Just to answer the last comment here first, here's another really interesting look, from the guy who wrote "The Political Brain," Drew Westin:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/leadership-obama-style-an_b_398813.html

-CW

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-democrats-authoritari_b_402146.html

-David

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614183270356274.html

Once again, we see how low Democrats will sink to further their agenda..

Michale.....

While I'm partly with you on the importance of passing something, I completely disagree with this "Rahm Emanuel" approach.

You seem to be saying that Lieberman and Nelson will dictate all future legislation.

If this seems to be the case, maybe some liberal Senators need to not hop onboard so early. Maybe they need to hold out longer until the moderates are onboard and don't let the Obama administration stick it to them as they did this time.

Letting Nelson and Lieberman dictate the terms was Obama's choice and it does not have to be.

Obama was elected on a Democratic platform of change. If he continues to let conservatives like Lieberman/Nelson dictate the party agenda, those who fought passionately for him may not fight so passionately for the party in the future.

As for the idea that this legislation will somehow reign in costs, I hope you are right. But I see all of the big insurance companies stocks rise as the bill gets closer to passing and to me, this indicates that they will retain all the control they want over setting prices.

As for folks who see discussions like ours as fissures within the Democratic party, that's crap. I still by-and-large support Democrats. But it seems liberals may be tired of being taken for granted. We were the force that worked to elect Obama. Not conservative centrists. So is it any wonder that we question why Obama is pandering to the Liebermans of the world?

I hope in coming months, Obama looks to change his tactics to better pass legislation w/o offending his base. Because if this happens again, I'd hope that the Browns and Feingolds of the world would see it coming and not sign on so early.

The Dems seem to have no qualms pressuring liberal Congress Critters to sign on to bills. Maybe they should use the power of their party to pressure centrist Dems and actually stand up for some of the ideals they say they are for.

Happy Holidays!
David

Where in the US Constitution does it give Congress the power to mandate that all US Citizens MUST purchase a private sector product?

Or, is it now Democrats who are saying that "the Constitution is just a piece of paper"?

Michale.....

Actually, this is pure and utter bullshit..

Oh, I am sure that the CBO said that. They had to, because they had to obey the strictures that the White House put out.

But it's a gimmick, pure and simple.

All the costs of crap care we will see first. So, from 2010 to 2020, the CBO's analysis is probably accurate.

But what the CBO DOESN'T tell us is that, the so-called "benefits" of CrapCare don't kick in until 2014. So, the REAL 10 year cost of CrapCare, from 2014 to 2024 is a 2.5 TRILLION dollars addition to the US deficit.

Once again, we see another lie from President Obama when he claimed he would veto any legislation that wasn't deficit-neutral.

Strange how the Left doesn't seem to mind their President lying, as long as it is THEIR President that is lying, eh?

Michale.....

"What if Obama came out and said, I will not sign a bill without a public option?"

--The answer is that you'd probably have no bill. Lieberman was making these noises RE: the public option back in June. A veto threat might very well have stalled the process or else produced a crisis where Obama had to relent on his threat to pass the best bill Congress could make. I'll be going into this more over at my site in the next week.

"Or, what if they went to the centrists first and worked to get them onboard?"

--Answer: there were 60 Senators willing to entertain a bill at all. All of them had to say yes to a bill or you'd have NO BILL. There were no more centrists to get.

"Why not put pressure on people like Lieberman and Nelson?"

While I'd love to see Obama rip off his shirt like Dwayne Johnson on SNL and demolish the set with Ben Nelson's bulbous face, take a moment to remember there are other critical bills coming down the pipeline: cap & trade, financial reform, jobs bills, etc. Obama will need 60 votes on all of those too.

So when you ask that question, imagine a couple of pissed off Democrats holding up climate change legislation (and hence Obama's foreign policy agenda) out of sheer spite. Would you put it past either Nelson or Lieberman to do something like that? I wouldn't.

"I don't think the Dems fully realize what they're signing onto with this bill. Without any competition, the insurance industry will still set prices. Sure they can't deny coverage, but they don't need to - just raise the price beyond what someone can afford to pay and then go after them for illegally not having health insurance."

Actually, the CBO is quite sure that costs will go down across the board. Check out this chart. What you're proposing is that families and individuals and businesses that want insurance, but cannot now afford it, will suddenly refuse to buy it when it's far cheaper.

"Are we really going to put millions in jail for not having health insurance? Who's going to enforce this nightmare?"

--The IRS will enforce the mandate. There will be some healthy, younger Americans who refuse to buy insurance, reckoning the tax penalty is less than they would have to pay. Those taxes will be used to provide coverage for everyone else (and for the healthy, younger Americans when they wind up in the ER and can't pay the bills).

I want you to consider this thought: if we did pass a single-payer, Medicare-for-all bill tomorrow, it would require instant taxation -- of everyone.

The bill is by NO MEANS perfect. It's not even close to perfect. But it's a start, and as I've been arguing for a week now the public option won't work without all the wonky stuff that's in this bill -- but you can't pass that stuff through budget reconciliation rules.

You can, however, pass a public option through those rules because it's a deficit-reducer. So reconciliation is a good "and" strategy, but a very bad "or" strategy for the bulk of reforms that need to happen.

The public option isn't dead. It's just not in this bill.

I don't think the Dems fully realize what they're signing onto with this bill. Without any competition, the insurance industry will still set prices. Sure they can't deny coverage, but they don't need to - just raise the price beyond what someone can afford to pay and then go after them for illegally not having health insurance.

Are we really going to put millions in jail for not having health insurance? Who's going to enforce this nightmare?

Here is a bill in which conservative corporations are actually getting almost everything they want - no competition, make it illegal to not have health insurance. And ... even better ... they've opposed it the whole way so that they can just blame any mess on Democrats.

Guess the Dems have made a calculated gamble that they can say "we passed something historic!" But it seems like a short-term gamble that jeopardizes long-term success.

-David

1. Get the base excited with promises
2. Remember, what really wins elections is money
3. When it comes time to legislate, appease your corporate donors
4. Toss the base a cookie every now and then

Republicans are not much different. For example, they never really passed any "faith-based initiatives". Same with banning Roe vs. Wade. If they ever actually did this, then the abortion wingnuts would have no reason to rally behind them.

The incentive, as screwed up as it seems, is for politicians to do as little as possible for their most fervent supporters.

So guess it shouldn't come as a surprise. Guess the real moral is you have to always be vigilant. And work to hold our politicians feet to the fire ...

I finally got through to Sherrod Brown. But not until later this afternoon. His phone was busy all morning. Encouraging that so many people are not buying this.

@Michale -
Ask Bill Nelson not to support the health care bill.
Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
(202) 224-5274

-David

Chris: Another excellent post. I find it funny how many Christian holidays are still named for their calendrical origins. Ostara became Easter, a fact that has led some fringe denominations to stop celebrating it.

Another important thing that Gregory did was codify Catholic sex laws. Much of the Catholic dogma that makes us shake our heads comes from his papacy; he was the one who forbid anybody to have sex unless they were attempting procreation.

All things being equal, it's been a pretty safe bet to date, wouldn't you agree??

Michale.....

Still not quite into the Christmas spirit with all this Grinch-i-ness going around about the healthcare bill. But I think it's interesting that we're starting to see what the 11-dimensional chess game the White House and Rahm Emanuel are playing.

In this WSJ article, Rahm Emanual explains his strategy that "there are no more liberals left to get."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/rahm-emanuel-dont-worry-about-the-left/

The strategy seems to be, bring the liberals in early with promises of reform, then yank out piece after piece to get conservative Democrats on board. Then threaten the liberals with "killing" health care reform if they back.

All the while, the strategy relies on a President who never tips his hat about what he wants in the bill.

This is how people like Lieberman come to have so much power. And why he will probably receive some fat PAC checks from the insurance industry come re-election time.

The whole while, the bet the White House is making is that progressives will see them as the only game in town and will keep coming back.

Maybe it's about time we stopped donating to the Democratic party (ok, self admission: I did some time ago) and started only donating to organizations who support doing the right thing.

Rahm, you may get your vote through, but at what long term cost?

-David