The Senate’s the Thing
It’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the fact that in a unicameral United States of America, we would now have passed both a comprehensive health care reform bill and also the most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world. Now that’s not the world we live in. Instead we live in a world where neither of those things have passed and where their prospects aren’t clear. But think back on this point the next time you hear someone say Obama is struggling with his agenda because he’s not centrist enough, or else that Obama is struggling with his agenda because he’s not left-wing enough.
The reality is that he’s struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured.
Incidentally, if you want to read live-ish coverage of the health reform debate, you should check out my public twitter feed which is a better medium for this sort of thing.
71 Responses to “The Senate’s the Thing”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
nah. Twitter is tomorrow’s MySpace. which is nearly today’s GeoCities, and yesterday’s CompuServe.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Does Yglesias honestly believe this crap, “…the most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world“? Is he talking about that cap-n-trade bill? Really!?
I’ll reiterate, it’s too bad that partisan hacks like Yglesias aren’t the ones that are unemployed.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Incidentally, if you want to read live-ish coverage of the health reform debate, you should check out my public twitter feed which is a better medium for this sort of thing.
Really enjoying not following this House health care debate! Enjoy, suckers.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Oh look, a new troll.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Matt, that’s a very static analysis. Note that the House of Representatives can pass more progressive bills precisely because it knows (or, since the House as a body knows nothing, its members know) that the Senate will likely water it down. If there were no Senate, the House would be more hesitant to pass progressive bills. There would be some net gain in progressiveness for size-of-constituency and equal-representations reasons you’ve written about, but perhaps not what you imagine.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
The reality is that he’s struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured.
No. If we’re going pretend there is only one factor at work, Obama is struggling because of a self-imposed anti-democratic super-majority rule in the Senate.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
No, Americans are saving their republican form of government thru the anti-democratic Senate and by voting.
PeakVT: Real Vermonters shovel shit, they don’t pack it.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I made some charts the other week showing how distorted Senatorial representation actually is. On health care, the six problem senators on health care, the six most likely to support a Republican filibuster—Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, and Joe Lieberman—together represent only 3.59% of the total population of the country, which means that in a properly representative Senate the Democrats could lose all six votes and still beat a filibuster. Meanwhile, the Senate undercounts New York by a third and California by a sixth while overrepesenting each of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and the Dakotas by 1000%.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Do you have a quota for these “Leave Obama Alone” posts?
November 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“The reality is that he’s struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured.”
Not even close. He’s “struggling” because the politicians who populate those institutions (including the WH) are bought and paid for whores of the plutocracy. Their job is to serve private, not public, interests. Do away with the Senate and the plutocracy would just up the ante and invest more in House seats so as to produce the same results.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Real Vermonters send self-described socialists to the Senate, or hadn’t you noticed?
November 7th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Not even close. He’s “struggling” because the politicians who populate those institutions (including the WH) are bought and paid for whores of the plutocracy. Their job is to serve private, not public, interests. Do away with the Senate and the plutocracy would just up the ante and invest more in House seats so as to produce the same results.
You’re missing the point.
In a unicameral system the plutocracy actually has to work to build its majority, including making some compromises with the majority of the population.
The Senate makes it too damn easy for them. The average corporation can buy outright a group of Senators from Wyoming and North Dakota for the same price that it takes to put up a one week ad buy in a single California congressional district.
There’s a reason why the British curtailed the power of the House of Lords.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
U.S. Senate = EPIC FAIL
November 7th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
The average corporation can buy outright a group of Senators from Wyoming and North Dakota
Or buy off a state legislature in somewhere like South Dakota for a few month’s worth of credit card profits.
There’s a reason why the British curtailed the power of the House of Lords.
You’re talking about the 1911 Parliament Act, I assume? The more recent reforms, losing the hereditary peers, are really tinkering by comparison.
There’s also the Salisbury convention, which sounds like a bidding strategy in bridge, but is an unwritten rule that if a party outlines a policy as a manifesto commitment and subsequently receives a Commons majority, then the Lords should limit their opposition to non-wrecking amendments.
It worked because the sword hanging over the Lords was the prospect of hundreds of new peers to offset chinless wonders with flat-capped socialists. I’m not sure whether the World’s Greatest Mass Debating Chamber can be threatened in the same way.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Real Vermont was lost three decades ago to the likes of Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders, both from NEW YORK CITY! They know nothing of Vermont except exploiting a state. Real Vermonters leave daily because their children cannot afford to stay there, they and businesses that would give them a future cannot pay the taxes and the regulation.
Saying Sanders is a Vermonter is like saying kittens born in the oven are biscuits.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I’m sure Matt would have been thrilled with a unicameral legislature between 2000 and 2006…
November 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
how would a unicameral system effectively and fairly balance the interests of small states and large states? A weighted lower house and an equal upper house is a good way to ensure this. A unicameral system would need to have a qualified-majority voting system, though I think instead of looking at having an upper house to blame for inaction, you’d have a bloc of smaller states that could obstruct things when acting in concert.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
I’m not a fan of unicameralism, particularly in the context of a permanent election cycle and the candidates generated by existing campaign finance rules.
A Senate that’s more like the Canadian one, in which unpeopled states don’t get equal credit for empty acreage? That would work, but Article V means that it won’t happen until the US institutionally hobbles itself into the pit.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
mike k, have you ever in your life typed something that wasn’t an ill-informed and untrue cliche?
or, as i noted on the other thread, doncha get tired of being stupid and wrong?
November 7th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
The entire point of a bicaeral legislature is that it slow things down.
Matt, you were crowing about this feature when it was strangling Bush’s plans for Social Security reform, and you backed the filibuster to the hilt when Republicans proposed to hit it with the “nuclear option” in the struggle over Supreme Court nominations.
Your abrupt shift on this issue now that your preferred party is in charge is hackery of the first order, and is especially dispiriting given your history of independent thought.
The “most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world” remark is simply self-parody.
You’re better than this.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
The reality is that he’s struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured.
And I thought it was the way candidates are funded. The Senate is chock full of Red and Blue Corporacrats.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
“Matt, you were crowing about this feature when it was strangling Bush’s plans for Social Security reform, and you backed the filibuster to the hilt when Republicans proposed to hit it with the “nuclear option” in the struggle over Supreme Court nominations.”
No that’s not true. Matt has always been against the use of the filibuster, even when the Republicans were in charge. At least know what you’re talking about when you accuse him of hypocrisy.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“Your abrupt shift on this issue now that your preferred party is in charge is hackery of the first order, and is especially dispiriting given your history of independent thought.”
Your entire post is built around a lie.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
oh, c’mon folks, don’t confuse poor heedless with the facts….
November 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Should we sulk with a bacon pizza and Cure records or can this be wished into something else?
November 7th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Assuming the revolution isn’t on offer, and people really like the idea of bicameralism, perhaps what we need to do is expand the senate to include, say, 100 new ‘national senators’ chosen by some PR method. This probably could get around the Article V problem, since the states will retain their equal representation (compared to each other), but would at least make the whole thing somewhat more accurately reflect the democratic will of the country.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
So how does the senate look? Even with the worst climate of the senate, some bill will get passed. right?
November 7th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
heedless,
Your comment at 20 was spot on.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
oh, c’mon folks, don’t confuse poor heedless with the facts….
Republicans have concocted a world where regulating insurance companies and giving people tax credits to buy insurance = Nazi death camps.
To them all those blog posts where Matt opposed the filibuster and supported Frist’s “nuclear option” are just more proof that he was really supporting the filibuster, and is probably a Soviet/Nazi drone.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Wouldn’t it also be true to say that in a dictatorship Obama’s agenda would have passed by now? Hence it’s our political institutions at fault?
I think George Bush would heartily applaud Yglesias’ post.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Howard@19:
I was more struck by the idea that it’s 40 years later, and Republicans are still thinking about putting kittens in the oven.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
To be fair, though, most countries require the assent of a second chamber for legislation. The British system is unique in that the Commons can completely overrule the Lords. Most other systems do require a second vote, although it can be qualified in certain areas, or the second chamber is largely appointive and generally defers to the lower chamber.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Also, my idea for Senate reform – though it’s obviously not going to pass:
(1) The number of senators shall be equal to twice the number of states. (Hence, Senate retains 100 members.)
(2) Each state shall elect ONE senator.
(3) The remaining senators shall be apportioned regionally to five regions (based on the 4 census regions): Northeast, Midwest, West, with the South split in two – Southeast (MD, DE, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL), and South-Central (TX, OK, LA, AR, AL, MS, TN, KY).
These “regional” senators shall be apportioned to each region in proportion to their share of the national population: West, 12; Midwest, 11; Northeast, 9; Southeast, 9; South-Central, 9.
Every two years, 3-4 seats in each region shall be elected via Single-Transferable Vote.
Each state still gets equal representation – 1 senator; but the regional senators retain rough equivalence while also avoiding a strict party-list system and preventing the overrepresentation of small states.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:00 am
“Matt, you were crowing about this feature when it was strangling Bush’s plans for Social Security reform, and you backed the filibuster to the hilt when Republicans proposed to hit it with the “nuclear option” in the struggle over Supreme Court nominations.”
Speaking for myself, I have always supported the filibuster and still do. But I always liked it as a drastic measure, not one applied to any and all legislation. And that’s the difference now. The rate of filibusters has exploded with a Republican minority. It’s no longer a special measure, it’s the standard hurdle now.
As for Social Security Destruction, that should be filibustered. The Republicans wanted to mess with the only portion of the government that is actually solvent. Profitable, in fact. Yes, Social Security will start losing money in several decades, but the rest of the government is in constant financial crisis all the time. Except for two years of the Clinton administration, the government has always lost massive amounts of money. This is like a doctor treating a paper cut when the patient’s aorta is ruptured.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Strangely enough, Lieberman had a good idea on the filibuster. He doesn’t support it now that he’s a Republican in everything but name, but it was a good idea when he proposed it. His idea was to reduce the votes needed for cloture every time a cloture vote was held. 60 first time, 59 next, 58 next, and so on until you only need 50 plus the VP. We should bring that proposal back so Lieberman is forced to vote against it. In fact, we should force a vote on a whole host of reforms that the current Republicans once proposed and name those reforms after the Republicans that proposed them. And force them to vote against their own proposal. Let’s start with the “John McCain Cap and Trade” proposal. And who invented cap and trade? Oh yeah, St Ronald’s VP, George HW Bush.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:26 am
And this really gets to what really concerns me. I used to split my vote evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Despite actually becoming more conservative, I simply vote for Democrats now. The Democrats now range from Rockefeller Republican to Pragmatic Liberal, which is where I’ve always been. The Republicans now range from Mussolini to Attila the Hun, except that they mix in a whole lot of stupid along with it. The only good thing about them is that they support my right to own the guns I’ll use against them if they ever get power again.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:49 am
And this really gets to what really concerns me. I used to split my vote evenly between Republicans and Democrats
I really hope “used to” is referring to the 60s.
The Democrats have always been a coalition party between center-right and center-left politicians. The Republicans have been a far-right, objectively pro-death since the late 70s.
Republicans think there’s a major problem in our country of poor and middle class people having too much access to health care. Dick Armey said it very bluntly, talking about the dire problem of “overinsurance.”
They think we need to deregulate insurance so those poor oppressed insurance company CEOs don’t have to miss any bonuses by actually paying out health claims for the rubes.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:08 am
“I really hope “used to” is referring to the 60s.”
No, that was the 80s. I was still willing to vote for Reagan’s followers. But Reagan couldn’t win a Republican primary election for Dog Catcher these days. Reagan is way too liberal for Republicans now. Hell, Arthur Laffer supported Obama against the quintessential Reaganite McCain. That should say something about the shift.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:13 am
And I’ll make this clear, I thought Arthur Laffer was right, and I still do. We’re just on a different part of the curve now. But at least Arthur Laffer and I still recognize it as a curve. The Republican thought now is that zero taxes result in infinite revenue. I was always crazy but sensible. The Republicans have dropped any pretense of sensibility, and strive for the full-on crazy. If Sarah Palin is your hero, you need new medication. The old stuff ain’t working anymore.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Reagan was just as bad as the current Republicans.
The Democratic-controlled House, the Senate that still had some anachronistic incumbent GOP moderates, as well as an overall less crazy media and political establishment, restrained some of his worst excesses.
I fail to see any significant distinction between Reagan and Sarah Palin. Both were caretaker governors/far right darlings willing to ride a crest of extremist populism to political power.
In 1977 the idea of Ronald Reagan as president was just as laughable as President Palin seems now.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:53 am
Most other systems do require a second vote, although it can be qualified in certain areas, or the second chamber is largely appointive and generally defers to the lower chamber.
There’s the argument that the lower chamber tends over time towards the professionalisation of politics, which removes diversity among the membership, and imposes an emphasis upon re-election and climbing the greasy pole. This is certainly the case in the House: the problems of two-year terms, huge districts and permanent election mode are obvious. That’s why I dislike unicameralism: it’s a recipe for homogeneity, short-sightedness and a cavalier attitude to the fine print of legislation.
The model for the upper house elsewhere has tended along two lines. One is (proportionate) regional representation, and the other inclusiveness in terms of expertise — i.e. giving an appointed legislative voice to the kind of people who aren’t interested in the messy business of elections. I don’t have a problem with that as the numbers are large enough to diversify interests and the powers are strictly of a revising nature. The House of Lords has been a pretty decent back-stop on issues of civil liberties in situations where the official Opposition has been happy to join with Labour in appeasing the Daily Mail.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:40 am
“I fail to see any significant distinction between Reagan and Sarah Palin.”
You are mostly right. But Reagan at least had a few brain cells left to rub together and come up with a thought. Palin doesn’t have that. She’ll be the “wait, what’s my line again?” president. Reagan said it as a joke, Palin means it. Reagan wasn’t the smartest guy, but he wasn’t a delusional sociopath.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Matt is assuming that Obama, an inexperienced newcomer with an odd history who was elected President as an exercise in national self-congratulation (which now seems like ancient history), would have been elected prime minister in a parliamentary system without checks and balances after having been selected party leader.
There’s zero reason to assume any of that, however.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:33 am
The top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined – that’s all you need to know about the institutions; everything else follows. You can have 10 chambers or 0 chambers, the result will be the same.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:45 am
MY “The reality is that he’s [Obama] struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured.”
This is true and it is not true. Obama’s attempts to maintain most of the extra legal Bush/Cheney terror powers and to use that opaque power as he sees fit has proven to be a stunning success. Obama’s repeated attempts to hand Wall Street trillions of dollars at the drop of a hat -no strings attached- have met with little or no opposition. He seems to have acquired almost unfettered powers in this domain.
In related avenues, Obama has been very successful in slowing down or blocking altogether any concerted efforts by anybody to investigate either the Bush/Cheney Crime Syndicate or the Wall Street Crime Syndicate. Thanks to Obama waterboarding is a forgotten word. So too are DADT, Card Check, regulation, reform, and change. Obama is no slouch. In many ways he has proven to be a very effective President. In those times when disdainfully skips playing BI-PARTISAN BALL, he seems to be able to extract, exactly what he wants.
On health care, Obama made the choice to pursue the path of most resistance. He could have had a single-payer CBO score in his hand before the whole process commenced. He might have used that document to approach Blue Dog Ben Nelson behind closed doors and said “Ben, I challenge you to vote against this proposed bill that will save the country hundreds of billions of dollars.” slap, slap, slap, slap, slap. “Deficit Hawk Max Baucus! Come here! I challenge you to vote against my bill that will significantly reduce the Federal deficit and provide a rosey future for your lovely grandkids.” slap, slap, slap, slap, slap.
But instead Obama chose a path that would ensure that each senator got his 15 minutes of fame, and in Max’s case, his 150 days of fame. Obama looked at a roadmap and made the choice: “I will follow this path, here, the one loaded with the most landmines and possible obstructions.”
What are we, eight months in now? And we are facing, what, two or three -or four more months- with Joe Lieberman playing KING OF THE PLANET? Obama will have spent ALL his political capital and an entire year of his administration’s valuable, CRITICAL time pursuing the health care squabble/debacle, the chief result of which was to make an unending series of unknown SENATOR/CLOWNS famous, because of command decisions he made back in January.
Obama allowed himself in this process to become a powerless tool that had to bow down to mighty Senators from West Dakota and Cornabraska, not because of the broken Constitutional framework, but because of his own silly mistakes.
No one should know better than Obama how to avoid the pratfalls of dealing with out idiotic legislative process. He is a Constitutional lawyer and expert, for christ’s sake. There are no excuses.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:17 am
And here is where the Honduran option sooner or later is going to make an appearance. We need a political system without the Senate as-it-currently-is and a bit of outside-the-constitution action will be required to get us there.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Mike K — that’s right, I’m in ur state pwning ur politics. Ha ha! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
So yeah, we live in a democracy, everyone who lives here gets an equal vote, and your side lost. Badly. Not to mention that most native Vermonters seem to like our politics fine.
Also, you dumbfuck, the “kittens born in the oven” line is what you use about flatlanders’ children who were born here. Get your insults straight.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Re: Matt, you were crowing about this feature when it was strangling Bush’s plans for Social Security reform
There was no Democrat filibuster against Bush’s Social Security proposals, and Congress’ structure played no part in killing them. The proposals were hugely unpopular and when Congressmen (both Republicans and Democrats) got an earful from their constituents on the subject they walked very quickly away from them.
Also, Matt has been consistent in opposing the fillibuster. Back when the Dems were using it to block Bush’s judges he was hoping the GOP would use the nuclear option and the Democrats could then go one better and get rid of filibutering alotogether,
Re: But Reagan at least had a few brain cells left to rub together and come up with a thought.
Plus he was willing and able to work with his entire party, not just its far rightwing (the term “RINO” never crossed his lips) and could and did reach out to Democrats and engaged in political bargaining with them. Can anyone see Sarah Palin having the sort of working relationship with Nancy Pelosi that Reagan had with Tip O’Neill.
Re: Matt is assuming that Obama, an inexperienced newcomer with an odd history who was elected President as an exercise in national self-congratulation (which now seems like ancient history), would have been elected prime minister in a parliamentary system without checks and balances after having been selected party leader.
Sailer is right: a prime ministership would have a very different political dynamic. Most likley we would end up with someone like Joe Biden as chief executive. But then, there would have been no George W Bush in power either.
Re: Obama’s repeated attempts to hand Wall Street trillions of dollars at the drop of a hat -no strings attached- have met with little or no opposition.
For the very good reason that TARP was passed before Obama was president. And there was opposition to it at the time. However it’s worth noting that the Obama administration has not been profilagte in disbursing TARP funds. In fact the program is coming in significantly under budget.
Re: On health care, Obama made the choice to pursue the path of most resistance.
Last I checked legislation is written and voted on in Congress. The president is the last person to get his say on any bill.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:12 am
It has always been drummed into me that the Senate is the superior institution, that the House is some sort of poor relation. But HCR and environmental legislation put the lie to that. Bob Dole’s routine use of the filibuster has damaged the Senate immeasurably.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am
[...] "permalink" : "http%3A%2F%2Fibwblog.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2F08%2Fbut-now-the-senate%2F" } Matt: It’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the fact that in a unicameral United States of America, [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 10:10 am
@20 Wow, I was here back then and I remember what was said about the “nuclear option”. I’ve wondered how you folks don’t blow up from cognitive dissonance watching your ideas blow up in you face. Now I know. You don’t even know what happened in the past and just make shit up that fits into your belief system.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:26 am
No, Americans are saving their republican form of government thru the anti-democratic Senate and by voting.
PeakVT: Real Vermonters shovel shit, they don’t pack it.
Was I supposed to feel insulted by this gibberish?
November 8th, 2009 at 11:06 am
The reality is that he’s struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured.
Bullshit. Obama could pass both bills through a simple Senate majority using the reconciliation process if he wanted to.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:22 am
In response to the Reagan debate upstream. I like to say that Clinton was the last good Republican President. If you won’t give me that, I have to go back to Eisenhower, you know, back in BC (before chicken-hawks took over GOP). I remember thinking Goldwater was kind of a radical conservative, but even he was pro-choice and pro-gays in military.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Bob Dole’s routine use of the filibuster has damaged the Senate immeasurably.
It’s taken this long to appreciate that Limpdick Bob bears a huge amount of personal responsibility for everything that sucks about how American political institutions are now run.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
washingtonydc @17: how would a unicameral system effectively and fairly balance the interests of small states and large states?
People have interests, and ideally each person’s interests are weighed equally. States do not have interests: they are not sapient beings who experience suffering and joy, have a sense of self, and have a conception of their own past and future.
This reminds me of the confusion some people have with regard to transportation policy. You hear stuff about the need to move vehicles efficiently, as if the purpose of transportation were to move large four-wheeled steel, fiberglass and plastic boxes around, rather than to move human beings around.
Or regulatory policy that worries about the interests of corporations. It’s certainly important to worry about the interests of people who work for or run corporations, but corporations themselves are worthy of no more consideration than lunch boxes or Mithraism.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Re: I like to say that Clinton was the last good Republican President. If you won’t give me that, I have to go back to Eisenhower
Gerald Ford was OK, and definitely not a wingnut.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
You hear stuff about the need to move vehicles efficiently, as if the purpose of transportation were to move large four-wheeled steel, fiberglass and plastic boxes around, rather than to move human beings around.
Well, sometimes the purpose of transportation is to move large quantities of physical “stuff” around.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Well, Matt, it could be even better. If we could just not hold elections any longer, Obama could not only implement these progressive goals by fiat, but prevent Republicans from corrupting them in the future. You guys are clearly not aiming high enough.
Honestly, what reason would you have to write that last line any differently if both bills had failed in the House? Obama would still be having trouble with his agenda because of the way our government is structured.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Too bad LBJ is dead. He would take these wayward Senators out to the woodshed and open a can of whoopa** on them to show them who’s boss.
If Obama, Reid, Durbin, et al can’t do it, do you think we can freelance the assignment to Dubya and Rove? At least they knew how to keep their Senate in line.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
This from the Angry Economist:
Truthfully, if there was any controllable waste, don’t you think the insurers would have captured it. Medicare, the vaunted ideal of liberalism, is riddled with fraud, as is, Medicaid. Does anyone really think it will go away under the House bill?
I have a high-deductible, HSA plan, the House bill will require my employer to deny me that coverage as its out-of-pocket costs are too high, so I will get a more expensive plan that is not to my liking, both my employer and me will pay more and for nothing I value. And I will probably get fewer raises. That is, if my employer doesn’t pay the 8% penalty and drop the coverage, which many employers presently offering coverage will do.
While we are required to have car insurance, it is to protect the OTHER driver and passengers. Here we have a government mandate that requires citizens to buy something to cover themselves, takes any freedom of choice on what that coverage will be and interferes with the employee/employer contract as to how much of the premiums will be covered by the employer, what the coverage the employer is buying. Where is that power found in the Constitution? Can we now be forced to buy approved food?
November 8th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Sorry, idiots, but if savings were already available, insurance companies would have already gotten them, and kept them for themselves.
That’s such a ridiculous non sequitur, it’s borderline cultic. It’s like saying that if the Oakland Raiders were capable of winning the Super Bowl, the coaches would have guided them to a championship, without acknowledging that the Raiders suck, and there are thirty better teams in the league.
(And it’s no surprise that Mr Angry “Economist” is, in fact, yet another libertarian software engineer, with all that implies; see also: Raymond, Eric.)
November 8th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Well, here is what John Cassidy of the New Yorker says about ObamaCare
He supports it!! Face it, this is a power grab about politics and has nothing to do with health care, uninsured, or anything else–just power grubbing.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
And then there is this from Cassidy:
Yes, making our present insurance mess a government-backed mess will really make health care better. Better would be a system that puts competition into the system, puts financial decisions in the hands of consumers and doctors. When Patient A gets advice from Health Care Provider B on what A needs and neither A nor B has any idea of the costs, there are some rather perverse incentives. That is the economic problem that needs fixing, not the medical system which needs incentives to improve care in financially sound ways. Not by dictates from someone bureaucrat.
PNC, you are smoking crack if you think anything in the bill passed yesterday changes anything substantive.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Funny how quickly the Angry Software Engineer gets dropped by Mike K.
And funny how Mike K has flipped, flopped and flapped on this thread and the other one, given that he started out by calling the House bill “very left-wing”. What a maroon.
A left-wing bill would have put private health insurance out of business in anything other than a supplementary capacity, given that it has failed miserably and has left American healthcare as the embarrassment of the developed world, a model of emulation for no party of consequence beyond the borders of the US.
The bill that got past the House is compromised in part by the hefty lobbying weight of those for whom healthcare is an object of profit, and in part by the stubborn ignorance and Calvinistic callousness of market cultists like Mike K. In that regard, I agree with Matt Taibbi’s judgement from earlier in the year, though I’ll celebrate the end of those miserable “efficiencies” from private insurance, such as the pre-existing condition exclusion.
So, while K can keep arguing for the existence of mythical medical market fairies– and howard has schooled him on that in the other thread — I’ll keep pointing out the pragmatic examples of systems that give people the freedom to work at jobs that fit their talents and look after their families without fear of sudden, capricious ruination. It’s really not that hard, once you stop believing in fairies.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:54 am
[...] It’s just a structural thing, as Matthew Yglesias explains: [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Re: And I will probably get fewer raises. That is, if my employer doesn’t pay the 8% penalty and drop the coverage, which many employers presently offering coverage will do.
Why? They could drop your coverage now and not pay any penalty at all. After the reform takes effect they will have to pay the 8% penalty. Seems to me if dropping coverage was what they wanted to do now would be he time to do it. There’s a reason however that employers provide benefits, and it isn’t altruism. That reason will remain unchanged under health reform, with an added incentive (the 8% penalty). Get back to mne when you have thought this through a bit more.
Re: Can we now be forced to buy approved food?
There are laws in every jurisdiction which forbid you to go about in public naked (thereby forcing the purchase of clothing), and laws which require you to have approved sanitation in any dwelling and place of business you own. Stop the libertarian whine, unless you’d also like to repeal those laws.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Jon
Simple, if the coverage, under the qualified plan as in the legislation, costs more than the 8% penalty, there is an incentive to pay the penalty and reduce their cost of employing me. They could drop me right now, they have reduced coverage considerably since I started, but competition for my trade keeps them employing me rather than someone else. Right now, my coverage under an HSA exceeds the “out-of-pocket” limits and will have to brought in conformance within 5 years.
Let me ask this: if a young person pays what looks to be a rather small penalty for not having coverage compared to the cost of individual and, because of guaranteed issue, will be given access to insurance upon illness, why buy the insurance before needing it?
No, I don’t want to repeal those laws and sanitation is hardly the equal of the government specifying and providing our food. I thought America was about maximum freedom within certain social boundaries, NOT about government dictating how we live.
It is amazing that so many here want government to control so much of their lives–even the essentials of health care, speaking of “right to life”–and then profess to love liberty and freedom. What you all want is license without responsibility. A few years ago a favorite bumper sticker of the Left here in NE was Franklin’s quote: “Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither”; yet those very same people preach more security without acknowledging it will cost freedom. HYPOCRITES!
November 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
What you all want is license without responsibility.
Like I said, K is a callous health-Calvinist who enjoys feeling morally superior to people who get sick.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I have been seriously injured twice and ill as anyone in older years has, I just don’t think I should be dependent on the kindness of others, PNC. And I don’t want them to be robbed by the government in my name.
I pay for and make my own way.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:20 am
[...] government-as-a-necessary-evil attitude has been completely reversed. Here’s Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias yesterday: It’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the fact that in a unicameral United States [...]