Senators Have Agency
The Ironist
In today’s column, Paul Krugman lamented the circular arguments you sometimes see presented as a reason for watering-down reform:
And Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota offers a perfectly circular argument: we can’t have the public option, because if we do, health care reform won’t get the votes of senators like him. “In a 60-vote environment,” he says (implicitly rejecting the idea, embraced by President Obama, of bypassing the filibuster if necessary), “you’ve got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together, and that, I don’t believe, is possible with a pure public option.”
Timothy Noah had a great example of this near the end of a recent column offering a tour of health care systems around the world:
Afterward, Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has since become interior secretary, noted that other countries saw a conflict between profits and health. How could the United States possibly persuade insurance companies to give up profits? [Author T.R.] Reid answered that Switzerland, home to many powerful insurance companies, had done it in 1994 when it adopted the Bismarck model. The insurers fought it tooth and nail, of course, but now they compete energetically to sign up people for basic care on a nonprofit basis because they constitute a customer base for supplemental insurance that they’re allowed to sell on a for-profit basis. This answer didn’t satisfy Baucus. “Perhaps you don’t know how much money [U.S. insurers] have,” he told Reid.
Which would be an amusing and apposite remark from Baucus were it not for the small part that Max Baucus is the most powerful legislative voice on health care policy in the country. It makes sense for Tim Noah or Paul Krugman or Matt Yglesias or TR Reid to ironically step outside the debate and start talking about the political obstacles to really hitting the insurance companies where it hurts. But Max Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee! “Political reality” is something pundits and activists need to adjust to, it’s something powerful Senators create.
25 Responses to “Senators Have Agency”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Seriously, can’t we just unseat Max Profits from his chairmanship, already? He’s a shameless disgrace to the party, and the idea that this Big Insurance/Pharma shill is writing our “Health Reform” bill makes me want to hurl heavy objects at my computer every time I hear his latest gem about how “it’s just too hard, politically” to have real reform.
Read the polling, moron. If you kill this, with 72% of the public behind it, then all the corporate money in the world may not be able to buy you enough votes.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I’ll happily concede that the Senate is the root of all evil in the Universe, but Matt is a bit disingenuous here. It’s fine for Baucus to admit that he can’t pass legislation alone, and has to take the power of lobbyists (including, but not only, on himself) into account. That’s similar to Durbin admitting that banks “own” DC.
Although the Swiss expert must have been puzzled by Baucus’ answer.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Matt, you’re only making sense if senators have principles and personalities that correspond to their institutional power. If someone like Baucus is a mediocrity who’s in the Senate through a combination of pure happenstance and the structured happenstance of being from a people-poor state (such that you can’t expect its top talents to be equal to top talents from larger states, or from the national/international talent pool upon which the business world draws), then he speaks the truth when he emphasizes the mere-senator stuff. Being a Senator doesn’t ennoble you or make you smarter, after all.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Agency is an illusion.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
If the American citizen wanted the public option, as proposed by Obama, then the American citizen would pay the 6 grand/year in insurance premiums to the governemnt, which they are unwilling to do. At most you are likely to squeeze maybe 2 grand/year out of the government hospital user.
So, go back to the drawing board and reduce the price, get better efficiency, and quit fudging the accounting.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
a Senator can only do things which help him stay elected. bucking the insurance companies will hurt that effort, since their money will then go to his competitors.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“But Max Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee!”
Yeah, and Chris Dodd (D-WallStreet) chairs the Senate Banking Committee, and Tom Harkin (D-Agribiz) chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, etc. etc.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
If the American citizen wanted the public option—
yawn. Troll harder. Al will give you lessons.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Most of the Senate wants to serve and NEVER put their ass on the line for anything. That’s what dictates how far they will and won’t go. Even if 72% of the people support something, they know they will get head for siding with the people so instead you get platitudes about compassion and working together in place of policy that will cut some of the 18,000 additional deaths that come from people not having health care. Fuck the Senate with their inside voices and moderation. The antibellum manners of the US Senate kill more people than all the piss and vinegar ever spilled.
Russ Feingold says and does things that makes his own political life more difficult. And…who else? I’m struggling to name somebody after Feingold.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I hate to admit it, but Baucus has a point. The reality is that you need a certain amount of funding to keep the party viable. And its a zero sum game, any contributions they lose will go directly to their opponents. These Senators, especially the ones from less populous states don’t have the option of going the Obama route of living off large numbers of smallish donations.
Perhaps the way to change the minds of these democratic hold outs is to figure out a way to somehow guarantee that their campaigns will remain fully funded even if they lose the insurance industry money to their opponent.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
maybe im naive but people seem to be making the clinging to the dubious notion that money guarantees electoral success. surely people still vote. wouldnt succumbing to the will of the majority promote electoral success or are the vast majority of voters so stupid that they will vote against their interest? im not just talking about brain dead republicans here.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I have to say, “The Votes Aren’t There” is a brilliant, yet infuriating passive-aggressive attempt at obfuscation. They should actually say- “I’m such a bought-and-paid for whore that my vote isn’t there”.
These Blue Dog assholes just love having the mean ol’ Republicans to blame for the votes “not being there”. It’s like when you agonize about having to break up with someone but they pull the trigger first, saving you from being the Bad Guy.
If the Democrats can’t (or won’t) get healthcare done now, I don’t ever want to fucking hear them blame the GOP again. Everyone already knows the GOP are a bunch of crazy, destructive loons. If the Dems can’t (again, or won’t) pass popular, progressive legislation, then what fucking good are they?
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
This entire scenario is a perfect illustration of why campaign finance reform is so desperately needed if we are to live in an *actual* democratic republic, and not an oligarchy that conveniently hides behind the forms of republican government.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I’d be interested in hearing how -if someone does “A”, I’ll do “B”-, is circular thinking.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
If the Dems can’t (again, or won’t) pass popular, progressive legislation, then what fucking good are they?
In regard of the last 8 years, I would say not being Republicans is good enough. But I’m optimistic about health care reform, for the reason you’ve given: too many Very Important People have their credibility on the line this time.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
With a 59 (or 60) to 40 majority in the Senate, and 72% of Americans supporting the Public Plan, the chryon that I see on traditional media is:
“Will Democrats ignore Republicans and go it alone?”
They. Have. Got to be KIDDING me.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
This is the moment for Democrats to lead their leaders.
I am a Californian who has voted for Dianne Feinstein every time she asked for my vote. I am a slightly hawkish, fiscally conservative, socially liberal environmentalist. Al Gore was my first choice for president in the last several elections, although I happily voted for other Democrats too, and I am very pleased with Obama so far. I have voted for some Democrats (such as Dianne Feinstein) with mixed feelings. Clearly she is smart, experienced and hard-working. Also clearly, she operates as an opportunist who makes lots of concessions to power. My guess is that my views are shared by a large percent of California Democrats.
Health Care reform is the biggest economic and social step our country can make at this time. If we cannot do a good job with a strong public option with 60 in the Senate Democratic caucus, then I can live with 55 or 51. If Dianne Feinstein does not work enthusiastically and effectively to make a public health option available, then I will no longer vote for her. This is the first time in my life I have made such a pledge, and I mean to keep my word.
If other Californian Democrats make a similar pledge, I think we can count on Dianne’s support in the upcoming Senate struggle.
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
If Dianne Feinstein does not work enthusiastically and effectively to make a public health option available, then I will no longer vote for her. This is the first time in my life I have made such a pledge, and I mean to keep my word.
Nice gesture and all, but you realize that there are over thirty million people in California?
And that Feinstein is not merely Senate-rich but incredibly fucking rich?
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
That’s not what Sen. Conrad said. What he said was:
Because the republicans won’t vote for it, we won’t get to 60, which means I can’t vote for it.
This isn’t perfectly circular, but the loop is essentially based on the fact that his vote is dependent on the legislation passing — which it can’t do without his vote! MY also correctly points out that his logic, as bad as it is, is even worse because it implicitly ignores that possibility of bypassing a filibuster through the “procedural” loophole, or whatever it technically is.
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Although I am only one of 30,000,000 in CA, people who agree with me about health care reform will be the electoral difference in the next general election.
If we understand our power as well as the Senators understand theirs.
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Pat, it was the second of my two statements that matters more.
If you can find some avenue by which Feinstein’s personal wealth and fundraising ability is neutralized, then voting her out would be absolutely possible.
The problem, as I see it, is that you’ve offered no suggestion of how to get that cash.
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Greg,
I have no desire to vote Dianne out of office. I want her to vote herself into history, not as a clever Senator who managed to hold on to personal power, but as an American leader who helped fix a gaping wound in the body public.
This is her moment. I want more Californians to remind her of it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
patfoley – you are an idiot if you think after 36 years in public office this will be the time Senator Feinstein does the right thing. 2006 was the year for Californians to remind DiFi
after she voted for IraqII, Patriot Act, the recall election, and Fisa. Being that you are hawkish fisco/solib of course you have no desire to vote her out of office.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
HBhy,
Please avoid random insults. The Iraq invasion was a moral/policy disaster. I spoke out against it then, as did Al Gore (one of many reasons I respect the man). Dianne Feinstein is not where I go for moral authority.
I think Feinstein, like many politicians (Hillary Clinton for example), has been carefully burnishing a moderate image to gain more political power. This may even have been politically necessary in a country that considers Bush, Cheney and Reagan legitimate leaders. It is now time for all such Democrats to come out of the closet and actually do what their consciences demand.
The USA has shown that it is ready to try a different approach. If Democratic leaders are still afraid to lead, they don’t deserve to lead.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
What I can’t figure out about this is why large companies (say GM, CitiBank, Proctor & Gamble, etc.) are sitting on the sidelines here. Introducing a public option is step towards off-loading the cost of health care to the government and taxpayers. Obama should be building a coalition of people would benefit from the public option to counter the health insurers.