably fair.
Email just now from my Irish Catholic mother in NJ: "Great. Now I have to get rid of the Pope and the Governor."
554: That's my read, but there's an alternative, darker version, too, that Yglesias correctly warns about. Basically, if the economy sucks in 2012, then whatever lunatic the Republicans vomit up stands a solid chance of changing the narrative and winning the election.
Godwin prohibits me from supposing that there might be some historical precedent for that sort of pessimism, but we're in a very dangerous time where the worst elements are ascendant in the Republican Party, and those elements are well-served by the general breakdown of society. There's a feedback loop - failure feeding more failure - that was working really well with the Bush administration for awhile.
But in general, I think the odds favor your optimistic scenario. Obama isn't going to need Nixonian instincts. The Republicans are eager to immerse themselves into this cesspool.
It strikes me that people on left-leaning blogs have said almost the same thing, at various points of time, about George Bush and the Iraq war, and it never quite worked out that way.
I'm not quite sure that's right... Iraq was significant in 2006 and 2008.
Mitt Romney--your crazy relative on Facebook:
Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process -- he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting.
Iraq was significant in 2006 and 2008.
I wasn't trying to say that ownership was ever split 50:50, just that it never works that one party owns every bump or every jot and tittle.
558: I certainly hope so. Inadequate as this bill is, it's still a big step in the right direction and Democrats should be proud of pushing it through.
The Democrats should run on this thing as hard as they can, and remind people at every opportunity that the opposition was a bunch of lunatics raving about imaginary bollocks. Sadly I think they lack the balls to do that, but a boy can dream...
527: where on earth did you find a coffee machine repairperson?
I'm sure I've told this before, but when I worked for AT&T one of my tasks involved routine conference calls with a specific set of people from other groups, one of whom worked from home and made absolute buckets of money. One morning he mentioned that he hadn't had his coffee yet because the machine was broken and that the repairperson might show up during the call so he would have to step away. We had much the same reaction as you, and questioning led to him telling us all about his coffee machine which was installed in the wall of his kitchen, for which there was a four-hour repair SLA. If it broke, the manufacturers sent two repairpersons, in a van, to his house, with a coffee machine in their van, and when they rang the doorbell one of them would be holding a cup of coffee at the ready for immediate consumption by the poor, blighted owner of the broken machine.
I am pretty sure that planted the seeds of the dissatisfaction that made me quit.
539 and 540 made me laugh aloud.
Ok, maybe I was wrong: The DCCC is inviting people to sign a farewell card to Rush Limbaugh.
On rescission: current standard, under existing HIPAA law, is that rescission is already banned except in cases of fraud or deliberate material misrepresentation. See e.g. here .
I favor passage of this bill, but no one should be fooled -- this is a sellout in many, many areas, perhaps none greater than regulation of health insurers between the bill passage and the institution of the Exchanges in 2014. Even in 2014, regulation could have been significantly tougher.
And by sellout I mean there were numerous cases where the bill could have been tougher and still passed, but changes were blocked or not insisted on.
sites that require a birthdate to enter? i always answer 1/1/1900 or whatever. i wonder what the stats are on those.
It strikes me that people on left-leaning blogs have said almost the same thing, at various points of time, about George Bush and the Iraq war, and it never quite worked out that way.
When we lost in 2004 and I heard/read people saying something along the lines of 'well, hey, at least we don't have to clean up the messes,' my reaction was largely that (a) yes we will, sooner or later, and (b) wouldn't it be better to be the party that does something than to be the party that is never able to do anything?
I always answer 12/25/0001. Many sites won't accept it. And someday they'll pay for it...
I think that in the long run Nick is right. Do the Republicans still get credit/blame for Medicare Part D?
I'd like to state for the record that after reading Roy Edroso's column about how Congress made the baby Jesus cry last night, I now miss Jon Swift more acutely than ever.
Some of you people are gluttons for punishment, what with your reading McMegan and Mitt and all. If you haven't had enough, you can tune in to that annoying BBC international talk show, which is featuring last night's vote at this very moment. I turned off the radio, but I can pretty much guarantee that they're framing their questions in the most inflammatory fashion, that they've asked luminaries of the right-wing blogosphere to appear as guests, and that none of the callers has anything original, informed or entertaining to say. Sounds like fun!
Shit, I'm going to Costa Rice next month, he better not ruin it before I get there.
Evolution of the "nuclear option":
2005- Ruling judicial filibusters out of order, using 50 votes to overcome a supermajority requirement
2009- Using reconciliation as it was intended
2010- Getting more votes than the other side
2012- Not voting for Mitt Romney
"This tyrannical act-I can't even dignify it with the term "legislation", since it's grossly unconstitutional-has been sold to the American public as a "reform" of our health care system under the guise of a complete government takeover. But that's a lie. It doesn't "reform" anything. People who have actually READ THE BILL (which includes NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF CONGRESS--they just took their orders from "Dear Leader", and voted exactly as they were commanded) can tell you this bill does one thing and only one thing: it spends over 10 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to fund an additional one million abortions every single year. Mostly poor and minority abortions, i.e. genocide. This morning, Bart Stupak knows exactly what Judas felt like after he betrayed Jesus and realized he'd sold his soul to Satan. Enjoy your 30 silver shekels, Bart."
I can't bring myself to respond to this, but there's that $10 trillion number again--does anyone know the original source?
Is anyone listening to Rush today? Has he bought his plane tickets yet?
572 - The thing is that Medicare Part D was always going to be popular. It gave up a huge bargaining chip to the pharmaceutical companies and it helped torpedo the budget, but why should senior citizens be upset about getting more cash shoveled their way? And regardless of whether it's true in general, certainly there's no way on earth that Democrats, who watched haplessly while budget reconciliation got branded "the nuclear option" and David Broder chided them for playing rough, can make people angry about process matters six years later.
OT Facebook Question: When you hide your wall and comments from people, do they still get notices in their feed that say "X wrote on Y's wall"?
Democrats can't even get people interested in the junior Senator from Nevada breaking the law in an attempt to silence his mistress's husband, and that's practically a Law and Order plot.
579- I often cause that reaction.
580- Only if the husband ended up in a Dumpster instead of being given a cushy job.
576: where did that crazy quote come from? THat's crazy even by the standards of this crazy "debate".
it spends over 10 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to fund an additional one million abortions every single year
Those are some expensive abortions.
They're providing French champagne and limo service to and from the clinics.
584: Each abortion will be performed with an especially-desecrated dagger, or athame, which ensures each unborn soul goes straight to hell. It's worth the extra expense.
Oops, sorry, I was misinformed. They're completely overhauling the public transportation system in the U.S., so that people can get to the clinics more easily. Socialism FTW!!!
there's that $10 trillion number again--does anyone know the original source?
I bet it's as simple as $1 trillion x the ten year period that the cost estimate covers.
That includes Amtrak, since, you know, lots of people would have to travel quite a distance to get to an abortion provider.
585, 586: You're thinking small. SDI technology will be used to laser-abort babies from low Earth orbit.
That includes Amtrak, since, you know, lots of people would have to travel quite a distance to get to an abortion provider
Not anymore! All the churches are being converted to abortion clinics! It's right there in the bill!
"it spends over 10 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to fund an additional one million abortions every single year."
Is that 10T/year to fund 1M/year (cost of 10M/abortion?) Or is it 10T/10 years to fund 1M/year (for the bargain price of only 1M/abortion)? Maybe it has to do with all those requirements for multiple 3D ultrasounds and composition of a poem written about the unborn child's hopes and dreams before they allow an abortion (professional poets ain't cheap.)
an especially-desecrated dagger, or athame, which ensures each unborn soul goes straight to hell
I thought the added cost was for the spaceship that would take each aborted embryo/fetus to heaven, a concession demanded by the Stupak crowd.
professional poets ain't cheap
As an underemployed humanities PhD, I was quite gratified to receive my call to service first thing this morning. I'll try my best to live up to the great honor. (And hope they don't notice if I gank some lines from Eichendorff.)
593 is a keeper.
My country lawyer friend says that he "mourns" this as deeply as he did 9/11 because it's "another $2.5 trillion entitlement" which is as nonsensical as I could ever ask. I think at this point it's safe to assume that numbers are simply being made up and spat out by talking heads in conservative media. I am reminded by them - not for the first time - of early on in DragonBall Z when various Saiyans would say of another and absent context, "He's at power level one million!"
593: Shit, that's funny.
596: Really? That makes me hate Stupak even more.
professional poets ain't cheap
Maybe the market is different in SPville, but most professional poets around here would be willing to work for food.
Creatures of a day! What is a man?
What is he not? A dream of a shadow
Is our mortal being.
Let's not forget the abortion providers, who will live in mansions of pure gold atop mountains of precious gemstones.
I think at this point it's safe to assume that numbers are simply being made up and spat out by talking heads in conservative media
My mind was run amok when, on a daily show episode, a clip of Glenn Beck was shown in which he asked offhandedly, "why do you think there are so many Maoists hanging around the White House?".
You know what I think it is? I think the former writers of the Weekly World News have turned to evil.
602: A miserable little pile of secrets.
his coffee machine which was installed in the wall of his kitchen, for which there was a four-hour repair SLA. If it broke, the manufacturers sent two repairpersons, in a van, to his house, with a coffee machine in their van, and when they rang the doorbell one of them would be holding a cup of coffee at the ready for immediate consumption by the poor, blighted owner of the broken machine.
Wowie.
601: Food? Around here all you have do is pretend to pay attention to them, and they'll write you an ode.
599: I knew a guy in college who was a leftist, but in arguments would make up facts whole-cloth. It took me a while to catch on, and I had to spend some time remembering which things I "learned" from him so that I could forget them. Now he's a low-level Republican party operative. This helped reinforce my understanding of how the world works.
Also the year of non-maternity leave women who get abortions will be granted, at 10x their salary.
But with this new federal mandate, there will be a drastic shortage of poets and long wait times. So much for your cost control, Nobama!
Some of the more sinister provisions haven't yet come to light. For instance, did you know that ACORN will be allowed to come to your house and feed your dog genetically modifed arugula—which makes your dog into a gaylord? FACT.
602: "Our mortal being" for ἄνθρωπος? Ew.
610 doesn't even rhyme, nosflow. You haven't earned this sandwich.
616: We can't. HCR has banned Wikipedia.
618: For fun, profit and free hip replacements.
You know what I think it is? I think the former writers of the Weekly World News have turned to evil.
Tangentially, I am sad to report that the comic book reincarnation of WWN is dreadfully bad.
613: This one seems more appropriate for aborting the child you desperately want, but are being forced by HCR to give up.
You can't help but love the jackets, anyhow.
616: I expected more from you, in this, The Dictatorship of the Underemployed Humanities PhDs.
623: Certainly the gun stuck in my back by my local ACORN rep encourages me to say so.
So what's actually going to happen with the exchanges, does anyone know? State or Federal?
Maybe the market is different in SPville, but most professional poets around here would be willing to work for food.
"Will rhapsodize for simple grains and preserves."
Σταράκι μου καθαριστὸ κι ἀγουροθερισμένο, ποὺ σ' ἀγουροθερίσανε τοῦ Χάρου οἰ θεριστάδες.
"My little ear of wheat, winnowed and reaped unripe by the Death Panels of Obama."
(And hope they don't notice if I gank some lines from Eichendorff.)
For that money, they could fly in Ian Bostridge and Mitsuko Uchida to perform a program of Schubert's Eichendorff lieder at your side while you're in the stirrups.
You're only allowed to request Thomas Quasthoff if you're aborting for reasons of fetal anomaly.
628: OMG, clitoridectomies too!
Here's a nice tidbit from conservative intellectual VD Hanson.
Lugete, o Veneres Cupidinesque,
et quantum est hominum venustiorum:
infans mortuus est meae puellae,
infans, deliciae meae puellae,
quem plus illa oculis suis amabat.
So is 633. I think we should print the whole thread out and mail it to VDH.
I think I know a couple of people who know VDH.
630 is indeed awesome.
632: Holy shit, did you see the ad on that page urging people to give Pelosi a birthday present she'd never forget? Oh, of course "Birthday Bomb!" means early retirement. I couldn't imagine anyone thinking it might suggest something else.
I don't know why I stopped there. "nec sese a gremio illius movebat" takes on a new poignancy in this context.
One of VDH's commenters joins the rhyming fun:
Now Obama is hot on taking over health care
He's made it his personal affair
Lab rats and body parts you will all be
As he goose-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
'Cause you see, anything that brings more glory and power to me, you must all just grin and bare
639: Bad poetry is a human right, but some people take unreasonable advantage.
||
This is interesting news. Why would the Chamber of Commerce support American workers over low-priced foreign workers? What's in it for them?
This seems like a surprise.
|>
519: Try "The Night Chicago Died."
Oh, of course "Birthday Bomb!" means early retirement. I couldn't imagine anyone thinking it might suggest something else.
It couldn't mean a real bomb, because then how would she remember the gift?
Anyway, FDR was, of course, the least popular president in history. Without the nuclear option, he would never have been elected.
Without the nuclear option, he would never have been elected.
You liberals always get your history mixed up. It was Truman who exercised the nuclear option.
Apparently "Baby Killer!" dude was Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer. Represents Lubbock and other parts of west Texas. Say he was talking about the *bill*, not Stupak.
When benighted congressmen collide!
I'm always amazed more of you don't combust, or go around twatting people. That kind of level of stupidity must take Olympian self-control to get over.
I think ttaM finally understands what it means to be an American.
649: Yeah, I found that disturbing. You mean that if you are British, you're not surrounded by self-confident, yet misinformed idiots? How is that possible?
639 doesn't scan.
Thank goodness. Whenever we have one of those limerick threads, I think in limericks for the rest of the day.
If six thirty-nine doesn't scan,
And fixing it's not in the plan,
Megan will sigh,
And say to you "I
Always end up thinking in limericks for the rest of the day when we have one of those limerick threads; really, I think they, not analogies, should be the subject of a blanket ban."
ACORN Folds As National Organization
I can only hope that James O'Keefe someday reaps the karma he sows.
McCain: Don't expect GOP cooperation on legislation for the rest of this year
Did someone link to this already? I can't remember. Regardless, it's making me laugh.
Come on, we all know they're just disguising themselves as census workers.
http://www.aticketforrush.com/
My yoga teacher just got hired to work for the census. She's not only into that hippie shit (being a yoga teacher and all), she's also black. Connect the dots, people.
660: Official clipboard-wielding counters do yoga? Mircea Eliade must be spinning in his grave.
I learned some interesting (nerdy interesting, not ha ha interesting) things about the census on the Daily Show.
Mircea Eliade sucks. Not on topic, and I don't even remember why I think that, but I expect this will be the very last time I get to share my opinion on the subject, until I die, go to hell, and end up in the same cell as the fucker.
Mircea Eliade sucks. Not on topic, and I don't even remember why I think that, but I expect this will be the very last time I get to share my opinion on the subject, until I die, go to hell, and end up in the same cell as the fucker.
And then you'll find out if he really does suck.
Now you just have to wait for death to overtake you, Walt.
The first thing I think of now when I think of Eliade is Culianu and the Div School bathroom of death.
637 is pretty deeply bothersome.
660 cracked me up.
657 reminds me that last night, after the vote, I turned to a friend of ours who had come over to watch and said, "If I were Nancy Pelosi, I'd walk right up to Boehner and say, 'When you folks want in on something, let me know. Until then your attendance is no longer mandatory.'"
The comment linked in 666 belongs in the Mineshaft Hall of Fame.
There was a young comment'r named Megan
Who hated limericks as much as she did Reagan
She'd fret on evaporative loss
But then burning couches she'd toss
Oh, that unpredictable young comment'r named Megan
Really? Y'all feel like today is the day you want to start a limerick fight with me? What, you have health care now, so you don't care how messed up you get?
637: 632: Holy shit, did you see the ad on that page urging people to give Pelosi a birthday present she'd never forget?
Not so different than the current front page gop.com fundraising appeal for fuck's sake--"FIRE PELOSI" showing her against a backdrop of flame.
656: I can only hope that James O'Keefe someday reaps the karma he sows.
You might say that happened in his arrest in Landrieux's office. But I'm almost more pissed at the NY Times and other "serious" folks (including Congress of course) for letting themselves be so easily gulled.
540: That's based on a Chinese proverb, related here.
at this point it's safe to assume that numbers are simply being made up
One of the newer talking points a-net (and in the floor debate yesterday) is that the bill would create 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce it. This seems to come originally from congressional Republicans, presumably whole-cloth.
My dad was an IRS agent. He's got a pension with awesome health insurance.
677.1: still makes no damn sense the way he's using it. (I get what he was trying to say. Still!)
The first thing I think of now when I think of Eliade is Culianu and the Div School bathroom of death.
Or the Iron Guard.
680: Well, yes. Also, although it remains officially unsolved, I believe that Rumanian fascists are generally assumed to be responsible for Culianu's murder.
682: Eco's review seemed to find that persuasive and, given the amount of violence in Romania before and after the end of the Ceaucescu regime (even liberal Romanians were not as disapproving of burning gypsies' houses as one might expect), sounds plausible to me.
684: Huh! And many former Iron Guardistes lived in Chicago! Who knew?
685: I think Culianu's fiancee was a TA of mine in college, back in the early Renaissance.
There once was a lass who could bench a Mercedes.
Her cunning was known to bring water to Hades.
But she had two big guns,
So lay off the puns.
As for her name, it was Megan...laydeez.
685: Also, wasn't one of Saul Bellow's wives a Chicagoan Romanian mathematician?
There's something that always strikes me as especially sad about one's fiancé(e)s dying or being killed. I have a friend in each category, and there's something about that kind of loss that seems unbearably awful.
You guys are awesome, and I am a caricature. But thank you.
690: It's the death of a dream as well as the loss of a love.
And to cut the earnestness, 692 to 691.
Need to catch up on this thread. Lynch was the extra vote they picked up in reconciliation. Moving all student loans to direct loans is so great, a cause of celebration in itself.
I can't get enough of this stuff:
"Well surprise surprise, even supporters now agree that it is "killing babies". Now it appears that it's just a question of the number of murders. But then, it's going to be the liberals' problem to pay for this whole mess. Best of luck to you, oh, don't forget to sign up for the French lessons. Best example of what happens when socialism is the norm."
I have no idea what the first half of this is referring to, or what the last half even means. And I've got a whole stream of this babbling in my feed. It's funny--when talking about non-political subjects, these are people who seem reasonably bright.
I can't get enough of this stuff
I'm thoroughly appalled by this stuff. I just checked my facebook friends feed, and when they're not going on about Farmville and their astrology report (I've hidden those now), it's subject matter completely unrelated to health care reform, or at most, a "Yay Pelosi!" One post about "mixed feelings."
I guess I've sheltered myself from the crazies. I can't tell if this is good or bad.
This stuff is so damn complicated. I wonder whether Quicken will come up with the equivalent of a TurboTax product to help.
Best of luck to you, oh, don't forget to sign up for the French lessons. Best example of what happens when socialism is the norm.
I parse it to mean that when socialism is the norm we all get free language lessons. Hell yeah, but can I stick with Japanese instead? Can you ask that person for me?
Also, as an indicator of my continued enthusiasm for health reform...
Kobe Kobe Kobe Kobe Kobe Kobe KOBE!
Catching up on the thread:
565 is wonderful. Thank you so much for the laugh, Robust.
Who still refers to countries as ladies...laydeez?
Growing up, I thought it was a charming anachronism in books. As an adult, its real-life usage has proven to be a nearly-100%-accurate predictor of someone whose politics I do not share. (Sometimes in the mild sense, sometimes severe.)
Moving all student loans to direct loans is so great, a cause of celebration in itself.oving all student loans to direct loans is so great, a cause of celebration in itself.
Bg, can you or someone explain to me a in a few sentences (or send me a link) what this part of the bill means? A friend has appealed to me for help responding to talking points that it will do away with 41,000 jobs, and I admit to not having followed the discussion at all, except to understand the Pell grants will now apparently be funded at a predictable level each year, instead of seesawing.
Whoa, it's thundering. I guess it's spring for real.
Student loans are guaranteed by the government, so they are as riskless to the lender as government debt. The lenders of course charge students a higher rate than that, which is pure profit subsidized by the government. This is pure corporate welfare.
The bill moves to the government directly lending to students, which saves money by cutting out the middle man. So if your job as a banker is sitting on your ass and cashing risk-free checks thanks to the government, then sure, you might be out of that job.
Though the limericks had barely begun,
With scarcely a quip or a pun,
Megan's thoughts were now crossed,
Her focus was lost,
And she couldn't produce any M-Fun.
702: so is the government going to start making the profits that were formerly enjoyed by the private lenders, or are student loan rates going down?
So if your job as a banker is sitting on your ass and cashing risk-free checks thanks to the government, then sure, you might be out of that job.
More likely, if your job is to work for Sallie Mae selling or creating or marketing or trying to collect on student loans. Getting rid of this unnecessary middleman is bad news for employment in my hometown. Here's some of the jobs that will no longer be needed.
Employees wore T-shirts reading "Protect Pennsylvania jobs" and held signs with various messages, including "My job is worth saving!" and "My family needs you!"
The second sign is correct but I don't know about the first.
Thanks, Walt. So the grain of truth is that with the middleman-lenders cut out, there probably will be fewer jobs in those fields?
And do you know why it was set up that way in the first place? I mean, why not just make it a government loan to begin with? Why did we ever have middlemen?
(Can you tell I was a commuter student who paid for my education course by course?)
705 to 706. As for the number 41,000 I assume someone made it up.
And do you know why it was set up that way in the first place? I mean, why not just make it a government loan to begin with? Why did we ever have middlemen?
Because this is America.
There will certainly be jobs lost, which is why Ben Nelson (D- Sallie Mae) is voting against the reconciliation bill, even though he has already renounced the Cornhusker Kickback. However, the feds will have to hire for offsetting lending infrastructure.
I assume it was set up that way because the lenders argued that that effective lending isn't possible without expert private-sector underwriting. Of course, if your loans are 100% guaranteed, you don't have to do underwriting anyway, and in any event it's pretty clear from the mortgage debacle what private-sector underwriting is worth.
709 is right.
I was expecting the Republicanesque Democrat Chris Carney and/or the 150-term, lazy but lovable Democrat Paul Kanjorski to vote for the Senate bill but not the reconciliation thing for this reason. But it seems like neither of them switched like that. Sources credit "a nice, long conversation" for Kanjorski's mollification.
Has this bit of craziness been linked? Congresswoman gets her office window smashed after voting yes last nite.
Right now I'm in a hotel room listening to a really clear news show in Spanish that is explaining the health care bill's provisions and when they take effect, without any annoying bloviating. It's remarkable. Should I be watching the news in Spanish all the time?
Can't find the link now, but there was a study of LA news broadcasts demonstrating that the noticias en Español had vastly more public affairs coverage than the police-pursuit stations I mean English language.
Univision? Because I'm guessing you are on your New Mexico trip.
Univision, yes, but I am still on the east coast for the next few weeks. (Then I craziness begins, and I'll be home something like ten days out of the two months after that.)
You're always at home on Unfogged, essear.
There was just an ad on TV for a chiropractor. Phone number: 1-888-ME-DUELE. Brilliant.
Does the loan bill mean anything for those applying for Stafford loans in the next two years?
Does anyone know if US citizens living and working in a foreign country will have to pay the insurance mandate? And does that start before 2013?
I think that the student loan savings will not go to lower interest rates but to higher Pell grants.
My dream is to get rid of the stupid Perkins loans which are administered and collected by each school. They are much less honest than the Federal government in this area.
Has anyone linked Berube's ode?
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1415/
715: It's weird: I remember watching "Primer Impacto" back in the early/mid 1990s, when it was clear that the words "Si sangra, lleva" must have been engraved in the marble above the entrance to their newsroom. But I watched some a couple of nights ago and, with the exception of a piece that seemed to be about a woman in Cali, Colombia who came back from the dead after she had been transferred to a hospital morgue (I think -- I don't actually speak Spanish), it was all very serious, in-depth reporting on HCR and other issues of the day.
Also, our local Univision affiliate has little interstitial station IDs that refer to our fair city as "Latinopolis", which tickles me pink. The local wingnuts don't seem to have twigged to it yet, which shows you just how segregated local wingnuttery is.
The Senate just passed a financial reform bill out of committee, so it looks like the next move for Democrats is going to be in that direction. Well worth doing, and something that may help in the elections.
It occurs to me that perhaps an immigration fix might be smarter from the standpoint of electoral maneuvering. It would crank the teabagger crazy all the way to eleven, but they are (1) going to turn out for the GOP in droves anyway, and (2) will never vote for a Democrat. No loss there, then. The sight of spittle-flecked nativists screaming and ranting about those people might suppress some of the moderate Republican vote, and would most certainly turn out large numbers of Hispanics for the Democrats.
Weird. So I guess yesterday in a speech on health care, the president said something like, "Your employer's premium will go down as much as 3000% and they can use that money to give you a raise." Now, because I am not a complete moron, I realize that the man must mean "$3000." But apparently this is something that rocketed through tout wingnuttia and then was barfed into my FB feed. They seemed to think that this was an outlandish promise, rather than a mistake, because they didn't understand that lowering a premium 3000% wasn't going to make one's premium $36 or something.
Does anybody have a decent summary of what hurdles are in the way of repealing the Hyde Amendment?
732: I think it gets renewed every year by being tacked on to an appropriations bill. Which you'd think would make it easy to kill, but of course that hasn't happened in 30+ years.
732: Evil assholes who hate women. There are a lot of them, and they vote. An attempt to repeal Hyde would guarantee a filibuster, and the Blue Dogs would support it.
It's sufficiently popular among the anti-choicers and insufficiently unpopular among pro-choicers that I don't think there is any chance of repeal short of a shift in the zeitgeist.
If 734 is correct then a fix in reconciliation might be possible, but there's still the Blue Dogs to contend with.
733: But in Obamica all things are possible.
He had knee surgery in 2008 and has used crutches and an electric scooter fairly often since.
I have two in-laws who have had knee replacement surgery in that same time period and they're getting around okay now, so I don't know what the difference is. Dingell's about 10 years older than my comparators and he's had a hip replacement to boot (though those are generally much easier recoveries than knees), so maybe that contributes.
Aw, the 11yo boy who was ripped apart and mocked on every bigoted teabagger website -- M/chelle M@lkin really is a hateful piece of shit -- is in the East Room with the prez, etc. right now.
"President Obama will reportedly use 20 pens to sign the health care bill, more than usual. The pens will be given out as keepsakes."
I'm curious how this works, exactly. Is it like signing a mortgage, where there are seventy-bajillion places to sign, or is he going to use a new pen for each letter? "Barack Hussein Obama" only has 18 letters, but "President Barack Obama" has exactly 20. Of course, so does Der Führer Adolf Hitler.
Crazy lefty president. Of course he's the anti-Christ.
is he going to use a new pen for each letter?
Seems doubtful--I just tried this, and my signature didn't come out looking much like my signature at all. (It's possible that means I'm just not presidential material, I suppose.)
"Barack Hussein Obama" only has 18 letters
Maybe he'll use a different pen for the heart over the i, and another for the smiley face in the O.
He seemed to use a new pen for each letter. But of course he talked about "practicing" first.
746: and my signature didn't come out looking much like my signature at all.
Don't do it Obama! Your signature provides 1/3 of legitimacy of the total legitimacy of the bill. (On preview, too late!)
He seemed to use a new pen for each letter.
Yes, I believe this is the norm for when presidents sign bills into law. It's weird!
"Barack Hussein Obama" only has 18 letters
675, how disappointing is that? Ronald Thomas Reagan has it on him in spades.
Ronald Wilson Reagan. ... Where is my mind?
Crazy lefty president
Five of the last seven presidents have been lefties (Ford, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and Obama). Also Al Gore, John McCain, and John Edwards.
It's a good thing I'm unlikely ever to be president. My standard 16-character signature has been reduced to something like four sloppy strokes.
S2Pac.
Inspired by Knecht upthread and executed by my daughter. But I did not pass on Knecht's better idea of doing the cover of All Eyez On Me. Still I like it (a more subtle treatment than I imagined, but it has grown on me). Soundtrack.
Ronald Wilson Reagan. ... Where is my mind?
Way out in the water. See it swimming?
I can't get enough of this stuff:
Then Reclaim America is what you're looking for. It's a bottomless well of fear, craziness, and bad spelling.
So, out of curiosity, does anybody have a link to an authoritative statement about what effect the abortion language will have on insurance coverage of abortion?
I'm inclined to believe Knecht's optimism in 36, but it would be nice to have some confirmation of that. I definitely believe that the Executive order merely ratifies the existing language in the Senate bill, but I'm not sure if that, by itself, will lead to fewer insurance plans covering abortion.
758: Thisis semi-helpful, even if it is from Slate.
758:People have different concepts of "authoritative" especially with legal language that lives to be interpreted. Natasha Chart
- The Nelson abortion provision in the Senate bill isn't status quo, goes beyond Hyde, and is very likely to end most abortion coverage in a few years, when at present, the vast majority of private plans cover it.- The reason why the Nelson language is indeed such a big deal is that, like the Stupak language, any federal money is assumed to taint the entire plan, requiring that separate checks be written for abortion riders on plans that have even a single enrollee getting federal subsidies to purchase insurance. It's expensive to insurance companies in administrative costs and stigmatizing to individuals.
The difference between Hyde and Nelson is the difference between restricting federal funding and restricting private insurance companies. The exchanges being where the two will merge.
The reason why the Nelson language is indeed such a big deal is that, like the Stupak language
I'm curious about this. I haven't read the language in the Senate bill, but comparing the Executive order to the Stupak amendment there was a major difference between them. The stupak amendment excplicitly said that federal money could not be used to pay for a plan that included abortion coverage even "in part" and that was conspicuously missing from the executive order.
I don't know what precedent holds here, but to my reading there was nothing in the order that said "any federal money is assumed to taint the entire plan" whereas the original Stupak language did make that clear.
Doing a bit of looking around, didn't the Nelson Amendment fail (45-54)?
Okay, I see, the language was added in as a compromise and the Washington Post seems to disagree with Knecht back in #36
Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks -- one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.
Five of the last seven presidents have been lefties (Ford, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and Obama). Also Al Gore, John McCain, and John Edwards.
Don't forget Ross Perot.
Damn you Brock! I'd almost managed to completely obliterate Ross Perot from my memory, and you have to go and do that!
My work blocked the link in 767 as "Pornography/Adult Content". I'd assumed that 767 was in response to 766; now I'm terrified at the prospect...
(Terrified, but yes, a little intrigued. He always was a feisty little Texan...)
My work blocked the link in 767 as "Pornography/Adult Content".
Interesting.
764 - That's the Nelson amendment, not the executive order KR was talking about in 36. That executive order was substantively meaningless, but Stupak demanded to see a hippie punched and reproductive health called out as icky.
Oh, dur. 772 withdrawn; I didn't understand the question.
At what point will opposition leaders ask their supporters to chill the fuck out? I'm guessing broken windows won't be enough to make it happen. Maybe when somebody dies? Maybe never? (I had another question, about when Godwin's Law would be fulfilled in this instance, but it was answered by the very first comment to the linked post.)
He always was a feisty little Texan...
Umm, has everyone else been masturbating erroneously to Fess Parker these last several days? Because I haven't.
At what point will opposition leaders ask their supporters to chill the fuck out?
Never. They always respond to this sort of stuff with "This is just one random person, not a representative of our morally upstanding movement."
I didn't understand the question.
I'm saying, stipulate that the Executive Order doesn't add any restrictions to the Senate bill, I still want to know what effects, if any, the Senate Bill will have on the availability insurance plans that contain abortion coverage.
Will those plans not be offered on the exchange? Will they be offered but require customers to pay with two separate checks? Will, as Knecht said, the restrictions be set up in such a way that any insurance company that wants can offer a plan that covers abortions while still satisfying the rules?
chill the fuck out?
They're chill, dude; they're all happy warriors:
"There is a God, there is good, and there will be a last day. And on that last day we will win. Victory comes though we know not when. So we must be happy warriors until the end -- warriors willing to fight with a smile and willingness to sacrifice for freedom."
What the hell is wrong with this McArdle person? Is she 100% part of the Mitch McConnell/Rush Limbaugh marketing campaign strategy now? This stuff is obvious partisan lies, unlike the merely misguided and naive business-boostering that has annoyed us before.
re: 779
There were quite a few of us who thought it was always partisan bullshit and lies, and who were amazed at the level of toleration in the past; people on both sides of the pond.
779: Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I never read her, and only did yesterday because everyone was bashing her. I had assumed that she was just a thoughtless, privileged, weak-tea libertarian, but now she seems like a hateful teabagger (her contempt for the man with parkinson's at whom the 'baggers threw money, etc.).
Well, on your side of the pond there are much fewer people who are misguided enough to truly believe Alan Greenspan-style market utopianism.
780: Well, on your side of the pond there are much fewer people who are misguided enough to truly believe Alan Greenspan-style market utopianism. If you hear someone spouting it you can be pretty sure it's a lying politician or businessman, but here the brainwashing has advanced pretty far.
re: 782
Possibly, although the fact that the people in power are prepared to talk about markets in a slightly less utopian manner, and maybe invoke the odd social democratic caveat, hasn't really stopped them being captured by exactly the same sorts of special interests, unfortunately.
I don't know why anybody ever thought McMegan was anything less than hypocritical and disingenuous. That's her special magic: she's both and oblivious, thoughtless, privileged libertarian-lite with lousy critical thinking skills and a hypocritical, water-carrying conservatarian keyboard kommando in good standing. As long as she's able to convince people that the first characterization is the only one, she's able to carry the GOP's water at a much higher level (and in much different venues) than she would otherwise.
It is a categorical mistake to think that what's driving current US conservatism is "capture by special interests." If the Republicans have shown us anything over the past year, it is that they truly believe in their own bullshit.
In general, I'd say that UK/European conservative parties are far, far more corporate dominated than the US GOP. The scary thing is that we'd probably be better off if big corporations did control the GOP.
That McMegan post doesn't make any sense. It's like she's saying "If Republicans had the majorities the democrats have, they would eliminate Social Security and Medicare, except they wouldn't because they care about being re-elected, and people like entitlement programs." And from this we are supposed to conclude that the Democrats won't be re-elected, because they created an entitlement program.
In any case, the democrats are to blame for doing something unpopular which can't be repealed because it is too popular.
If the Republicans have shown us anything over the past year, it is that they truly believe in their own bullshit.
Its true. This year all the money stayed out of the health care fight, because Obama was giving them something they wanted. No one with a financial stake in the matter opposed the bill.
787.1: I was talking to Blume about that earlier; in interesting ways, it isn't a category mistake: the lies they're peddling were initially cynical creations designed to serve special interests, but then those lies were accepted wholesale by the base, and now via some magical idiot conservative feedback, the opinion leaders actually believe the lies they initially spread cynically and disingenuously. Their actual critical thinking ability per se has been captured by special interests.
Oh, and I agree 100% with what Tweety says about McMegan, although even that fails to capture her particular brand of unbelievable obnoxiousness, which is really something to behold.
No one with a financial stake in the matter opposed the bill.
Except the doctor that is ranting on my Facebook feed about how the government is going to tax him and then give his tax money to people who will force him to see too many patients and make mistakes and get sued and lose more money.
Err, who was ranting on my Facebook feed. Safely hidden now.
789 -- It's pretty hard to sell the argument that the opposition to this particular health care bill was driven by corporate capture. The biggest political money in health care -- the doctors and Pharma -- were on board. The insurance industry was formally opposed, but their opposition was incoherent and at many times different companies were signed on to many parts of the bill. The US Chamber of Commerce (which itself is far more ideological than most US businesses) was opposed, but was hardly the driving force of the opposition, and plenty of bigger companies were between neutral and moderately favorable -- not surprising, since, in fact, many corporations benefit in substantial ways from bill.
Corporate opposition to the bill simply does not get you to 100% Republican opposition, or the kind of rhetoric Boehner used on the House floor. Large business interests stopped being central to the GOP a while ago (with the sole exception, perhaps, of the oil + gas industry); it is now, at its core, an ideological movement which sometimes has affinities with the agenda of large corporations (and sometimes not). And, not to kiss Tweety's ass, but I agree that a lot of the story is that people became true believers in an ideology that was largely created by business interests, but has now spun far out of the control of those interests.
Follow-up to 792: his "Political Views" are listed as "Liberal". Um.
789: Uh, like the Chamber of Commerce that spent something like $150 million?
795 -- The Chamber of Commerce doesn't really represent the agenda of large US corporations any more -- it's dominated by ideologically committed staff and smaller businesses. And even so, I don't think that C of C opposition was particularly important to the Republican opposition to the bill -- it certainly doesn't explain the vehemence or the unanimity.
795 continued: Or this from the Guardian in October, which says that insurance companies had spent more than $380 million.
unlike the merely misguided and naive business-boostering that has annoyed us before
I dunno. Reads to me pretty much like every other column she's written.
797 -- Don't confuse expenditure with opposition -- much, in fact, probably most, of that money went to Democrats who voted in favor of the bill, or in order to secure passage of specific amendments.
799: Well, that does indeed say that Baucus was the biggest taker.
779, 780: I was surprised by the post immediately after passage, where she lost her cool. That is out of character -- not losing her cool at all, but doing it over a policy defeat.
I'm not sure exactly why I read her. Maybe it's that, given that her schtick is purportedly evenhanded policy analysis, if there actually were a decent argument for anything the Republicans were advocating, or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there. This hasn't borne much fruit, but I'm hopeful.
Except the doctor that is ranting on my Facebook feed
I recently had dinner with a doctor friend who's the only left-leaning person in a hospital surrounded by Republican doctors. She was relaying how she had to bite her tongue all the time, including most recently when another doctor was complaining because healthcare's just not a fundamental right and they're gonna raise his taxes and give the money to people who don't deserve it and then those people won't work hard because they'll no longer have the incentive of not losing their insurance.
I'm not sure how she abides the dude.
Maybe it's that, given that her schtick is purportedly evenhanded policy analysis, if there actually were a decent argument for anything the Republicans were advocating, or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there. This hasn't borne much fruit, but I'm hopeful.
LB, have you lost your mind?
she lost her cool. That is out of character -- not losing her cool at all, but doing it over a policy defeat.
Usually, she loses her cool when someone points out to her that she is literally making up bullshit to support her entitled selfish/right wing agenda. Which happens every time someone knowledgeable reads something that she's written and bothers to tell her about it. Which is why she's always losing her cool.
Is it still unfair to mention the whole "2 X 4" thing? You know, from before she started losing her cool?
To move away from discussing McMegan, which is one of the least productive and most rage-producing activities possible, I'll note that I teared up a little at this.
(although I guess I don't really agree that all of the unfinished business is "done.")
This does not sound encouraging, though I guess at this point it would be hard for the House not to vote yes again.
803.1: Nah, she doesn't seem to be an idiot -- I figure if there were good arguments for anything she's pushing, she'd use them. She just doesn't often have anything useful to work with.
803.2: Well, yes. She reacted to the health care vote as if someone were being mean to her personally, which is out of character.
804: That was nasty, but it was flippant nastiness, if you see the distinction. Compatible with not having lost one's cool.
It equals 8, neb. Pretty remedial stuff, really.
808: Way back in the prehistory of the blogosphere
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/003959.html
I'm pretty sure the way it works is 21x22 = (2x2)1x2 = 16, Stanners.
810: what a shit. I can't believe I was at a party with her and no one demonstrated the power of violence applied in a preemptive manner. (Surely the linked post would adequately demonstrate the justification for any such.)
dsquared! John Cole complaining about the "pathetic punks" who don't support the invasion!
812: I'm impressed that you missed the references later made to that post, followed by the general agreement that it is somewhat unfair to keep bringing it up which, I must admit, it is (hence my reference to unfairness in 804) given it was quite a while ago and she later recanted. I think I only learned about all of this from reading threads on this blog.
I do my best to not be an expert on McMegan, but I thought normally when she loses her cool she acts all hurt about someone being mean to her for being an ignorant idiot. This time was unusual for her waxing apocalyptic. It's closer to the 2x4 post than her usual lofty libertarian bullshit.
I think the whole freak-out (McMegan's post just being an example) is like the reaction of an abuser when the abused tries to stand up for themselves. The abuser feels so entitled to the acquiescence of the abused that they they can't cope. (That's the only way I can interpret outbursts like McCain's about no longer cooperating.) The Democrats role in recent American politics is hapless, though perhaps principled, losers. The fact that the Democrats managed to execute politically, even in a small way, has violated the rules.
806: It sounds like it was just a warning about a possible worst case, not a prediction. Kent Conrad predicts there will be no changes.
Ah, 2003. A seller's market for Internet-tough-guy-ism.
I dunno. Reads to me pretty much like every other column she's written.
It looks to me like it's intended for a stupider audience than usual. You know, like Jonah Goldberg's stuff.
815: This is too close to Josh's "bitchslap theory" for my tastes, though I don't doubt that there's something to what you're saying. I also think that Republicans (and their ilk) have bought into their ideology as a kind of stand-in for a better reality (which I think is what Tweety was saying above). And the existence of opposing public opinion, brought into being in the form of an elected president like Obama or the current congressional majorities, thus makes them crazy. Because the public just doesn't understand how right the Republicans are, you see, how their policies will unleash the nation's energies by unfettering the market or whatever. Which is why at the moment we're hearing so much talk of a tyrannical majority. (This is especially true for McCain, who obviously still can't believe that someone like Obama beat him. But it's also true, and maybe even truer I'm afraid, for people of the left, including me, who fall into Pauline Kael solipsism all too often. How come the masses don't understand how right we are? That kind of thing.)
Furthermore, I think Republicans genuinely feel like they win many fewer victories than they should -- because the media is stacked against them, because FDR was such a meanie and created so many hurdles to a just world, etc. -- and the passage of HCR thus feels like an incredibly huge reversal for them. Which it is! Which is why I've been so surprised by the vehemence of the opposition to HCR on the Democratic side. Not that I want to re-fight that fight.
As for McMegan, it boggles my mind that anyone with half a brain reads her (no offense, LB). She's apparently either incredibly stupid, incredibly hateful, incredibly ignorant, or some combination of all of the above with a healthy dose of smug privilege baked into the cake, such that her opinions are valueless. But then again, I feel the same way about nearly everyone who reads, writes, or comments on the news*. The artist formerly known as baa, of all people, made me feel better about this state of affairs when he reminded me that newspapers, magazines, and television stations are for-profit ventures, and that their employees should be understood in that light: as sophisticated hucksters, talented entertainers, or loyal shills.
* Meaning newsreaders on tv, print journalists, and pundits/editorial writers, in case that wasn't clear.
The scary thing is that we'd probably be better off if big corporations did control the GOP.
You're right, of course. I'd be less frightened if it was clear that GE was in charge, rather than the current Batshit-Oil-Mercenaries coalition. To McManus-out for a moment, Hugenberg's DNVP was the party of big business, Hitler's NSDAP was the party of ideological nutters and Prussian dukes. And when the time came, Hitler used the DNVP for a good month or two before he could shove it into the ditch and rule alone. Big business had to either arrange itself with him, or get expropriated (as happened to Herr Dr. Junkers) and possibly shot.
Lesson - beat the ideological nutters.
819: The bitchslap theory implies intent. The reaction has been so hysterical that they sound like they really believe that the Democrats ordinary politicking is shocking. Even some of the Villager reactions fit that. The Democrats' role is to hapless, and they transgressed that.
The artist formerly known as baa
Is he about under another name? Or is this just cleverness of some sort?
Observe! The Bandarlog exists yet!
She's apparently either incredibly stupid, incredibly hateful, incredibly ignorant, or some combination of all of the above with a healthy dose of smug privilege baked into the cake, such that her opinions are valueless.
It's the political centrifuge - as with Iraq, it's not obvious who's an idiot or a monster until you crank them up to 10 million revs and see which ones float over the rim first. This has been a clarity moment.
819: That kind of thing
Have I mentioned the clerk at my local convenience store before? He's an overweight, dreadlocked, African-American guy in his late-20s/early-30s who works at a very down-market independent convenience store in a working-class neighborhood. Clearly, there is pretty much no Republican policy that would benefit him in any meaningful, material way. And yet every time I go in there he's listening to Jason Lewis or some similar talk-radio bullshit. Why? Apparently, according to one of my informants, he's a confirmed male chauvinist, which (despite the fact that, by his own admission, it has not measurably improved his love life) apparently means that he's willing to countenance every other piece of conservative nonsense propaganda, as long as he is confirmed in his view that women should be at home, barefoot and pregnant, and men should be at work or out having fun with their buddies. Bizarre, but there you have it. I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to suggest that most of their success is due to the fact that the Republicans have used this principle to effectively lock in many of their constituencies. Poor white racists will support tax breaks for big business as long as they can be assured that Black people and immigrants won't get full civil rights. Christian white women in the suburbs will oppose the ERA or better school funding or healthcare because those evil Democrats want to murder all the poor little unborn babies. That's just how the world works right now. Unfortunate, but what are you going to do? Go to a demonstration? Hah! A lot of good that will do you!
Mary Landrieu, giving McCain a spanking!
Andrew Samwick has been one of the good conservative commenters on this, had a particularly good comment today:
The third [conservative] complaint is the most legitimate of the three, that we have created a new entitlement with dubious financing and greater government involvement in the provision of health care. This is more true than I would like it to be, but given what Republicans passed with Medicare Part D, they have surrendered the fiscally responsible high ground. And, more importantly, they surrendered the political high ground when they failed to propose a coherent alternative that addressed the critical problems of pre-existing conditions in health insurance markets. It was a mystery to me that no Republican stepped up with a sensible alternative that addressed the structural problems without committing to such a large federal government role in the conduct and financing of health care markets. That was the fight they should have had. To say that they lost would not be right. They simply didn't show up.
or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there.
What am I to say to someone who reads McArdle for "decent arguments against the Democrats?"
There is the alternative of Richard Estes and the Marxian Left to read. There are the Post-Keynesians, who are livid, but cautiously polite.
Now what is the difference between informing your analysis of Democrats by reading McArdle and watching Palin and listening to Republicans...and coming at Democrats from the far left?
Incidentally, Estes and the Marxists do read FDL. but consider the FDL crowd somewhat compromised by their need to remain emotionally and philosophically within the Democratic establishment. This is what I mean by the need for "Correct Theory."
But I have not read McArdle for at least 5 years. I pay no attention to Republicans.
I pay no attention to Republicans.
And when you agree with them, it's entirely by accident.
I found it disturbing to watch Bush (Tungsten) to go from seeming like he was doing things "just to get elected" to not giving a shit about approval ratings or any other measure of public opinion. I know it's usually a form of criticism to accuse a politician of doing something "just to get elected" but sometimes that motivation will lead to better outcomes than sticking to principles ideology.
or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there.
There are all sorts of decent arguments against lots and lots of things the Democrats want. But they tend to come from the left, not the right.
But I applaud you. I read Megan (as Jane Galt) for a long time, but eventually just couldn't take it anymore. I'm amazed sometimes at the degree to which the availability of an endless stream of high-quality political discussion and analysis in the blogosphere has made me dramatically less willing to waste my time with stupidity. I used to deliberately read reams of right-wing material, with the hope of finding some golden nugget of truth I'd otherwise have missed. (My tolerance was so high at one point that I even used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy every day on the radio.) But now it just feels like a colossal waste of time--there's much more interesting and more informative things I could be reading instead. (Yes, that was always true, I know, but they weren't always at my fingertips.)
pwned by mcmanus... not sure that's ever happened to me before.
I think 825 is almost entirely true. My only minor quibble is that it seems to suggest that there was a time, perhaps before time, when this wasn't the way things worked in this country. If so, I'm not sure when that time was.
831:Lesson - beat the ideological nutters.
Anybody reading Yglesias today?
Modern American Politics keeps improving my understanding of Weimar.
The "Real Conservatives", oh, like DeMaistre or Kirk, were deeply profoundly suspicious of business, or big business.
It's classical liberals and modern liberals, who used to exist on both sides, who think they get in bed with Capital and stay on top. It is a methodological and ideological arrogance. They think they can control anything.
The ideological nutters:MY, Josh, Ezra, CT Crowd, etc.
Liberalism isn't fascism, but everyday I believe more and more that it, not conservatism, is what creates the preconditions opens the door. for fascism.
Oh 833 probably sucks as Socialism, is not Right Theory.
Marxist response to parliamentarianism and reformism has always been really complicated. SWP in England just split over it.
It could be that Conservatism and Socialism are dialectical in a way that liberalism and socialism cannot be.
Oh, never mind.
It's classical liberals and modern liberals, who used to exist on both sides, who think they get in bed with Capital and stay on top. It is a methodological and ideological arrogance. They think they can control anything.
I think there's a lot of truth in this as well. I'm not a particularly well-trained intellectual historian, but I sometimes think that the rise of a middle class hinged on an expanding and entirely illusory sense of the possibility of control. Then again, that's probably pure bullshit.
I feel the need to say that I read a lot more criticizing Democrats from the left than from the right -- McMegan's the token rightwinger that I figure will tip me off if there's anything interesting going on over there.
Too late! You've been unmasked as a Bootlicker of the British!
Bob -- you should read Patrick Joyce: really interesting work in British labour history, with some attention to the emergence of the modern liberal state and etc.
Marriage between iron and rye violates nature.
Coburn amendment: no public funds may be used to provide viagra to rapists or child molestors, through the Exchanges or other public programs. Let's see Democrats vote against that!
This is going to be Tom Coburn's finest hour on amendments.
Here is what I just posted at Yggles, who just doesn't inderstand the core essential difference between Obamacare and European systems. Or maybe the fucker does.
"I think it's fair to say this bill enshrines American healthcare as a mandatory component of the social contract."
No what it does is make Wellpoint and private insurance "too big to fail."
It does this in two ways:by making private insurance very large, concentrated and powerful so as to be financially essential to the US economy and b) by making ever American completely dependent on private insurance, or will when Yglesias and Obama get their hands on all the other healthcare programs.
The point of making Wellpoint TBTF is the same as the point of making Goldman-Sachs TBTF:when the money gets tight, G-S and Wellpoint will always be the first ones paid.
Thus we had a depression, the banks got trillions, and we have to live with double-digit unemployment because we can't afford a real jobs programs. HCR was another move in creating a heirarchy of who has first claims on American resources"
And maybe when the real fiscal crunch comes, everyone will have healthcare, but no job. But I don't think that's the plan.
And that will be my trolling for the day.
835: wasn't something close to that Zinn's central thesis?
I sometimes think that the rise of a middle class hinged on an expanding and entirely illusory sense of the possibility of control.
yes, but surely not entirely illusory -- didn't the rise of the middle class also coincide with a massive rationalization and regimentation of daily life?
840:Fuck, we have a month of beautiful days in Dallas.
Too bad I have a lot of yard work, housecleaning and repair...and a dog that is still a little lame. The male is inseparable from his sister. Maybe I will just sit at the edge of the woods.
844:Hell, another comment at Yglesias
110:"1) Because a "welfare state" ensures the welfare of the state. This is actually quite simple."
"War is the health of the state." The "welfare state", going back to Bismarck, is a war machine.
I'll be honest, an awful lot of Europe contradicts this since WWII, politically liberal, semi-socialist, and not war machines...all at least in degree. I'm missing something.
848: Liberty University produces some high quality graduates.
"I was a journalism major in college, so I have every reason to believe my research is accurate."
What?
848: that's disturbing, as is all the inflammatory rhetoric we've been hearing recently from the right. Of course it's fringe-thinking even by the standards of the right-wing, but it honestly doesn't take that many well-organized (and armed!) idiots to cause real trouble.
Of course this is strongly reminiscent of the "militia" movements that sprung up in response to Clinton's tyranny in the 1990s. As a percentage of the population, I'm not sure the extremists are more numerous now than they were then. But it's alarming how much more attention--and legitimacy--they're given by the media (and by establishment Republicans) now than they were then.
850: I was a philosophy major in college, and so I have every reason to believe I am Diotima.
You weren't a philosophy major either.
853: Was too! Or rather, as it says on our transcripts that, worked out by credit, we have (I think) a double major in philosophy and comp lit with minors in history of science and classics. Or something.
Well this Senate debate should be a hoot.
I bet that the use of "sooner rather than later" will decline sooner rather than later. The reason is because it takes too long to type and it's not an inherently interesting phrase.
I bet that I should have put that comment in the correct thread, but I won't now.
Speaking of health, I recently bought some frozen (pre-cooked) chicken at the grocery store and then today realized that the sell-by date was last October. Should I be concerned? I haven't eaten any, but I'm reluctant both to eat it and to throw it out.
(Someone other than Brock please answer.)
I haven't eaten any, but I'm reluctant both to eat it and to throw it out.
Yes, I would advise choosing one or the other.
I bet that I should have put that comment in the correct thread, but I won't now.
I imagine nosflow will get around to reading it…
Expiration date aside, the fact that something was evidently on the shelves (or in the storeroom) so long implies most people don't like it. I should have gone for the kind I usually buy, but this was half the price. Stupid penny-pinching.
858: I wouldn't eat it. Unless you bought it prior to last October -- definitions of "recently" differ -- and have yourself kept it frozen since then.
Here is what I just posted at Yggles
bob, that Yglesias post struck me as incomprehensibly naive - rather like the Ezra post about the neutralization of the special interests that Yglesias rightly mocked.
Next up: Yglesias declares the End of History.
You should send it to Brock Landers, clearly.
855- It's too bad this is the Senate because in the House I could see some members presenting statistics on how many Republicans would lose their Viagra coverage.
Maybe I'll do that. Once the weather warms.
867 to whatever is more amusing.
I'm reluctant both to eat it and to throw it out.
??! Why not take it back to the store and get a refund?
(And while you're there, check to see if they are selling a lot of out-of-date products or if it was just a one-off, so you can let the good folks at the health dept. know.)
/brought to you by the person who, admittedly, is an outlier on the public-duty-to-report spectrum
748 et al.- If you look at the signature you can mostly see where he switched pens. He obviously used at least two on just the O, causing a break in the circle, which I believe makes the entire law invalid according to the Constitution.
869: You've convinced me not to eat it, but I'm unlikely to go back to complain. As for my reluctance, my family tends to be more on the Brock side of things. At least, I check expiration dates much more than they do and they have frowned on my tossing things out in the past.
The people who thought they could control Hitler were not "liberal" in any sense of the word, nor were they "centrists" even though there was a party called that - Hugenberg and friends were the original supporters of Carl Schmitt, radical rightwing "New Conservatives" who wanted to replace the liberal republic with an authoritarian state, and the Zentrum was the lobby for political Catholicism - i.e. a party explicitly dedicated to opposing liberalism, founded in the values of the Counter-Enlightenment. This is really ridiculously counterfactual.
873. Whereas the FDL coterie and our own dear Bob appear to be operating entirely in the headspace of the Comintern of the 3rd period: "Let the Nazis come to power, and let them fail. Our turn will be next."
In the case of such as Hamsher, it's quite a trick to do this without being some sort of Maoist at the same time.
Going forward, would it be possible, assuming Democratic majorities and a Dem president, to pass a public option through reconciliation and/or expanding an option to buy into Medicare at age 55?
And how long would it take for larger employers to go into the exchange and to allow individuals with large employer plans to take their contributions and go to the exchange?
Does this law require ERISA plans to provide mental health coverage?
875: I think you need this link. As far as I can tell, the provisions on bears can be altered in reconciliation, but not the ones on Satanism, as unlike bears, it costs nothing to worship the Devil.
Modern liberalism has of course written and and rewritten the History of Weimar (as a project of self absolving, the consequences were so dire) until the Truth, as opposed to the "Facts," can be very difficult to determine. One can be so very easily misled by following the superficial political maneuverings and we are better served by immersion in the deeper cultural trends, especially of the intelligentsia, but never excluding the petty bourgeois mass consumption culture. Architecture and film are important. And display windows.
Bourgois Right, Bourgeois Left, Zentrum, Catholics, Social Democrats...the deliberately confusing cloud of identity and tribal politics was not invented in the 1980s.
Trying to understand Weimar by looking at its conservative enemies is exactly the same, by no means coincidentally, as letting Obama be defined by the Teabaggers. "Rush hates him, Obama must be a good liberal."
/taking the piss
it costs nothing to worship the Devil.
OH I BEG TO DIFFER
One can be so very easily misled by following the superficial political maneuverings and we are better served by immersion in the deeper cultural trends, especially of the intelligentsia, but never excluding the petty bourgeois mass consumption culture. Architecture and film are important. And display windows.
I'm going to tack this onto the end of every statement I make about politics. Because if everything I saw is unfalsifiable, then I'll be right all the time.
Saw/see, of course. I wonder what that's a Freudian slip for.
It's a political seesaw, Alex. Bob did say he was taking the piss.
Chris Muir teasing out the subtle racial humor in the HCR debate.
880: You could also be wrong all the time. It is the road less traveled, and therefore makes all the difference.
884:It's either Zen or Zizek, but if I chose, I would be wrong.
413, 417, 421 What happened in the UK in 1911 vis a vis health?
It killed the Empire accoring to cnbc and the Kudlow-Cramer reunion tour.
In their expansionary phase, empires force people to go out, seek risks and fend for themselves, Murrin said, reminding of the dismantling of the British empire after the war, when the National Health Service, which ensures universal health coverage in Britain, was created."This (empire decline) is actually a dead-set course that societies get into and it will happen very quickly I'm afraid," he told "Squawk Box Europe."
"As you start to build a system it becomes cohesive because of its success... the fractures in the American system I think are more apparent than ever," Murrin added.
886. If you believe that, sir, you will believe anything.
Just as Obama's presidency caused the financial crisis from the future, the creation of health-care regulations caused the decline of the American empire and probably the rise of China too.
he Zentrum was the lobby for political Catholicism - i.e. a party explicitly dedicated to opposing liberalism, founded in the values of the Counter-Enlightenment
I think that's much to harsh on the Center Party and distorting in its own way. It was not so much anti-liberalism but anti the Prussian National Liberal Party which, during the Kulturkampf strongly backed treating Prussian Catholics as second class citizens. And while it had various factions, including some pretty reactionary ones, the dominant group under the Kaiserreich and Weimar was quite liberal in the context of its time. Under the Kaiserreich they supported political liberalization and were uncomfortable with the expansionary imperialism of the both the traditional elites and the protestant bourgeoisie represented by the National Liberals. During Weimar they were strong supporters of the Republic and routinely worked with the SPD. That doesn't mean they liked the SPD, but they disliked them less than the DNVP (hardline reactionary authoritarians), let alone the NSDAP. What you're describing would fairly describe their Bavarian sister party. Amazing how representing a minority population can affect ones perspective.
Now I come to think of it, Adenauer was prominent in the Centre Party before 1933, and he had no truck with the Nazis.
Good point, TKM, about being against the National Liberals.
In a late response to Bob, I think it's a misreading to think of de Maistre's opposition to 'Big Business' as being a sign of his differences with modern Conservatism. Maistre was all about preserving the existing, or rather the pre-1789 social order and its hierarchy. He opposed the emerging capitalists since they represented (and needed) massive social change and sought to supplant the agrarian and blood based wealth/status elites with themselves. But those elites, and the society they were part of is long, long gone. The current conservatives support the current elites and social organization - i.e. the business elites and their hegemony. No Marxist should need me to explain this.
The current conservatives support the current elites and social organization - i.e. the business elites and their hegemony.
So the Republicans supported the bank bailout in Oct 08? Somehow I think the Repubs are more complicated, have more factions than that.
See, this is how liberals falsely paint themselves as champions of the proletariat (and marginalize the actual left)...by warning about dragons over there.
Yeah, like it really mattered that Republicans opposed Democratic bailouts; I'm sure if McCain had won there wouldn't have been. Not!!
Both parties are tools of entrenched capital; this is not a new nor unnoticed phenomenon and both parties only listen to their supporters when it's useful or they have to. The teabaggers can call for all kinds of crazy shit because the Repubs aren't in power and they benefit from "heightening the contradictions". Once they are again, you'll see them wither away soon enough.
896: The required changes look to be quite small and inconsequential, so just the annoyance and delay of requiring another House vote. But as with any stalling tactic it provides the opportunity for completely unanticipated events to intervene (not to mention completely anticipated invective and asshattery). And this is just about the "fixing the Senate bill" part; the bill itself has already been signed into law.
OK. But what happens if something like this turns up after a bill is signed? Seems to me that's only a matter of time, given the childishness of the American right. Does it have to go back to be re-signed? or does Obama just say, 'tough shit, you're too late.' Or does SCOTUS strike it down?
898: no, the inclusion of the provisions is a technical violation of Senate rules, not the Constitution. Supreme Court will not strike something down for being a violation of internal Senate rules (as McManus pointed out far above in a totally different context).
It just means another House vote without those two provisions.
You'd hardly know from Bob's discussion of Weimar that if the far left (Communists) had agreed to compromise with parliamentary democracy and form a coalition with the Social Democrats in 1932 then Hitler's coming to power might have been averted.
Supreme Court will not strike something down for being a violation of internal Senate rules
The Supreme Court *has not previously* struck something down for violating Senate rules. The current conservative majority, however, has proven to be somewhat cavalier with precedent and law (hello, Bush v. Gore!) if it gets in the way of their desired outcome. Which, ghoulish a statement as this may be, we really need one of those five seats to open up.
