Democratic Party Out of Bounds
Who's to blame when situations degenerate?
Disgusting things you'd never anticipate.
People get sick, they play the wrong games
Ya know, it can ruin your name!
- The B-52s, "Party Out of Bounds"
Would I have voted for the House health reform bill? Probably, although I'm not sure. Would I have celebrated its passage with a festive party atmosphere, as some Democrats did? Definitely not. And here's a word to the House Dems who reportedly chanted "Fired up! Ready to go!": This isn't a pep rally. You guys traded more than you needed to trade, partially as a result of the White House's laissez-faire approach to this process, and you're gonna pay for it eventually.
This situation calls for a little less partying and a little more party leadership, a few less amendments and a lot more amends. And forgive me if I'm not bringing much "health analyst" gravitas to this discussion, but Democrats need to understand how deep the reaction is likely to be among the base voters -- the same voters who failed to show last week in Virginia.
What went wrong? Why did we get such a weak bill, compounded by the violation of women's rights and dignity that has come to be called the "Stupak Amendment"? To a certain extent it represents the messiness of the legislative process, made more difficult by Rahm Emanuel's misguided strategy of recruiting conservative candidates and calling them Democrats. To borrow a neologism from the above-quoted B-52s song, you can call it "House-a-tosis."
Then there was the White House's cynical, hands-off approach to the process. After all, if you don't commit to any particular policy plank as being "the president's reform," you win no matter what passes. My heart sank during the president's health care speech when he said "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last." I felt then that he would not fight for the best bill, but was determined to win any old bill, as long as it could be called "health reform."
"Any old bill" is pretty much what we got -- and it's likely to get even worse once the Senate is through with it. How bad is it? I've said my piece before (see links below), so I'll defer to someone far more distinguished. Unlike me, Dr. Marcia Angell, the longtime editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, would definitely not have voted for the bill, for excellent reasons. Read her piece for a wise perspective on what the House has done.
Many Democrats and progressives will disagree with her conclusions, of course, and with my slightly milder ones. That's fine. But one argument that will not be persuasive is the overused talking point that critics are too "naive" about politics. On the contrary -- most objections to this version of "health reform" are deeply rooted in pragmatism. That practical mindset applies both to health policy (ref. Angell and others) and street-level politics. And about the politics ...
I don't think many Democrats, especially male Democrats, have any idea how profoundly the House has alienated Democratic women by accepting the Stupak Amendment. The level of pain and outrage I've seen from women writers (and women I know personally) is profound and deep. Women are a core constituency for Dems, and many of them may choose to stay at home in 2010 and even 2012 if the Stupak Amendment is retained in the final bill.
I've already gone on at length about how the lack of a real public option or premium price controls will hurt working families once the mandate goes into effect. That will translate into voter anger, too.
That's why the celebrating seemed not only unseemly, but tactically foolish. The rumor from connections on the Hill is that Nancy Pelosi wept after being forced to accept the Stupak Amendment. I don't know if that's true or a well-placed story, but it certainly strikes a more appropriate tone than the jock-like chant that erupted after the president addressed House members.
You guys want to be "fired up"? Fine.
- Get "fired up" over a woman's right to autonomy over her own body.
- Get "fired up" over really "bending the cost curve" so that families can afford those mandates.
- Get "fired up" over re-inserting Medicare-based rates in the public option, rather than throwing voters' money away by giving too much to the insurance companies.
- Get "fired up" about finding ways to control runaway premiums, which show no signs of slowing down.
- Get "fired up" about the double standard that would allow states to "opt out" of the public option, but (without the Kucinich Amendment) unable to "opt out" of the private system.
- Get "fired up" over ensuring that your bill doesn't result in a massive transfer of wealth from hard-working middle class families to the insurance industry.
This isn't "ideological purity" or "naive idealism" talking. These are the words of pragmatism. Your base will desert you in droves next year if you don't fix this thing. In fact, I say this with no pleasure, but with a pretty high degree of certainty:
If you don't fix this bill before it becomes law you won't be "fired up" -- you'll be fired. And you won't be "ready to go" -- you'll be gone.
Base to Obama: Come In, Please
Time to Kill the Pseudo-Public Option -- and Other Things to Tell Your Representative
Three Reasons You May Be Uneasy With Health Reform
RJ Eskow blogs when he can at:
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Marcia Angell, M.D.: Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?
The House Health bill just throws good money after the bad. And because costs will keep rising, there is now a danger that people will conclude reform is impossible, when in reality, we still haven't really tried.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Boy he hit the nail on the head. Truth hurts.
As a conservative it would be easy to rejoice at the utter stupidity of the Dems for passing such crippling financial burden on the country under the guise of health reform knowing that it will cost them in the next election. The problem is we are all, democrats, liberals, conservatives or indifferent, going to pay for this debacle in the end. Health insurance costs will continue to climb but we'll have the added pleasure of carrying an even more screwed up health care system as well as a massive debt that will take generations to payoff.
Progressives should amplify the LGBT boycott of the Democratic party.
All progressives should withhold money and votes from all Democrats until the party becomes responsive to our demands in the areas of civil rights and liberties, foreign policy, health care policy, finance, energy, and tax and budget policy.
We need public funding of all elections.
We need Medicare for all and to create a health care sector for patients, not cartels.
We need to end the profiteering wars and slash the military budget to half of Clinton-era levels.
We need to smash up the big banks, enact an FTT, and make banking for consumers, not CEOs.
We need to outlaw gasoline cars by 2020 and make 50% of electricity clean and renewable by 2025.
We need to make college free and cut student loan interest to 0%--education for students, not banks.
We need to create six new progressive tax brackets and eliminate loopholes to adequately tax the rich.
We need to end corporate subsidies, market gaming, price gouging, and opaque speculation.
We need to root out fraud and scams and schemes and lobbying and plutocratic corruption.
We need to build a new manufacturing sector and invest in supertrains and infrastructure.
The era of Centrist domination must come to an end.
It's time for progressives to stand up and take over the Democratic party!
One more thing. We will only get a truly positively reformative health care initiative when crisis ensues. Under the gun, initiatives that today are untenable will be swiftly accepted. And if anything resembling this mostrosity is actually passed, that day of decision will come a lot sooner than otherwise.
I have read the bill (and that alone sets me apart from 99.99% of the others here). While it is not perfect, it does actually do a few things correct. It IS an improvement over the current situation.
Surprise!!!
Paaaaaaaarty!!!!
Yeah, we just thought we'd drop in!
Where's your icebox?
Where's the punch?
Eww, house-a-tosis!
Who's to blame when parties really get out of hand?
Who's to blame when they get poorly planned?
Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoooo--oooooo...
Crashers get bombed, slobs make a mess
Ya know sometimes they'll even ruin your wife's dress
Crashers gettin' bombed. (Who's to blame?)
Can you pull it back in line?
Can you salvage it in time?
What can you do to save a party?
Parcheesi? Charades? A spur-of-the-moment
Scavenger hunt, or Queen of the Nile? (Wooooh!)
Who turned out the lights? (Wooooh!)
Bombed, crashers gettin' bombed
Crasher's gettin' bombed, bombed, bombed, bombed, well who's to blame?
Who's to blame when situations degenerate?
Disgusting things you'd never anticipate
Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hooo--ooooooo...
People get sick, they play the wrong games
Ya know, it can ruin your name!
Crashers gettin' bombed. (Who's to blame?)
Can you pull it back in line?
Can you salvage it in time?
Woooooh!
It shouldn't be difficult!
Try not to condemn!
O.K. who ordered pizza?
I'll be tactful when making the rounds
Be tactful when making the rounds
and maybe you can save a party....
Party gone out of bounds!
Gone out of bounds!
Party gone out of bounds!
Gone out of bounds!
~"Party Out of Bounds" The B-52's
Seems this bill is angering at some level just about everyone involved. And the Democrats believed firmly this effort would leave them in a political Shangra la. Too far, too fast. How many throughout history have realized this arrogant mistake only after it was too late?
I've been on this site for a number of years and in that time I've realized two things.
For most of the dems on here, those in Congress have to do two things to get their vote.
1. Have a D after their name
2. Say they've passed something for the public that republicans opposed
With those two things, dems are guaranteed to get lots of votes from this bill alone so why should they care what it does. It won't affect them at all.
Here's a Standing O for RJ, including for the outstanding B52s allusion.
As a physician who's fought for single payor, I am horrified by this bill. It's a combination of a strong individual mandate with a pathetically weak nonprofit option. That is a DEADLY combination, representing a huge transfer of wealth to some of the most malignant corporate actors in our country.
And, then you get to Stupid. I mean Stupak. Thanks Obama. Thanks for nothing.
Trust me, I'm a doctor. This thing stinks to high heaven
I'm no doctor but the stench from this bill has drifted down here.
I hope the Greens put up some strong candidates around the country in 2010. The Dems have sold us out, and the Repubs are very weak right now. This might be our best opportunity for an anti-war, pro-single-payer backlash. A strong showing in 2010 for the Greens could open the door for a real progressive candidate to run in 2012.
I'm 55 years old, and I've never voted anything but Dem. since 1972.
Unless the Dems get their act together NOW, I'm a 3rd party voter from now on.
The Dems have to prove to me that there's a difference these days in the two parties. Just being the lesser of the two evils, will not work for me anymore.
President and his party spinning out of control. Picture a bell curve of American politics:
20% on the far right will hate this President not matter what he does.
20% on the center right will likely never support this President.
20% on the far left will support this President no matter what he does.
That leaves 40% of moderates and independents who the President ABSOLUTELY NEEDS in order to govern. The President is rapidly losing, perhaps already lost these 40%, not because he's too liberal, but because he fails to lead on this nation's true priorities and appears to have abandoned his campaign promises.
Bob Herbert of the NYT has it right in today's opinion piece. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Lead Mr. President. You and your party are spinning out of control.
"Lead Mr. President."
Amen! We didn't vote for giving the bully only half our milk money. We voted for standing up to the bully, and putting the poor and the middle class (what's left of it) first!
Lead, Mr. President, or we'll elect someone who will.
If Obama and the Centrists think that liberals and progressives will support them no matter what they do, they're going to be sorely disappointed.
The LGBT community was right to boycott Obama and the Democratic party. All progressives should join the boycott, adding our progressive economic concerns to the LGBT liberal civil rights agenda.
We need a new coalition of liberals and progressives to take back the party from the Centrist plutocrats and traitors who assume that we will support them, but who have no intention to do anything but obstruct our just demands.
Perhaps progressives and liberals should consider partly defecting from the Democratic party in spirit. We should start a new Progressive Party to take over blue districts, and run primary challenges in the Democratic and Republican parties in purple and red districts. The members of the Democratic and Republican parties we run as primary challengers should in fact just be de facto members of the Progressive Party, who would adopt the Progressive Party platform and would vote with the Progressive Party in Congress.
Well said, RJ!
If we don't get a serious reform bill with a government option available to ALL Americans, and the horrible Stupak Amendment removed, the Dems are finished.
I cannot fathom how they could be this reckless politically, and Obama couldn't have been more disappointing as a so-called leader. Hillary warned us he was just a pretty speechifier, and boy was she ever right.
For those who think it's going to be Palin or Newt in 2012, you'd better think again.
Jeb Bush is already practicing being a moderating voice for the Republican party. Just a little comment here and there, so as not to become too much of a Limbaugh target.
If Obama signs a health care bill that makes the situation worse (which looks very likely unless saner heads prevail in the Senate), and he also has an escalated dead-end war still going in Afghanistan in 2012 (which also looks likely), Jeb Bush will waltz right in.
Voters desperate to dump Obama, will begin to say that Jeb is really the smarter of the Bush brothers. Jeb will carefully craft a platform promoting a new Republican party, that will save them from the Dems reckless handling of their health care dollars. And he can ice the cake with a promise to get out of Afghanistan.
Dems thought the White House would be safe for a generation after Nixon's disgrace. All it took was Jimmy Carter to cost the Dems the WH for 12 long years.
You have the scenario almost exactly right. the only thing I would add is that palin or newt will be convinced to run so that jeb will LOOK like a moderate republican compared to the extremes.
What is confounding is that the people who voted for this abysmal effort at a health care reform bill are not only ignoring the best interests of the people (let alone their will), but they are also ignoring the best interests of the country. With the health insurers continuing to make off like thieves, I don't see how the proposed legislation will address the mounting cost of health care coverage both the government and the individual. Add to that a provision to effectively ban certain groups from choosing to have abortion coverage at their own expense, and Bush's Medicare Part D, and we not only have a repackaged version of the status quo, but in fact we seem to have taken a step backwards.
Obama's hands off approach to the debate, as well as his apparent unwillingness to take a firm stand on the public option has been an insufferable let down, but from day 1 the actions of the Democrat controlled House have been nothing short of a disgrace... giving equal representation to the Republicans on the reform committee... That's simply not the way a democracy works ! 50% +1 is all that's needed to get things done a they got much more than that !
GET THE BILL ON THE BOOKS ! We can work on amendments later. Any insurance is better than none for those without it. Is it fair to the majority of Americans to go without for the child baring minority? I am pro choice but healt insurance is bigger than this ONE issue!
It isn't "this ONE issue." Pay attention. The insurance companies, with Obama and the help of Congress, are getting ready to royally shaft us. If we let them.
Call your reps, and demand a public insurance option that will be available to ALL!!!!
Demand that the Stupak Amendment be dropped. Quit settling for just whatever we can get.
You can fight now, while you still have a roof over your head, or you can wait until they throw you into the streets. It's up to all of us to say enough's enough. Now. Before it's too late.
Dragonlady you don't pass faulty legislation just to pass it. You must own stock in the insurance companies and big pharma if you see insurance as the ONE issue. For me the big issues in this legislation are the mandate of individuals to purchase a for-profit privately sold product, service or commodity and the abortion clause. To me these may be constitutional issues and my concerns about them far outweigh any minimal coverage I might receive after being forced to purchase an overpriced insurance policy. We just survived eight years of having our civil rights eroded. The Change I voted for was for that type of action to end.
Revising a law on the books is much more difficult than doing it right the first time.
Whoa...: "Fired and Gone."
Now THAT'S a slogan that could bring disaffected voters out to the polls next year in droves, to vote for ANYONE but the nearest Congressional incumbent.... Great job of phrase-coining, that nicely captures the essence of the betrayal of last year's elections with its play on words.
I think it's safe to say that if anyone believes that [redacted] "wept" Friday night after giving the Stupak amendment the green light, they don't know [redacted].
As to the crack about "a few less amendments" (it's amazing how quickly people forego self-government in exchange for all-powerful Rulers like [redacted]) -- how much fewer can you get than ONE?? Which is the entire number of amendments to this bill from our 435 federal Representatives that Speaker Pelosi allowed on to the House floor (Republican "substitute" aside). NOT acceptable in a "representative democracy."
In fact, we may have much better odds in the Senate of enacting the wise improvements enumerated here by Mr. Eskow, than we did behind closed doors in the House. The Senate still (sometimes) allows genuine floor amending - imagine that. We'll see if artificial pre-filibuster vote totals (of 60) will be required on Senate amendments, or whether those wishing to filibuster are forced to put their time (INCLUDING WEEKENDS) where their mouths are.
NB: The only thing "laissez-faire" or "hands-off" about the (interfering) White House involvement in this bill's legislative process has been their PUBLIC involvement.
"NB: The only thing "laissez-faire" or "hands-off" about the (interfering) White House involvement in this bill's legislative process has been their PUBLIC involvement."
FOR EXAMPLE:
"An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the [House] bill [by Speaker Pelosi] at the request of the Administration."
Said the amendment's author, Dennis Kucinich, in a very informative statement:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/494236/six_smart_progressive_complaints_about_house_health_bill
That amounts to ceding the INDEPENDENT power of Congress to the Executive Branch, BEHIND closed doors.
How could Dennis Kucinich so calmly tolerate watching the House - where a committee of jurisdiction had already democratically PASSED his amendment - be secretly told by the President's Men (via the Speaker) to REMOVE his amendment, only to see the Speaker of our INDEPENDENT Congress willingly obey such a command from the Executive Branch... ALL BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
We HAVE to get a grip on who is really calling the shots - and LETTING them - in our Congress. NOT "a few less amendments" please. Rather, a whole hell of a lot MORE amendments please - FROM OUR REPRESENTATIVES who DON'T dangerously defer to hired flacks at the White House.
Here are summaries of the 200+ amendments offered on this bill that were summarily dismissed by the Rules Commitee, apparently "at the request of the Administration," with the approval of the Speaker:
http://www.rules.house.gov/amendment_details.aspx?NewsID=4497
Very strong and spot on analysis.
This is the best bill the Health Insurance Cartel could buy.
They could not have done much better if they had written it themselves.
Wait a moment, did the cartel in fact write the bill.
The stupidity is that it is a bad bill, and now the Democrats will be blamed for the fiasco.
Obama has lost my support over his healthcare performance, but even more, he has lost my respect. I believe he is smart enough to fully and cynically understand that he is selling out the American people in pursuit some political advantage.
I'm not sure whether congressional support was due to stupidity, or corruption, but should we return any of these folks to office, any more that the side whose initial and constant position has been screw the People?
We need about 433 new Congressmen in '10, and however many new Senators as available.
Voting them all out. I am incensed that women and families are relegated to second class status. That mandate is going to be a rallying point around which disparate groups gather and resist because of the implicit over stepping of bounds that the Stupak amend. and the mandate itself impose. Obama's timidity guided by his shortsighted, refugee from the Clinton years, Chief of Staff Emanuel, has just ensured that Obama will endure a repeat of Clinton's first mid-terms.
Eskow has it exactly right, the cynicism of the WH strategy is to hedge so that it can claim any bill as a victory. Meanwhile, Obama's critics are dismissed as being too insubstantial or not versed in "chess." Why aren't we taking to the streets to do the WH's bidding if we want health care reform? Much better question: Why is there no genuine leadership, rather just cynical gamesmanship?
Yes Obama will repeat Clinton's midterm (probably squared)
But unless he starts remembering his base very soon with something more that pretty speeches he will not repeat Clinton's reelection.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
