Right now the Democratic party is quibbling over if they're going to try and change the bill in conference. Several Senators have said that'll kill things but the house delegation is less happy with the compromises of the Senate Bill and want a more progressive version.
I would not be surprised if the House just ends up passing the senate bill in order to avoid any more annoying senate votes.
That's what is so disgusting - the few unconvinced "democrats" in senate aren't willing to openly and honestly draw any lines in the sand regarding what happens in conference. They simply think they have the right to wait until a final draft is made, and then throw a spanner in the works rather than put a foot down before someone sets the wheels in motion. At that stage, you aren't showing a willingness to take suggestions and compare alternatives - you just want to wave your gun around like some fucking psychopath in a hostage situation, declaring that everyone else will "know with certainty" if their behavior displeases you. Fucking beasts.
Eh.
I don't find it unpleasant that they understand the position of power they're in. That's just competence. I do wish they'd stop working for Team Money.
At very least I'd like to see Lieberman lose his committee seats
the fact that he's backed the other party's candidate and is somehow still treated like a senior member of the Democratic party is ridiculous
As soon as the bill is safe from him, it's time to use some leverage and squeeze back hard. There is no quid pro quo involved just because he relented - he acted irrationally and needs to be made an example out of.
Except that Senate Democrats will need his vote on climate change, financial regulation, etc.
Right now the Democratic party is quibbling over if they're going to try and change the bill in conference. Several Senators have said that'll kill things but the house delegation is less happy with the compromises of the Senate Bill and want a more progressive version.
I would not be surprised if the House just ends up passing the senate bill in order to avoid any more annoying senate votes.
That's what is so disgusting - the few unconvinced "democrats" in senate aren't willing to openly and honestly draw any lines in the sand regarding what happens in conference. They simply think they have the right to wait until a final draft is made, and then throw a spanner in the works rather than put a foot down before someone sets the wheels in motion. At that stage, you aren't showing a willingness to take suggestions and compare alternatives - you just want to wave your gun around like some fucking psychopath in a hostage situation, declaring that everyone else will "know with certainty" if their behavior displeases you. Fucking beasts.
Eh.
I don't find it unpleasant that they understand the position of power they're in. That's just competence. I do wish they'd stop working for Team Money.
They are supposed to use their leverage in certain ways, or, shall we say, expected to not use it in some ways. There needs to be ideology involved, at the very least, but Lieberman and Nelson are meaningfully fingering the "fuck-up" button out of completely personal or career-related reasons, and that is even below the usual standards set in congress. They are destabilizing the workings of the people's government without any concern for anyone but themselves. At least republicans are ideologically motivated, or at the mercy of a ridiculously partisan agitprop movement.
At very least I'd like to see Lieberman lose his committee seats
the fact that he's backed the other party's candidate and is somehow still treated like a senior member of the Democratic party is ridiculous
As soon as the bill is safe from him, it's time to use some leverage and squeeze back hard. There is no quid pro quo involved just because he relented - he acted irrationally and needs to be made an example out of.
Except that Senate Democrats will need his vote on climate change, financial regulation, etc.
OK, got you.
But.
At what point does he become costlier to please than to displease?
They are supposed to use their leverage in certain ways, or, shall we say, expected to not use it in some ways. There needs to be ideology involved, at the very least, but Lieberman and Nelson are meaningfully fingering the "fuck-up" button out of completely personal or career-related reasons, and that is even below the usual standards set in congress. They are destabilizing the workings of the people's government without any concern for anyone but themselves. At least republicans are ideologically motivated, or at the mercy of a ridiculously partisan agitprop movement.
I'm not at all sure I think ideological sincerity is preferable to rational self interest.
If our Senators don't have career related reasons to produce quality legislation I'd say that the system needs to be fixed over the Senator.
At what point does he become costlier to please than to displease?
3 January 2011.
Yeah... we had this feeling in the runup to the 2008 election. Remember when we said 'Man, they only way this would suck is if we got exactly 60 and Lieberman ended up still mattering'.
Yeah, well.... yeah. At least this time, we know for absolute sure that we can boot him after Election Day, because we're pretty confident he's going to run as a Republican anyway.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
At what point does he become costlier to please than to displease?
3 January 2011.
Yeah... we had this feeling in the runup to the 2008 election. Remember when we said 'Man, they only way this would suck is if we got exactly 60 and Lieberman ended up still mattering'.
Yeah, well.... yeah. At least this time, we know for absolute sure that we can boot him after Election Day, because we're pretty confident he's going to run as a Republican anyway.
More that in order for the Dems to have exactly 60 votes again with Sanders and Lieberman would require an act of god. They're either going to be sub 60 at which point you need to get the Pubbies on board and can play both sides against the middle where picking up the 2nd or 3rd (R) is easier than (I-Aetna) or they're going to be over 60 at which point he can go to hell since he isn't the legislative pivot point anymore. The only way Joe remains important is if he remains the 60th vote and that just isn't likely.
I don't want to see Lieberman and Nelson murdered, but it'd be nice if some fecal matter from an airplane collided with the two of them as they ate lunch and put them both into a coma
Not really. They need to die or otherwise be removed from the senate. A mere coma wouldn't get them out of the senate (quickly at least) and closure counts all sitting senators.
Basically that'd completely fuck the agenda unless it's something you could get Snowe/Collins on board for.
Okay, aliens capture the both of them and force them to fight in a deathmatch with several aliens and a woman in a silver bikini for Quatloos, and half of the profits go to charity
I don't want to see Lieberman and Nelson murdered, but it'd be nice if some fecal matter from an airplane collided with the two of them as they ate lunch and put them both into a coma
Then we'd have to wait for their governors to appoint interim Senators before anything can get passed and it would just shift the '60th most liberal Senator' to Bayh or Lincoln.
And somehow I doubt Jodi Rell (R) or Dave Heineman (R) would appoint people to our liking.
How much of your insurance costs will be subsidized? Poverty line is ~$22,000 for a family of 4, ~$14,000 for an individual.
*chart*
haha, zero. and my plan likely qualifies as a cadillac plan too.
Yeah, there's seemingly always a donut hole for the upper middle class with government programs. Especially depending on COLA where you are since Federal poverty line is, well, Federal and not dependent on living in NYC or bumfuck aside from the freak states. I'd imagine that's where a lot of the GOP gets its support.
How much of your insurance costs will be subsidized? Poverty line is ~$22,000 for a family of 4, ~$14,000 for an individual.
*chart*
haha, zero. and my plan likely qualifies as a cadillac plan too.
Yeah, there's seemingly always a donut hole for the upper middle class with government programs. Especially depending on COLA where you are since Federal poverty line is, well, Federal and not dependent on living in NYC or bumfuck aside from the freak states. I'd imagine that's where a lot of the GOP gets its support.
I wouldn't mind more support for people between 250% and 400% of poverty, but if you have to pick someone to help over someone else...
How much of your insurance costs will be subsidized? Poverty line is ~$22,000 for a family of 4, ~$14,000 for an individual.
*chart*
haha, zero. and my plan likely qualifies as a cadillac plan too.
Yeah, there's seemingly always a donut hole for the upper middle class with government programs. Especially depending on COLA where you are since Federal poverty line is, well, Federal and not dependent on living in NYC or bumfuck aside from the freak states. I'd imagine that's where a lot of the GOP gets its support.
I wouldn't mind more support for people between 250% and 400% of poverty, but if you have to pick someone to help over someone else...
Yes, but notice the big change in the slope of benefits after 250%? Why not just continue to carry that through seeing how median household income is roughly 250% of poverty as is.
OK, so looking at that chart and if I'm reading it right, my income of just about $15-$16k/year is just slightly above the 100% poverty line.
So I would be qualified for about a 95-98% subsidy for my healthcare costs?
Am I reading that right?
Yes, and as a bonus a bunch of bloggers who grew up in garages - and whose websites have .gifs featuring sparkling eagles and handguns - will call you a "parasite".
OK, so looking at that chart and if I'm reading it right, my income of just about $15-$16k/year is just slightly above the 100% poverty line.
So I would be qualified for about a 95-98% subsidy for my healthcare costs?
Am I reading that right?
Yes, if you buy your insurance yourself on the individual market. If you get insurance from an employer, things may or may not change depending on the employer, but probably not noticeably to you either way.
big l on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Sweet.
The guys with the sparkly eagles and handguns will think i'm a parasite. I'll have to remind them of that next time they come through my register at walmart wanting to buy handgun ammo and deer urine.
I'll have walmart insurance at the beginning of the year, but we'll have to see just what comes up after that. Because my employer insurance doesn't have a vision plan, and christ do I need new glasses.
Athens singer-songwriter Vic Chesnutt died Friday afternoon in an Athens hospital, his record company confirmed. http://images.morris.com/images/athens/mdControlled/cms/2009/12/26/539690241.jpg Sandlin Gaither/Special Vic Chesnutt, an Athens music mainstay, released 13 albums. His music explored living with physical and emotional pain.
Sandlin Gaither/Special
Vic Chesnutt, an Athens music mainstay, released 13 albums. His music explored living with physical and emotional pain.
"Surrounded by family and friends, Vic Chesnutt died in Athens" at 2:59 p.m., Don Wilkie of Montreal-based Constellation Records said in a statement posted on the record company Web site.
"In the few short years that we knew him personally, Vic transformed our sense of what true character, grace and determination are all about. Our grief is inexpressible and Vic's absence unfathomable," the statement said.
Chesnutt, 45, who lived in Athens, was partially paralyzed from a car crash when he was 18 and used a wheelchair. Funeral arrangements have not been announced.
The New York Times, citing a family spokesman, said Chesnutt overdosed on muscle relaxants earlier this week. He was reported Thursday to be in a coma.
Chesnutt faced a lawsuit filed by a local hospital following surgeries that racked up bills in the range of $70,000, he said in an interview with the Banner-Herald published Nov. 1.
With a Canadian label, Chesnutt often worked with musicians from north of the border and told the Banner-Herald that Canadians are stunned by his health care issues.
"They do feel for me, but it's something that blows their minds; there's nowhere else in the world that I'd be facing the situation I'm in right now. They can not understand what kind of society would inflict that on their population. It's terrifying," he said in an interview for the Nov. 1 article. "I've been nearly suicidal over it."
Chesnutt had released 13 albums, including "At the Cut" in September. Earlier this month, he finished a 29-show, two-month tour - including a November stop at the 40 Watt Club - promoting the album.
Chesnutt's big break came 20 years ago when Athens-based R.E.M.'s frontman Michael Stipe worked with him and produced his first two albums.
He is known for his dark folk music that explored both physical and emotional pain and living in spite them.
I don't think Newt Gingrich necessarily speaks for the GOP these days. But he said over the weekend that he's sure every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on a pledge to repeal Health Care Reform. And though he was less definitive, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel said close to the same thing. (See video here) Now given the relative unpopularity of the bill at this moment (which I strongly suspect will change) and its extreme unpopularity among partisan Republicans, that's not a very surprising statement. What's interesting to me, though, is that Democrats started saying last week that they plan to run on the same platform -- namely, that if you vote for Republicans they'll repeal Health Care Reform.
In a sense, none of this should surprise us. This is pretty much how things should be -- you get the main issue of the day and the different parties vote for and against. But it's pretty seldom that's the case. It's not that common that both parties think the same issue is a winning one for them.
I think Dems can win this issue if they pick out the changes that are overwhelming popular -- bans on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc. But what has to be worrisome from a Democratic standpoint is the issue Gingrich focuses in on here ...
I suspect every Republican running in '10 and again in '12 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill. The bill--most of the bill does not go into effect until '13 or '14, except on the tax increase side; and therefore, I think there won't be any great constituency for it. And I think it'll be a major campaign theme.
How do you develop a constituency for a bill before people have seen it in effect?
There's no real danger in this, is there? Assuming the bill passes before the next Congress, the Republicans would need a supermajority of their own in order to repeal it, no? And that shouldn't happen particularly soon, at the very least. Or, maybe there are ways to sabotage the reform that I don't know about?
I don't think Newt Gingrich necessarily speaks for the GOP these days. But he said over the weekend that he's sure every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on a pledge to repeal Health Care Reform. And though he was less definitive, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel said close to the same thing. (See video here) Now given the relative unpopularity of the bill at this moment (which I strongly suspect will change) and its extreme unpopularity among partisan Republicans, that's not a very surprising statement. What's interesting to me, though, is that Democrats started saying last week that they plan to run on the same platform -- namely, that if you vote for Republicans they'll repeal Health Care Reform.
In a sense, none of this should surprise us. This is pretty much how things should be -- you get the main issue of the day and the different parties vote for and against. But it's pretty seldom that's the case. It's not that common that both parties think the same issue is a winning one for them.
I think Dems can win this issue if they pick out the changes that are overwhelming popular -- bans on denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc. But what has to be worrisome from a Democratic standpoint is the issue Gingrich focuses in on here ...
I suspect every Republican running in '10 and again in '12 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill. The bill--most of the bill does not go into effect until '13 or '14, except on the tax increase side; and therefore, I think there won't be any great constituency for it. And I think it'll be a major campaign theme.
How do you develop a constituency for a bill before people have seen it in effect?
There's no real danger in this, is there? Assuming the bill passes before the next Congress, the Republicans would need a supermajority of their own in order to repeal it, no? And that shouldn't happen particularly soon, at the very least. Or, maybe there are ways to sabotage the reform that I don't know about?
It could allow Republicans to control the narrative again. While they will not necessarily be able to repeal the bill, there could be backlash enough against the Democratic party that within a few election cycles the Republicans could again take some houses, since going by current demographic trends, that would otherwise be impossible.
Last time I checked, the polls showed popular public opinion was against the bill. If that doesn't change, the Pubs would be retarded not to run on a platform of opposition to it.
That said, even if that sweeps a supermajority of GOP congresscritters into office, any repeal or counteraction will undoubtedly be met with a veto by Obama.
I think that people will get more used to the idea between now and election time, though. Popular opinion is fickle.
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited December 2009
The spread for/against has narrowed recently, and those 'against' include a fair number of liberals that think it doesn't go far enough. They will hardly be receptive to Republican claims that health care was fine the way it was.
The Democrats will lose a few seats, probably, but due more just to a reversion to the mean than any kind of repudiation of policy, I think.
The spread for/against has narrowed recently, and those 'against' include a fair number of liberals that think it doesn't go far enough. They will hardly be receptive to Republican claims that health care was fine the way it was.
The Democrats will lose a few seats, probably, but due more just to a reversion to the mean than any kind of repudiation of policy, I think.
I agree with this. The legislation isn't likely going away anytime soon, even in a worst-case scenario event.
You know, it just goes to show that if you put people that don't believe government can do anything positive at the head of government, you're going to get fucked.
And it also goes to show that the pubs were absolutely "negotiating" in bad faith.
Now if the Dems can only use this to get some more wiggle room on the conference bill. You can't do everything of course but maybe he'll be more reluctant to vote against so that it doesn't seem like he was taking a bribe (whether he was or not). And maybe Joementum will read his polling and see that any gains he's making among CT Republicans are being lost among Independents and he won't attention whore on this issue any more
Posts
Eh.
I don't find it unpleasant that they understand the position of power they're in. That's just competence. I do wish they'd stop working for Team Money.
Except that Senate Democrats will need his vote on climate change, financial regulation, etc.
They are supposed to use their leverage in certain ways, or, shall we say, expected to not use it in some ways. There needs to be ideology involved, at the very least, but Lieberman and Nelson are meaningfully fingering the "fuck-up" button out of completely personal or career-related reasons, and that is even below the usual standards set in congress. They are destabilizing the workings of the people's government without any concern for anyone but themselves. At least republicans are ideologically motivated, or at the mercy of a ridiculously partisan agitprop movement.
OK, got you.
But.
At what point does he become costlier to please than to displease?
3 January 2011.
I'm not at all sure I think ideological sincerity is preferable to rational self interest.
If our Senators don't have career related reasons to produce quality legislation I'd say that the system needs to be fixed over the Senator.
Yeah... we had this feeling in the runup to the 2008 election. Remember when we said 'Man, they only way this would suck is if we got exactly 60 and Lieberman ended up still mattering'.
Yeah, well.... yeah. At least this time, we know for absolute sure that we can boot him after Election Day, because we're pretty confident he's going to run as a Republican anyway.
More that in order for the Dems to have exactly 60 votes again with Sanders and Lieberman would require an act of god. They're either going to be sub 60 at which point you need to get the Pubbies on board and can play both sides against the middle where picking up the 2nd or 3rd (R) is easier than (I-Aetna) or they're going to be over 60 at which point he can go to hell since he isn't the legislative pivot point anymore. The only way Joe remains important is if he remains the 60th vote and that just isn't likely.
Okay, aliens capture the both of them and force them to fight in a deathmatch with several aliens and a woman in a silver bikini for Quatloos, and half of the profits go to charity
Senate.
And somehow I doubt Jodi Rell (R) or Dave Heineman (R) would appoint people to our liking.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
haha, zero. and my plan likely qualifies as a cadillac plan too.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Yeah, there's seemingly always a donut hole for the upper middle class with government programs. Especially depending on COLA where you are since Federal poverty line is, well, Federal and not dependent on living in NYC or bumfuck aside from the freak states. I'd imagine that's where a lot of the GOP gets its support.
I wouldn't mind more support for people between 250% and 400% of poverty, but if you have to pick someone to help over someone else...
Really? An individual making $35k/yr gets 50% of their insurance costs subsidized? That doesn't sound too bad.
Question: What about retired people with savings but no income?
Medicare
Yes, but notice the big change in the slope of benefits after 250%? Why not just continue to carry that through seeing how median household income is roughly 250% of poverty as is.
Most likely a tax credit.
So I would be qualified for about a 95-98% subsidy for my healthcare costs?
Am I reading that right?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Yes, and as a bonus a bunch of bloggers who grew up in garages - and whose websites have .gifs featuring sparkling eagles and handguns - will call you a "parasite".
Yes, if you buy your insurance yourself on the individual market. If you get insurance from an employer, things may or may not change depending on the employer, but probably not noticeably to you either way.
The guys with the sparkly eagles and handguns will think i'm a parasite. I'll have to remind them of that next time they come through my register at walmart wanting to buy handgun ammo and deer urine.
I'll have walmart insurance at the beginning of the year, but we'll have to see just what comes up after that. Because my employer insurance doesn't have a vision plan, and christ do I need new glasses.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Still medicare and va, or are they gonna have to get insurance?
There's no real danger in this, is there? Assuming the bill passes before the next Congress, the Republicans would need a supermajority of their own in order to repeal it, no? And that shouldn't happen particularly soon, at the very least. Or, maybe there are ways to sabotage the reform that I don't know about?
It could allow Republicans to control the narrative again. While they will not necessarily be able to repeal the bill, there could be backlash enough against the Democratic party that within a few election cycles the Republicans could again take some houses, since going by current demographic trends, that would otherwise be impossible.
MWO: Adamski
That said, even if that sweeps a supermajority of GOP congresscritters into office, any repeal or counteraction will undoubtedly be met with a veto by Obama.
I think that people will get more used to the idea between now and election time, though. Popular opinion is fickle.
The Democrats will lose a few seats, probably, but due more just to a reversion to the mean than any kind of repudiation of policy, I think.
I agree with this. The legislation isn't likely going away anytime soon, even in a worst-case scenario event.
In which house?
And it also goes to show that the pubs were absolutely "negotiating" in bad faith.
Pretty easily in the House.
Now if the Dems can only use this to get some more wiggle room on the conference bill. You can't do everything of course but maybe he'll be more reluctant to vote against so that it doesn't seem like he was taking a bribe (whether he was or not). And maybe Joementum will read his polling and see that any gains he's making among CT Republicans are being lost among Independents and he won't attention whore on this issue any more
Ah who am I kidding?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+