You sent questions; we have answers!
1. First, some GREAT news.
2. What Motivated the Massachusetts Rebellion?
3. Who Was the Guy Who Warned Us This Could Happen?
4. How Did the Administration Prepare for the Possibility of a Coakley Loss?
5. What Does This Mean?
6. Know Any People Who Don’t Change Their Minds Every Three Hours?
7. Know Any Other Guy Who Doesn’t Change His Mind Very Much?
1. First, Some GREAT News:
Nancy just sent me this exciting news from The Wall Street Journal. I know it’s not health-care related, but without it our country won
Legendary Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker has been ignored and shunned by the administration for a year (which must be hard, given that Volcker stands at 6’7”) – but now it looks like his proposals for REAL bank reform are gaining ground. And just in time to save President Obama - and the world! (Here's a great article from December on Volcker's foxy heroism by former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson - your go-to guy for demystifying the banking crisis.)
Is it a coincidence that this will be officially announced less than 48 hours after the Coakley loss? And how smart for Obama to appear - finally! - with the trusted Volcker rather than the patsy Geithner or the toadish Larry Summers?
This is small, but it’s a step away from the precipice we've been hanging over. And it may be an indication that the voters in Massachusetts were crazy like a fox. Because I don’t believe the administration would have provided anything more than window dressing for bank reform without the intense pressure the Massachusetts election created. The Massachusetts election was - in terms of impact - the equivalent of a million-person march on Washington.
Support for linking the new ba
2. What Motivated the Massachusetts Rebellion?
Nate Silver lays it out in an article that I think a lot of you will appreciate. First Silver quotes David Leonhardt’s recent article:
“The current versions of health reform are the product of decades of debate between Republicans and Democrats. The bills are more conservative than Bill Clinton’s 1993 proposal. For that matter, they’re more conservative than Richard Nixon’s 1971 plan, which would have had the federal government provide insurance to people who didn’t get it through their job.”
Then Silver expands on that idea:
“Back in 2008, the smart liberal spin on "post-partisanship" -- one which I frankly bought into -- is that it was in part an effort to put a popular, centrist sheen on a relatively liberal agenda. Instead, as Leonhardt points out, what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda.”
This dovetails with polling done by Research 2000 (articles here and here):
“A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.
"In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.
"It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday's vote was cast in protest.
"The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.”
No doubt a large portion of that 41% of people weren't sure why they opposed it becausesomebody wasn’t using his Presidential bully pulpit to explain it.
3. Who Was The Guy Who Warned Us This Could Happen?
Among others, Capuano. The one who probably would have crushed Brown and who told it like it is on the war and the economy. Besides Capuano's warning, this widely circulated poll also warned of a potential loss; it was apparently ignored both by the White House and the Coakley campaign.
4. How Did the Administration Prepare for the Possibility of a Coakley Loss?
It’s pretty clear from watching the multiple statements on Wednesday that, as some noted earlier, no one had prepared.
Not the White House, not the Senate. At 5:22 p.m. on January 20, The New York Timesreported that the President would “set aside his goal of achieving near-universal health coverage for all Americans in favor of a stripped-down measure with bipartisan support.” At 8:23 p.m. the same evening, The New York Times reported that “President Obama still wants to pass far-reaching health care legislation, in part because many provisions are workable only in the context of a larger overhaul. But he may be willing to settle for less.”
I can actually forgive the President for having to wing it – every President faces a steep learning curve, and this is a terrible situation he inherited. But he’s got to level with us at some point. I’m praying – literally – that he’ll do that in the State of the Union.
5. What Does This Whole Massachusetts Thing Mean for Health Care?
A bunch of you sent me this from The Nation, which suggests that Obama needs to switch course.
Others sent this, from Ezra Klein, which I thought was pretty exciting (and surprising, since I’m not a big fan of Ezra Klein.)
"There is another option.
"Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.
"And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election."
As they say, tell me more....
6. People Who Don’t Change Their Minds Every Three Hours:
To be honest, I wasn’t really a big fan of the Single Payer movement at the beginning of this “adventure” but I now have to say I think they're real heroes. The dinner they hosted with Eric Massa was really a very moving experience - so many dedicated activists who'd persisted for so long on so little real hope. Wow! They’re doing some important phone-banking next week to support SB 810, which would allow California to go single payer. Here’s a link through which to get in touch with their lead, the legendary Don Bechler.
7. Another Guy Who Doesn’t Change His Mind Very Much:
Dr. James G. Kahn went to Sacramento with medical and nursing students for Lobby Day. It’s quite something to see sleep-deprived medical students find the time to get on buses in the middle of the night to schlep to Sacramento and go meet with Republican senators about single payer!!! Worth clicking on the link.
Closing with an apology again, because Deborah Leveen is re-examining her analysis of the Senate bill in light of recent news. I'm also not sending you articles on the minutiae of the White House's tangling with Congress post-Congress, because it's probably going to change six times before Sunday. I have a ton of "your comments" and "your proposals" to share, too.
For now just a comment from L. at MoveOn, a petition from MoveOn.org, and one fromDemocracy for America, which I think will help move the administration in the right direction. PLEASE MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!
"Eva, true leadership doesn’t run scared or, as in this case, cut and run. I’m sure that LBJ had more popular agenda items than Civil Rights, Medicare and the War on Poverty but he did the right thing. He was a wheeler-dealer and his tactics were brutal and his language was foul and he wasn’t the best-looking or most well-spoken guy around. But he got things done that had to be done. FDR was loved and he was hated and Eleanor’s social agenda was despised by her critics but together they got things done that had to be done for the common man. Oh yeah, and not to mention that FDR saved merry ole England single-handedly with Lend-Lease."
Many thanks to everyone,
Eva
No comments:
Post a Comment