Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
If Massachusetts Goes Republican, All Hell Breaks Loose with Healthcare!
And that might not be a bad thing
Having worked for the House Democratic leadership and senior Democratic senators, being a serious vote-counter with an occasional dose of Niccolo Machiavelli, I ask: What happens if the Republicans win the Senate in Massachusetts, and might it have the ironic result of reviving the public option and other progressive policies? Here is a scenario I advise senior Democrats to consider, if the Republicans win the Massachusetts Senate race:
1. Obviously, Democrats don’t have the 60 votes.
2. The president's first inclination will be to persuade Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). But I do not believe this can be achieved, which would require moving the Senate bill that she opposed even further to the right and toward the special interests, without losing more liberal members than the market can bear.
If we assume the hypothetical premise that Massachusetts goes Republican, the political and psychological damage to Democratic morale will itself lose a few votes regardless of the 60-vote issue. Even most Democrats can be surrendered-out, and I predict any Snowe scenario fails.
3. Which leaves reconciliation, the strategy of passing key progressive positions with a majority vote. This eliminates the need to turn the bill into an eBay auction with payoffs and surrenders to the handful of senators needed to get to 60. They are no longer needed. The giveaways are taken back. The surrenders are canceled. The Democrats will have the 51 votes for a far better and more popular bill.
The public option lives again. The Dorgan amendment survives, allowing import of safe lower-priced Canadian drugs that will save the budget $100 billion. The bill can make insurance price-fixing, price-gouging and collusion illegal after all! We can ban discrimination on pre-existing conditions in a way that bans price-gouging against those who get this insurance.
Various provisions can be passed through the regular bill limited to highly popular provisions. Other provisions can be passed through the reconciliation process by majority vote. The drug import and antitrust price-fixing provisions both have significant Republican support, and more than 60 votes in the Senate, no matter what vehicle pushes them through.
Using this Plan B, the bill becomes far better, far more progressive and far more popular than the pending bill.
Note: The option of delaying the seating of an elected senator to force through a House- Senate agreement is politically untenable and would be disastrous in the current context.
The president has lost popularity and is on the defensive. The bill itself is unpopular. The Democrats are on the defensive (made worse with the Dorgan shocker). A significant number of Democratic seats are in jeopardy. It would be a gift to Republicans to let them go to into the 2010 elections charging abusive tactics by a Democratic Congress, for an unpopular bill that endangers a number of House and Senate Democrats in the elections.
Conclusion: If we view this in the alternate universe of Massachusetts going Republican, reconciliation becomes a far more attractive legislative option. Especially if through the reconciliation process we can revive several highly popular provisions in election year, with a far better bill. My view is a distinct minority today, and I hope the Democrats keep the Massachusetts seat. But if we lose the 60th vote, the choice will be getting Snowe, reconciliation or losing the vote.
If Niccolo Machiavelli were here, he would want to turn a distressing debacle into a new opportunity. Many in this town should be aware: Watch what you ask for, you may get it.
- Posted in
56 Comments so far
Show All-"The giveaways are taken back. The surrenders are canceled. The Democrats will have the 51 votes for a far better and more popular bill."
errrr...they (the Dems) have over 51 votes now. If they are not voting for a better and more popular bill now, why would losing another seat make them do that? Democrats vote the way they do because they decided long ago that what they wanted was not a better or more popular bill but instead for the people that sign their cheques (pharma/insurance companies) to continue doing so.
The lobbyists are equal opportunity paymasters. They pay whoever does the job for them. So one more or less Republican isn't going to save you. You need reps that don't take corporate lobbyist money. Sorry, There is no way around that.
Those 51 votes are far easier to talk about than to use. And after the midnight deal for the unions, they might not have 51 when ity comes time to vote.
That kind of blatant corruption is offensive to everyone.
Budowsky's thesis assumes that Senators who are labeled "liberal" are really liberal.
Rahm has veal penned the Party to the point that real Democrat liberals are few and far between and will soon be non-existent.
The Unions supported and were told by The Great Impostor Obama during his campaign that he was in favor of Single Payer. He lied.
Now the Unions have told him the minimum they will accept. That's not blatant corruption. It's not even corruption. That's supporters demanding you keep your campaign promises.
He certainly lied about Single Payer. But I fail to see how you can call Obama's and Congress's actions in this instance anything but corrupt?
And why should unions get a promise kept? Why not all the promises made to the public? Are Unions so special, except they did and are providing money and votes?
Sorry this is corruption any way you look at it.
They are no more corrupt than his -and other Dems'- support for various clauses and amendments to these bills to assuage other powerful pressure groups from insurance companies to pharmaceutical companies.
Except in this case the beneficiaries are millions of workers instead of thousands of corporate executives and major stockholders.
If the "progressive movement" could organize itself into a real, structured organization powerful enough to sway the Congress and get an Audience with the Imperial President, would we call such a thing "corruption"?
Maybe to the extent that they should be working for all the people, all the time. But realistically and honestly, wouldn't this make "progressives" happy?
This is what Unions do. They make workers as powerful as bosses and capitalists through Collective Action.
What they should ALSO be doing is struggling to get EVERY willing worker into a Union AND get every Citizen the same basic benefits as their memberships do, Union or no.
On this eve of the (Union-made) Weekend, and at the end of the (Union-made) 40-hour work-week, we should remember that whatever the Unions have become, they were powerful forces for good once, and they could be again.
-matti.
I have a friend that is high ranking union white shirt. One of the problems is that the unions compete against each other instead of backing other union's grievances. If the unions are to regain force and membership, then they must support all union workers, not just their own.
Good point.
I'm talking about Unions using their strength to help all workers and Citizens, and the current versions of them won't even stick up for FELLOW UNIONISTS!
My opinion is that we need to take ALL of our democratic institutions back, the Unions included.
My guess is that their membership and the bulk of their officers are as manipulated and duped by those on top as the People as a whole are by the "elite".
Yep, dem believers. He hates when I talk bad about the party.
And start paying attention to and organizing the non-union workers too. A salaried union position should be a calling, not a sinecure. Those who show little class vision or dedication should be voted out.
Joe
Excellent point!!
Unions my ass, Matti! You have dyed-in-the-wool, lumpenprole lovin' anarchists to thank for that shit. Is there no one left who actually studies history?
I'm not saying that Obama and Congress aren't corrupt, I'm saying the Unions aren't corrupt because they want campaign promises kept.
And yes Unions as well as other groups who support and work for candidates should get what they are promised. It is then up to the voters to ask the question, did this request harm the country or other groups. If it helps the group, harms no other citizens and helps the country at the same time that would be the best of both worlds. It's when Bankers get help that only helps them and harms the majority of citizens and country at the same time, then you have the worst of both worlds. Based upon past practices voters should be able to determine which party (if any) is best for the greatest number of citizens and the country.
A lot of people provide money and votes but without votes it's not a democracy so that leaves providing money which can be corrupting. As far as I know the Unions have never been against campaign finance reform. It's not in their interest to be against reform.
Finally, I repeat again, that under the above mentioned criteria I would not consider it corruption to ask that The Great Impostor Obama have his political feet held to the fire.
Gotcha! However Andy Stern and the SEIU are about as corrupt an organization as you could find. They give the good union folks a bad name.
"...the choice will be getting Snowe, reconciliation or losing the vote".
For The Great Impostor Obama, it will quickly become one choice only; getting Snowe.
if what was reported that obama's presidential campagin recieved $20 millions from the health care industry is true, is it then possible to infer that he is in the pocket of the health care industry? and that is why he is procastinating in pushing the senates for a better legislations similar to the house's ? it is probably correct to assume that electing a republican senator in Mass will be heaven for obama, since he will not get a cloture in the senate and that will kill any health care bill, and that will take him of the hook. it may also be feasable to conclude that obama's absence from campagning for the democrat candidate falls in his(obama's) strategy to wish the democrat candidate the worst outcome.
If he doesn't deliver a corporate welfare program disguised as health care reform, Obama and the Democrats will not receive as many bribes from the insurance and drug companies. Obama will sell out whoever and whatever he needs to to put the health care reform notch on his bedpost.
Delusional on all fronts except for the idea that R's could get a Senate seat in Massachusetts.
"Delusional on all fronts . . . "
You said it!
"Given what we now know for certain about Obama--that he's a 100% sellout and better liar than Bush . . . "
That's all you need to know about Obama and almost all congressional Democrats.
Given how corporate friendly the senate bill is, I find it hard to believe the Republicans will vote party-line against it. But if the Republicans are adamant about being anti-Obama no matter how much a bill benefits their corporate allies, then we should seek Democrats willing to defeat the bill, as no bill would be better than the current Obamanation. And if a Republican victory in Mass. is needed to defeat the Obamanation, then so be it.
Given what we now know for certain about Obama--that he's a 100% sellout and better liar than Bush--Legislative gridlock would be preferable than passing any legislation he favors--because if he favors it, then the bill is ipso-facto against the public interest.
Laugh out loud that Obama is so far to the right and has screwed up so badly that the Mass. Senate race is even competitive.
Equally amusing is the mere existence of the theoretical possibility that Obama himself could lose to Sarah Palin in 2012. Mitt Romney, though, is far more likely to be nominated than is Palin and the most likely thing for 2012 is that Romney cruises to a relatively easy win.
I am going to have a major party at my place if Obama loses Ted Kennedy's seat, because Obama's health insurance law is a fraud, makes a mockery of Ted Kennedy and all non-right wing people, and would do much more harm than good.
25 reasons and counting why the health insurance law will do more harm than good, the Romney clown, and more:
http://www.unity-progress.blogspot.com
Only a democratic party person could be so delusional to think that Obama and other corporate demoocrats would consider passing a bill that would displease their masters in the Insurance industry. The opposition we see from republicans and the insurance industry is a charade because this bill meets all their needs and should the republicans regain power they will leave this bill exactly as is.
Agree. Medicare for all!
Budowsky overlooks one other possibility if Brown wins in Massachusetts. The House can just pass the exact same bill that the Senate has already passed. Then there would be no need for any more voting by the Senate, and the bill could go to the President for his signature.
This would stick us with the Senate bill which is not so great, but it would avoid all the other complexities and problems Budowsky mentions.
Hey. You gave me a great idea. Here is my brilliant idea of how to govern our country without any hitches. The White House writes all proposed bills. That bill is passed with 61 rigged votes without discussion by the Senate*. Next the bill is passed by a rigged majority without discussion by the House*. The President signs the legislation. Bingo!
In addition both parties agree to allow, say, a Democratic President to rule for two terms in exchange for which the Democrats will not run a candidate against the Republicans during the next two elections, etc. Ad infinitum.
Senators and House members will love this system. They no longer need to read the bills. Sessions will be short and devoted only to voting. They will have plenty of time to cavort with their aides or with one-another. Gravy!
Another advantage is that the Democratic administrations will make the changes whereas the Republican administrations will 'conserve' these for at least eight years.
* The "aye" and "nay" votes are assigned randomly by statistical computer programs. The only thing our representatives must watch out for is that there will always be a quorum when one is needed.
"They no longer need to read the bills."
Ha! Ha! I'm not so sure that all of them are reading the bills now.
True but they would no longer need to hide behind vile excuses.
It sounds like the part of the PNAC that Rahm and Clinton made sure wasn't published.
Just to name a small fraction of his failings, Obama has abandoned his supporters, lied about everything with respect to health insurance, is promoting a health overhaul that will do more harm than good (http://www.unity-progress.blogspot.com and http://www.firedoglake.com) has jagged to the right at every single juncture, and has failed to produce more than a trivial number of jobs.
Hell, even George W. Bush once in a blue moon jagged to the left and he did, after all, become very upset when the job market went to hell, whereas with Obama the job market and the collapse of it are just little side things that "responsible people" can circumvent around.
I for one refuse to be fooled, deceived, or made to feel guilty about anything by Obama, who is now on his knees for Massachussetts votes.
Sioux Rose
Well, if it plays out the way the writer suggests, and this Republican win means the bill freezes, as the still-born abomination that it is, then I'd say Divine Order has stepped in to attempt to balance the scales. Our leaders have little by little taken meaningful laws and foreclosed on them, while taking what OUGHT be ILLEGAL and rendered it legal under the figleaf endorsement of political whores for hire. When the game gets this bad and ugly, surprise moves, foul balls, and anything to impede alleged "progress," or contining in the current direction may well prove beneficial.
Right. Logically, if you have two parties and neither of them are doing much good, the best short term thing is for there to be a gridlock between them so that no more bad laws get passed.
Then the non-right can finally get serious and get a new party started that will be marketable. I personally don't think the Green party is marketable because it is considered by many millions to be mostly a one issue party not fully equipped to govern, but who knows, when people start starving to death, I guess they would vote Green as a last resort.
Ha ha! Your comment gave me a visual of two young, healthy rams with huge curly horns going at it by putting their foreheads together and locking the horns. They can be at it for hours and nothing, absolutely nothing, will happen.
Well said. Brent doesn't seem to understand that "all hell" broke loose several years ago.
As an example of the faker progressives we have, look at this letter from a real progressive in California and how alleged progressives are defending pro-war neo-con Jane Harman:
From Marcy Winograd:
Dear Friends,
I live my life as a progressive. As an educator, I work to strengthen public education. As a human rights advocate, I promote peace and protection of innocent civilians caught in the middle of war and occupation. So I was naturally taken aback when I heard that Rep. Henry Waxman - in a fund-raising letter for Blue Dog Congresswoman Jane Harman - attacked me as a threat to middle east peace.
Waxman's comments sent progressives across the nation to the blogs to defend me and to argue for a fair and open debate on US foreign policy. It was heartening and I thank them.
At the same time, we learned the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Lynn Woosley was also raising money for Harman, despite my opponent's votes for the Iraq war, the Afghanistan escalation, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, and unfair trade agreements. Waxman and Woosley's failure to support actual progressives is certainly disappointing, but while I would love to have the support of Washington politicians who owe each other favors, what I really need is support from progressives across America. That starts with you.
Help progressives prevail with a contribution to Winograd for Congress today.
We know that Harman is no progressive. Not unless you consider a defender of the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping progressive. Not unless you consider a champion of the bankruptcy bill and bank bail-outs progressive. Not unless you consider a lobbyist for the Iraq war and a funder of the Afghanistan escalation progressive.
I have always respected Reps. Waxman and Woosley, but I cannot remain silent while Washington politicians empower conservative Democrats blocking real reform. To raise money for a Blue Dog is to sanction more corporate control of the Democratic Party.
We can win without their support. We simply need to raise enough money to tell voters in my district about Harman's votes against working families. I need to broadcast my message: JOBS, NOT WARS and remind my district that Jane's votes have actually run counter to the long-term interests of our local economy, where foreclosures are expected to skyrocket while aerospace packs up and leaves town.
End of snippet.
WAXMAN AND WOOSLEY ARE TRAITORS. Don't forget.
But, but, but Waxman wrote all those harshly worded letters to the Bush squad.
Shear poetry
After reading every single post, I let out a deep sigh of relief. I'm so pleased to read your words, to have a sense of strength to know that Progressive's don't play.
I'll never quit, but I'm so beat down right now I'll take the time to sit back and watch and be happy I don't live in MA. I'm behind whatever they decide. The fact they've got the Dem's shitting their pants is enough to make me smile. Can't wait for Nov 2010.
What the hell was the deal that MA got handed mandated health care and then they were being censored from speaking out to the rest of the country? They wern't being allowed to tell us how much the LOVED what they had. Now that was an insane deal. Can't wait to hear who was the mastermind behind that one. How stupid.
Lastly, about a week ago, good ole Rahm was quoted as saying “Liberal’s don’t have a choice.” I like to ask Rham “Ya think?” And Rahm, when you're out on your tutu remember, you can run, but you cannot hide.
I think that Massachusetts citizens "praise" for their new system covers only the fact that it's easier to become insured, as well as mandated.
The plan itself, however, is running hundreds of millions of dollars over budget each year. The state has become so strapped that it cut off, I believe, 30,000 LEGAL immigrants from access to the exchange. It is also being sued by one of Boston's largest hospitals because the state's payments to it are so inadequate that it may soon have to stop accepting poor/indigent patients for care, which has been one of its main missions.
The problem with both the MassPlan and the Senate plan is that they were based on a European system (Norway, Switzerland, others) of private insurance that is also employer based and mandated. HOWEVER, those countries consider health care a human right and a common good and treat insurance much as we treat a public utility like an electricity producer. All insurers are non-profits, the government reviews health care costs each year and tells the companies how much they can charge in premiums, it pays premiums for the poor, and forbids all the abuses Americans have suffered from their insurers for decades.
This is why their systems provide universality and a common benefit set (rich and poor all get the same care) while costing at least 40 percent less per capita than we spend while leaving 45 million Americans out of the system.
If our country is so in love with privatization of the common good, it could at least emulate the Norwegians instead of market fundamentalists who have no conception of the public good.
As bernice says, health care is supposed to be like a utility. Whereas in the US, even electricity has in the last 30 years become a profit center rather than a utility. There are barely any utilities at all left in the US after 30 years of extreme right wing government.
I used to be neutral and it is still a debate mostly for wonks and perfectionists, but during the course of my fixation on the "health debate" in the US in 2009 I decided to favor the Canadian-UK model over the Germany model for health care. This is because I have realized (and this theme has been repeated over and over again over the years) that the US is even more screwed up than I thought it was before.
The very concept of insurance does not serve health care well at all, because health care is something that is virtually inevitable and because of the need for ongoing preventitive care, whereas insurance is supposed to be just for disasters and catastrophes.
True, the countries that have private insurance companies make sure those companies don't make any profit on the required policies, and they make sure the policies are fairly good, and they make sure that the insurance companies pay all the claims they are supposed to. But why have a facade of insurance at all?
More and more I think the British, as their empire and as World War 2 came to a close, developed the system most close to perfect. The British in 1948 said: "screw all the window dressing and all the dead end side streets and all the unnecessary bells and whistles: let's just declare health care to be a major utility and as in all modern, reputable countries where major public utilities are provided publicly and available to all citizens, that's the way health care will be in Britain.
Over 60 years later, the British mostly like their system. No one with a truly serious problem waits for health care unless there is a rare foul-up (most of which are caused by the patient). Many English people not only like their system but they actually love their system. No politician in the UK can win an election if he or she talks about dismantling that system. The UK health system is so good that it substantially offsets much more negative aspects of UK society and makes the UK overall a nice place to live.
Given how bad the US system is and how inappropriate the concept of insurance is for health care, I have decided that having the government directly provide the health care as in the UK or at least having it mandate the health care but having it provided by private physicians as in Canada is slightly better than having highly regulated, non-profit insurance companies.
I think that technically, by the way, France is a hybrid between those two approaches.
25 reasons and counting the health insurance law does more harm than good, the job market collapse, prior Common Dreams:
http://www.unity-progress.blogspot.com
I have suggested that the good people of Mass vote for Joseph Kennedy as a protest. I figured the Democrat couldn't lose and we have to really try to acclimate ourselves to a multi-party system in order to save the Republic. But it looks like she could lose, which means there really are a lot of pissed off Independents and even Democrats out there. I have promised myself that I would never ever vote for a Republican - shallow, anti-social, money grubbing, worshipers of mammon that they are, but in this case, if I lived in Mass, I most certainly would vote for Brown if in fact that could bring death to this abomination of a so-called Health Care Reform Bill.
I think writing in Ted Kennedy would be better. He is no more dead than most Democrats.
But seriously, the discredited and deadly dull Democrats are opening up the door for new blood. Unfortunately, libertarians such as Joe Kennedy and conservative reverse Carpetbaggers like Harold Ford are rushing in to fill the vacuum. I could be wrong, but to me they are absolutely no better than the Republicans.
Please do not waste time giving them a second look. We MUST find and field and support progressive candidates with an honest record of community service or some other proof of where they stand.
I am no wonky wonk who understands the subtleties of electoral strategy. But I see where sophistry and rebranding and triangulation and all that jazz gets us. I say forget it and let's play it straight. Let's not let the phony be the enemy of the good.
Joe
I live in Massachusetts and that's exactly what I'm going to do along with just about everyone I know. I've voted democratic since 1968 but I'm voting for Brown to kill this miserable excuse for a health care bill. and then get really active with alternate parties to get rid of the Democraps AND The Repuglicans. Obomber is a fraud and will soon find out how badly he's pissed of his base.
Richsmith,
I hear you!
ACORN will "find" enough votes for the courts to overturn a Brown win.
Well said Michael.
Reconciliation!
Then, Single Payer (medicare "Part E")!
the demoncrats NEVER wanted any progressive policies in the health care bill from the start- so reconcillation will only lead to a more conservative - corporate handout of a bill.....
if the demos really wanted health CARE reform they would have at least started with it - but they never did.....
reconcillation with these folks in the WH will lead to even a worse bill....
I'll put $20 on it?
any takers?
Real progressives should hope for and celebrate a Republican win. Obama's bill is a farce and a giveaway to health insurers, it'll make matters much worse for the people who really need insurance, the poor.
Republicans couldn't make the bill worse even if they tried, and we all know they will. Odds are, the whole thing will be stalled which is in fact great news. At least we won't be forced to spend 8% of our income buying horrible insurance that won't cover anything.
Democrats losing that seat will be humiliating for Obama and prove once more that when a real Repulican runs against a fake one, the real Republican always wins. The Democrats are not a real party.
Let the Repuks have the US government. We need them to do their thing, light fires everywhere, to burn away the camouflage and burn down the facades, and expose the monster in all its ugliness, inadvertently of course, as their incompetence knows no bounds. If you want to be optimistic, I suggest placing your optimism, hope, and trust in the people, not the elites, for a change.
Yes, because it all worked so well under Bush.
Who cares, the Health Insurance For Profit Welfare bill needs to be scrapped. The Dems can go back and amend Medicare to allow access to all under reconciliation with 51 votes. Budowsky, you are a Third Way tool!