We must also find some way to get public financing of all campaigns to elected office.  Perhaps, we could begin with a dress code for all our congresspeople.  Like Nascar drivers, they would have to wear the logos and colors of their chief sponsors.  Let the whole world see who owns these champions of capitalism and free enterprise.

To effect the massive reforms we need to make the United States the land of hope and opportunity will require huge amounts of energy.  We did it once when it came to winning the battles for minimum pay and maximum hours of work per week; for the abolition of child labor and the creation of the public education movement, for social security and medicare, for the advancement of woman rights and those of sundry minorities including native Americans as well as LBGT folks.  Finally, we need to bring back the progressive income tax. The rich have way too much power in this society of ours and too big a choke hold on the national media.  Somehow, we must break their power before they sacrifice all of us to their everlasting addiction to money and privilege.  

Health reform is a start in this noble endeavor.  The bill is not perfect but we can improve it over the years.  If we can't get the whole loaf, then we'll take a half of loaf, or even a few slices at a time.  The key point is we keep struggling and keep moving forwards.  This is why Kucinich is such a disappointment.  He lacks vision and persistence.  

Upon our efforts rests the future prosperity and well being of our descendants.  What better motive can we have to keep on fighting?

Be bold, for boldness conquers everything.

Jason Altmire (PA)

John Barrow (GA)

John Boccieri (OH)

Dan Boren (OK)

Bobby Bright (AL)

Ben Chandler (KY)

Travis Childers (MS)

Artur Davis (AL)

Lincoln Davis (TN)

Bart Gordon (TN)

Parker Griffith (AL)

Tim Holden (PA)

Jim Marshall (GA)

Jim Matheson (UT)

Mike McIntyre (NC)

Charlie Melancon (LA)

Heath Shuler (NC)

Ike Skelton (MO)

John Tanner (TN)

Gene Taylor (MS)

Harry Teague (NM)

Anyone who thought or hoped that this completely screwed-up excuse for a health care system in this country would be set right by one piece of legislation simply doesn't understand U.S. politics. We've got years of work ahead of us before we can say that we have a decent system. It's incredibly frustrating to contemplate that fact, I realize, but look at the history of the progressive fights I mentioned above. The activists who battled on for years in those trenches had the guts to keep at it, and folks can today, too.

This legislation is not shitty, at all. The abortion amendment is shitty, indeed, but the law is not. As far as I see it is almost perfect.

Not only the regulation mechanism for the private system is rock-solid, subsidies are rock solid.. and mote important, the best public option is not, by far, a public option attached to Medicare rates, but a public option like the one present now in the bill.

I am sure Obama and Pelosi know what Ezra Klein is saying all along, the public option is basically a side-show. The public option in the exchange is not useful NOW, it will be extremely useful six years from now. The point of the public option is not really to control costs, because the real measure of the new costs comes once you have the full universal health-care delivery in place. Indeed, things will start to change a lot in the next six years.

The present problem of Us health care costs are the structure of the deliverance, the power of the drug industry to charge and  the rates of doctors, nurses and technician.

This structure of costs will change in six years. And,as Krugman says, what you really need in six years is very flexible tool which can be expanded, adapted, focused and structured so that it can serve as guide to private providers (more than competition) to reduce costs. If drugs become more expensive and doctors less, you focus on market share. If drug companies reduce prices  given the universal nature of the new system but doctors (more work same doctor) start charging more , you focus on changing the pay-for-results. If the problem is the procedures, then you may try to fix rates to medicare.

If you do it know, you will, with all certainty, have drug cost explode. If you do not do it now, I will bet drugs will stay under control and bend the curve while doctors payment will increase dramatically.

In other words, it is more important to have a flexible universal public option than a slightly stronger (now) but not flexible public option.

For the same reason opt-in and triggers are not as good as the house version, they do not give enough flexibility. Actually, opt-out is not really an optimal solution, probably slightly better than fixing the public option to medicare rates, but still a pain in the ass providing rigidity to lawmakers six years from now.

So, take out the abortion nonsense, and you have the best bill passed by  any house of the US congress in... well since the clean air act and EPA?

A pleasure


I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. L-S

Those are the ones I recognize without looking up the delegation.

Southern Democrat does not equal Southern white male Democrat, first of all.

Notably, the entire Democratic delegation of SC voted for the bill.

In NC, voting against were Kissell, McIntyre, and Shuler; the other five Democrats (Butterfield, Etheridge, Miller, Price, and Watt) voted for the bill.  The big disappointment here was Kissell, who acted like he did not understand the legislation and was out of his league.  His stated reason for voting against it is that he promised seniors he would not endanger Medicare and the bill cuts $400 billion from Medicare.

In VA, Tom Perriello, whose district used to be Virgil Goode's (R-VA), voted for the bill.

We know why Cooper and Ross voted against it and it wasn't because they are Southerners; the industry filled their pockets very well.  Cooper is likely to pay a price for this in 2010 if folks in his district can find a strong candidate.  The Big Dog has already fundraised for Ross; so Ross is likely not in trouble.  Kissell is going to not get netroots support, which had run over $400,000 for his previous two campaigns.  Boucher (VA) represents the district that the Grundy health fair providing free dental care was in; his vote was plain immoral.  But he is in coal country.

And the following are not in Southern or Border states:
Adler
Altmire
Baird
Boccieri
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kratovil
Markey
Matheson
McMahon
Minnick
Murphy (NY)
Peterson
Teague

...unless you are defining "Southern" and "Border" very broadly.

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

The country is not conservative.  Not in the way you mean.  It's Congress and doing the bidding of their masters.  Herseth-Sandlin will have no excuse if Tim Johnson votes for it.  Besides, if you have a "D" besides your name and you can't even vote for this watered down bill then you're really not a Democrat, just an asshole opportunist.  I've stated this a few times and I'd really like to know.  I know the Democratic Party is the Big Tent but isn't there at least a minimum requirement to meet for calling yourself a Democrat?  And does Melancon really think he's gonna beat "Diapers" Vitter by voting No?

As for Kuku, he's single-payer or nothing, for better or worse.

The Underground Railroad

At that point it will be the Stupak crew vs. Obama. Will they kill the final bill because their extreme anti-abortion measure is not in it? And if so, who do they really expect to vote for them for reelection?

There is no way anyone could pass a single-payer system through this Congress, even if we won oodles of new seats.

There are two assertions I've often seen made in the progressive blogosphere for which I've been trying to get some explanation.

One is alluded to in your post -- that single-payer was going to pass, even though this sorely attenuated reform bill squeaked through by a handful of votes.

The other question: why a bill that amounts to a raid on the Treasury to pay huge bonuses to insurance company CEO's is being fought tooth and nail, to the tune of scores of millions of dollars of lobbying, by the insurance companies?

I haven't gotten a good answer to that one yet, either.

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J.K. Galbraith

The prochoice bill was not that big a loss or realistic.  My government employee health insurance only covers abortion if the mother's health or life is threatened.  I have never seen insurance that did cover it on-demand.  

It was nice to see Cao go with the Dem. district he represents.  Kucinich a disappointment.

To make Kucinich the whipping boy for the failures of dozens of other Congressmen/women is pretty cheap.

Pelosi almost certainly freed some "centrists" to vote no, aware that their votes were not needed.  She probably had a much greater margin of error than we realize.

Other than that, you're being excessively gloomy, I think. This is a big step forward even though it's a pale ghost of what the rest of the developed world has. But that's what we pay, what we've always paid, for living in the "greatest country, blablabla." You generally dismiss those who want to change the system at its root. You promote "pragmatic" change that can work within the system we've got. Fine, but why be indignant then when the results inevitably conform to a ridiculous political/economic system? It's something of a miracle that a bill even this tarnished gets this close to passage in a nation as institutionally corrupt as the one we live in. Your country is not "pathetically conservative". It is pathetically mean-spirited and ignorance-worshipping. Conservativism can evolve and provide a necessary balance. What's blocking us can only be fought to extinction -- or at the least, dulled with anti-psychotics.

As to the abortion part, it was not realistic  to expect this country to provide free government-paid abortion on demand. If all the pro-choice people give some money to Planned Parenthood the problem will be worked around -- just another manifestation of the sub-optimal solution that seems to make up our nation's highest aspiration in every sphere but slaughter. I think the House bill does make exceptions for rape, incest, and life-threatening situations. Is that correct? If not, I wonder if there's anything in the opt-out language that might allow the states to change that?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

I know this is all nauseating stuff, the way that the GOP embraces their base while the Dems stiffarm theirs, but OTOH the GOP is at a record ebb in popularity. A certain amount of kabuki to appear centrist is standard operating procedure in American politics.

How is it that they had no problem, with 21 Democrats voting FOR Stupak and against the health care reform bill, in voting to deny 50% of the US population coverage for a pre-existing condition--pregnancy.