The best way to provide HC to people w/o the means to pay a monthly, market rate HI premium is to have a network of government run or financed health care facilities. When a person needs HC that they cannot afford to pay for, they go to their local government run clinic/hospital and get the care they need. The government charges a market rate for its care. Depending on the recipients assets and income, payment for the care ranges from no charge to full price. Having goverment facilities for the poor to go to will lower the price of private market care. Private providers no longer have to provide charity care to those who cannot pay. This lowers the cost of doing business for private market HC providers. Whatever the cost of running a network of HC facilities, that cost must be lower than the fee for service medicare reimbursement model. How many patients can a Dr. treat in a day? Adjacent to every post office in the country is a government HC clinic. Patients are lined up and prepared for the Dr. to efficiently evaluate and treat them. Some sort of an

Maybe I misuderstood a few things, but I thought I heard it suggested to pass the Senate HCR bill in the House and then use reconciliation in the Sentate to bring it closer to the House version and at the same time someone mentioned that the Senate bill should appeal more to House Democratic moderates and conservatives. Won't the "threat" of amending via reconciliation make it harder to get these votes for the initial Senate bill? Assuming that the abortion problem can be finessed wouldn't it be less risky to simply say that it will be left for future congresses to take further action if they deem it wise? The nature of this reform leads me to believe that it is not very significant if the "tweaks" start happening now or wait until a new congress convenes in 2011. If you truly believe that HCR is popular with the public then you have a good election position of having done something now while campaigning that more could be done if more Democrats were to be elected in November.

Did anyone else have difficulty hearing this diavlog over all the whistling past the graveyard?

Quoting tahitiwahini: Did anyone else have difficulty hearing this diavlog over all the whistling past the graveyard?

The wingnuts said HCR was dead in August but it ain't yet. I hope they keep crowing, because a huge victory for progressives will be even sweeter when we see them eating their hats.

Quoting claymisher: The wingnuts said HCR was dead in August but it ain't yet.

I hope they keep crowing, because a huge victory for progressives will be even sweeter when we see them eating their hats.

And then he'll have to change his username to tahitiwhiny.

Quoting bjkeefe: And then he'll have to change his username to tahitiwhiny.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wahine

The Country no longer is willing even to consider the stated goals of "Health care reform", and is especially wary of the size, degree of intrusion, lobbied effects, etc. of the currently passed versions.
Why not introduce and pass one page legislation which states that: 1.) A department of HEW will buy all defaulted US medical debt from US collection agencies, and turn the debt it buys over to the IRS for collection along with taxes. 2.) The IRS will waive collection fully or partially according to the income/status of each individual and his/her dependents as set by Congress
That's it! The advantages of this proposal include: 1.) No change to existing law 2.) Anyone... Anyone can walk into any doctor's office or hospital and receive the maximum treatment recommended. Any one who can pay cash will pay cash. All those with insurance will be supported by their insurance, and pay their deductibles and co payments as agreed. Those who are members of cooperatives (such as Kaiser Permanente in California), will continue as members. All of these existing groups will continue their present arrangements and full personal responsibility. But, if any bill remains unpaid, then it will referred to a collection agency, at the

Quoting look: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wahine

Learn something new every day. Thanks. And sorry, tw.

Yes, even the optimistic guy, Jon, said he would bet that it wouldn't happen, but that the odds were "a lot better" than 1 in 100. The path they sketched out seems almost preposterous to me, but I understand why so many people who have worked so hard for so long are clinging to straws. Such an immense failure is hard to accept, especially considering the likely costs in upcoming elections. Obama has three years to recover, but House Reps and some Senators only have a few months.

Quoting Wonderment: The path they sketched out seems almost preposterous to me, but I understand why so many people who have worked so hard for so long are clinging to straws.

What's so preposterous about Pass & Patch, or even just having the House of Representatives pass the Senate version of a bill they've already all voted for? From where I'm sitting, the only reason it isn't assumed that this will happen is the ongoing self-lobotomization of the institutional Democratic Party.

What's so preposterous about Pass & Patch, or even just having the House of Representatives pass the Senate version of a bill they've already all voted for?

I'm just saying....don't hold your breath. Congressional cowardice trumps everything.

Quoting bjkeefe: Learn something new every day. Thanks.

And sorry, tw.

No offense taken, bjk. I understand there are some people who believe ObamaCare is good policy. In the face of that it would be disproportionate of me, not to say churlish, to be the least upset with your misconception. Especially since, aside from a temporary ding to my vanity, it will have no long-term egregious consequences. Peace,
tw

Quoting Don Zeko: What's so preposterous about Pass & Patch, or even just having the House of Representatives pass the Senate version of a bill they've already all voted for? From where I'm sitting, the only reason it isn't assumed that this will happen is the ongoing self-lobotomization of the institutional Democratic Party.

I think the WH has decided that a lot of heat and attention isn't helping the process. That doesn't mean they've given up. I know the fans really want Obama to throw for the end zone on every down, and take it as a sign of surrender that he's not, but he's still plugging away at the running game. He's still out there talking about HCR. Pass and patch was a good idea last year and it's still a good idea now. Mark Schmitt back in July:

Some have suggested using reconciliation to install the rough skeleton of reform, and then fixing it later, but the act of using reconciliation in the first place is such a nuclear option that it is likely to poison the waters not just with the four semi-reasonable Republicans but also with the

I don't understand clay's post. I mean, I understand the crass demagoguery of the term "wingnut", but I don't understand why the fact that people predicted the death of health care reform in August...therefore means anything. Since healthcare still hasn't passed, I don't see how they have yet to be proven wrong? You may say circumstances have changed since then, and they obviously have via Scott Brown, but they were also predicting the death of a different bill in August. Namely, a bill with some sort of a public option. I only see vindication in that prediction.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: I don't understand clay's post. I mean, I understand the crass demagoguery of the term "wingnut", but I don't understand why the fact that people predicted the death of health care reform in August...therefore means anything. Since healthcare still hasn't passed, I don't see how they have yet to be proven wrong? You may say circumstances have changed since then, and they obviously have via Scott Brown, but they were also predicting the death of a different bill in August. Namely, a bill with some sort of a public option. I only see vindication in that prediction.

The House passed a HCR in November and the Senate in December. Anybody who said it was dead in August was wrong. It may yet die but it hasn't yet. I'm no expert on parliamentary procedure but I'm sure they have until the end of this congressional term to finish the job. It ain't over til the fat lady sings.

One keeps on hearing about the "reconciliation process" to fix the bill. The problem with this is technically the reconciliation process is limited in what can be considered under this rule. It is limited to revenue measures not policy. Yes I suppose that one can disguise almost anything as changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution, but given the direction of public will this be a survivable political path.

On the other hand, sometimes it's over when the fat lady develops laryngitis.

Quoting tahitiwahini: On the other hand, sometimes it's over when the fat lady develops laryngitis.

Will you be here all week?

Quoting claymisher: I'm no expert on parliamentary procedure but I'm sure they have until the end of this congressional term to finish the job. It ain't over til the fat lady sings.

I don't think you understand that the country is out of money. People are not going to accept the medicare and medicaid spending cuts needed to extend coverage to all the unemployed and low income workers (without increasing spending ). Which means HCR makes the deficit even higher than it is now. If the republicans can only drop the tax cut talk and put a lid on the WOT, we would have the makings of governing majority for a long time to come. Democrats stand for spending and debt. Republicans are the party of the balanced budget and dramatic spending cuts that target constituents of the democrat party ( that is where the spending is ).

Tim: "Conservatives say: '...this will lead to rationing... and government spending has no discipline' ... [and this is] self-contradictory" I disagree, Tim. It is not at all self-contradictory, and I am surprised Tim doesn't recognize why. First of all, rationing is inevitable in any system -- that's simply the result of scarcity -- so the only question is how it will occur. Any of the government-lead plans being discussed involve some or all decisions about the provision of medical care being moved from a decentralized price-mechanism-enforced rationing, to rationing set by centralized policy, either directly emanating from congress, or created by an agency of the executive exercising delegated power. Rationing will take two forms: first it will decide what we pay for, which will conspicuously make decisions about who gets what care; and second, it will decide how much we pay for, which will decide, in a less conspicuous manner, what sort of care will even be available in the future. None of this is incompatible with rent-seeking and principle-agent problems leading to a lack of discipline on the part of central decision-makers. First of all, it is possible through inefficiencies in the government-distorted market to cause less in the way of positive

Quoting jimM47: Tim: "Conservatives say: '...this will lead to rationing... and government spending has no discipline' ... [and this is] self-contradictory"

I disagree, Tim. It is not at all self-contradictory, and I am surprised Tim doesn't recognize why. First of all, rationing is inevitable in any system -- that's simply the result of scarcity -- so the only question is how it will occur. Any of the government-lead plans being discussed involve some or all decisions about the provision of medical care being moved from a decentralized price-mechanism-enforced rationing, to rationing set by centralized policy, either directly emanating from congress, or created by an agency of the executive exercising delegated power. Rationing will take two forms: first it will decide what we pay for, which will conspicuously make decisions about who gets what care; and second, it will decide how much we pay for, which will decide, in a less conspicuous manner, what sort of care will even be available in the future.

None of this is incompatible with rent-seeking and principle-agent problems leading to a lack of discipline on the part of central decision-makers. First of all, it is possible through inefficiencies in the government-distorted market to cause less in the way of positive

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, even the optimistic guy, Jon, said he would bet that it wouldn't happen, but that the odds were "a lot better" than 1 in 100. The path they sketched out seems almost preposterous to me, but I understand why so many people who have worked so hard for so long are clinging to straws.

Such an immense failure is hard to accept, especially considering the likely costs in upcoming elections. Obama has three years to recover, but House Reps and some Senators only have a few months.

Putting aside how cool it is to see the democrat party fail in such a large way, how could Obama and the other party leaders have been so delusional? They genuinely believe the key to American business growth and improved productivity is for no Americans to be without HI. And nowadays they think that deficit spending is necessary to pull an economy out of a recession. ( Obama refered to the consensus of economists holding this view when replying to Paul Ryan at the republican retreat last week. ) Democrats are very far off the mark when it comes to understanding how a national economy works.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I don't think you understand that the country is out of money. People are not going to accept the medicare and medicaid spending cuts needed to extend coverage to all the unemployed and low income workers (without increasing spending ). Which means HCR makes the deficit even higher than it is now.

If the republicans can only drop the tax cut talk and put a lid on the WOT, we would have the makings of governing majority for a long time to come. Democrats stand for spending and debt. Republicans are the party of the balanced budget and dramatic spending cuts that target constituents of the democrat party ( that is where the spending is ).

You want to stay in your fantasy world or do you want to subject those claims to actual facts?

Whether health care should be subject to normal market mechanisms is a normative question that I don't have the time to tackle with you at the moment, but it is a basic fact that government involvement in the market destroys a certain amount of information which would otherwise emerge through the price mechanism. The destruction of that information creates inefficiencies which drive down the output per spending. Whether that inefficiency is enough to dramatically affect things is an empirical question to which we don't have an answer yet, and this proposal has to compete with a system that is also pretty destructive of information, but my point stands: it is a possibility. If you don't buy that possibility, move on to the part of my post that assumes that won't be the case and ignore the rest.

Quoting jimM47: None of this is incompatible with rent-seeking and principle-agent problems leading to a lack of discipline on the part of central decision-makers. First of all, it is possible through inefficiencies in the government-distorted market to cause less in the way of positive health outcomes to result from the same or greater levels of expenditure.

Someday I will know enough to be able to use "rent seeking" in a sentence. I will say there is no way the country has the political will or discipline to inact anywhere close to the spending cuts needed to right our economic ship. First, it is just too easy to deficit spend over the near term. 2nd, the cuts are going to have to be disproportionately applied to the interest groups in the country. The elderly, the urban poor, the government worker. That is where the money is. That is where the largest cuts are made. No way will those groups accept large cuts while something like the state of Texas thrives.

Okay, now Tim is saying that the Stupak amendment isn't about federal money paying for abortions. The idea that subsidizing a plan that covers a procedure isn't at least indirectly subsidizing the procedure seems like a pretty shallow claim. It's like saying that if we don't buy Iran's oil, we aren't funding Iran with our oil money -- it only works if oil (or money in the analogy) isn't fungible. I defer to Tim on his knowledge of whether that works for the parliamentarian's criteria for the reconciliation process, but I don't think it is terribly transparent to just claim that Stupak is just incorrect.

Quoting claymisher: You want to stay in your fantasy world or do you want to subject those claims to actual facts?

Do you read the newspaper? Obama announced his 2011 budget the other day. The projected deficit is $1.6 trillion. Here is a recent post from an economy pundit: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/our...oom-2010-02-02 The country is out of money. Over spending does not grow the economy like Obama's consensus of economists think. The democrat party does not work when its politicians run on a platform of which interest group has its entitlement program cut the most. Dare we say - "game over"?

Quoting jimM47: Whether health care should be subject to normal market mechanisms is a normative question that I don't have the time to tackle with you at the moment, but it is a basic fact that government involvement in the market destroys a certain amount of information which would otherwise emerge through the price mechanism. The destruction of that information creates inefficiencies which drive down the output per spending. Whether that inefficiency is enough to dramatically affect things is an empirical question to which we don't have an answer yet, and this proposal has to compete with a system that is also pretty destructive of information, but my point stands: it is a possibility. If you don't buy that possibility, move on to the part of my post that assumes that won't be the case and ignore the rest.

I have a strong opinion on the normative question (obviously.) I think whether or not my premise is correct is an important factor in gauging the meaning and of the empirical question. (How reliable is that pricing mechanism, if this particular market has different characteristics than other markets?)

Quoting jimM47: Okay, now Tim is saying that the Stupak amendment isn't about federal money paying for abortions. The idea that subsidizing a plan that covers a procedure isn't at least indirectly subsidizing the procedure seems like a pretty shallow claim. It's like saying that if we don't buy Iran's oil, we aren't funding Iran with our oil money -- it only works if oil (or money in the analogy) isn't fungible. I defer to Tim on his knowledge of whether that works for the parliamentarian's criteria for the reconciliation process, but I don't think it is terribly transparent to just claim that Stupak is just incorrect.

You are blowing my mind man. "fungible", "normative", "rent seeking". Wow! Regarding Stupak, could it be the democrats simply wanted a reason to vote against HCR so they could avoid going over the political cliff?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Do you read the newspaper? Obama announced his 2011 budget the other day. The projected deficit is $1.6 trillion. Here is a recent post from an economy pundit: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/our...oom-2010-02-02

The country is out of money. Over spending does not grow the economy like Obama's consensus of economists think. The democrat party does not work when its politicians run on a platform of which interest group has its entitlement program cut the most. Dare we say - "game over"?

You said "the country is out of money." That's obviously not true. You want to back down? Or do you want me to look up the numbers for you?

Quoting claymisher: You said "the country is out of money." That's obviously not true. You want to back down? Or do you want me to look up the numbers for you?

Clay, please look up the numbers.

I would say that having to borrow about 1/3 of what you spend, because you don't have the cash, is by definition out of money. Not out of credit yet but a few years of this and that too is likely to be in short supply.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The best way to provide HC to people w/o the means to pay a monthly, market rate HI premium is to have a network of government run or financed health care facilities.

One way to think about government run or financed health care facilities is as a provider subsidy -- sure it is one arm of gov't financing another arm of gov't if the facilities are state run, but the conception still works. This is as opposed to a consumer subsidy, which would be payment for a person's health insurance costs in part or in whole. (The current medicare/medicaid program is a comprehensive consumer subsidy, albeit one with severe restrictions on where you can spend it -- just on the plan which provides services only through providers who will take the set rate.) Similarly, think of public education as a provider subsidy and vouchers as a consumer subsidy. Our agricultural programs are also provider subsidies. Thing is, provider subsidies tend to produce poorer outcomes than consumer subsidies. They leave less room for consumers to exit to better providers (if they exist), as much money doesn't always reach consumers, and

Quoting piscivorous: I would say that having to borrow about 1/3 of what you spend, because you don't have the cash, is by definition out of money. Not out of credit yet but a few years of this and that too is likely to be in short supply.

You're forgetting that they have plenty of paper and plenty of ink. It's the same as a housewife insisting she can't be overdrawn on her bank account because she has plenty of checks left. I guess there was even a member of congress this week who (the disasterous stimulus plan notwithstanding) is still insisting we need to spend our way out of our job and market-killing deficit problems. And bjkeefe and clay are absolutely correct, Obamacare is not dead yet. These people do not care one whit for deficits, lowering the quality of care or killing the markets. All they care about is putting more people on the dole and gaining control of the health care purse strings for political power. They've already proven they will lie, graft and cut unfair backroom deals. This could be their last chance for universal government-provided

Quoting harkin: You're forgetting that they have plenty of paper and plenty of ink. It's the same as a housewife insisting she can't be overdrawn on her bank account because she has plenty of checks left.

No, it's not. Among other reasons the analogy fails is this: the housewife has a limited time in which she is expected to be capable of obtaining more income, and a limited number of ways she is expected to be able to generate it. The United States is not assumed, by its creditors or its citizens, to be nearly so bounded by those same constraints. While I agree we can't borrow or print money without limit, the medium- and long-term assumptions about the two entities are fundamentally different.

I guess there was even a member of congress this week who (the disasterous stimulus plan notwithstanding) is still insisting we need to spend our way out of our job and market-killing deficit problems.

It can't be that disastrous if you have yet to learn how to spell the word, for one thing, and for another, just asserting that it's a disaster does not make it so. Further, there are

Depends on her credit worthiness (bond rating) and the depth of her spouses pockets (taxpayers) I suppose. Seem fairly analogues to me. P.S. I hope i spelled everthing right here because we all knpw how germain that is to the point being made.

Quoting bjkeefe: there are plenty of economists who know far more than the two of us who are firmly convinced, and can make very solid arguments, that it is pigheadedly myopic to worry about deficits when in the middle of a serious recession.

The market will loan the government money for 20 years at 4.43%. The TIPS yield (that's inflation-protected) is 1.92% which implies an estimate of 2.5% inflation over the next twenty years. If you eyeball the historical data you can see the market's opinion about America's solvency hasn't changed at all over the years. Short-termed deficits of 5% are no big deal. 10% in a crisis is manageable. Well-governed countries do this all the time. It's no problem as long as you run a surplus during boom times (and not slash taxes for the top 1%). Anyway, the market isn't much worried about America's debt levels or inflation. I'm not either.

The market might not be but some others are and we all know how well the market did in predicting the collapse of the housing market. P.S. I think they got it about right here.

Quoting piscivorous: Depends on her credit worthiness (bond rating) and the depth of her spouses pockets (taxpayers) I suppose. Seem fairly analogues to me.

No, I really don't think so. You can always say one thing is like another, but because you can draw some metaphorical parallels does not mean that the analogy is really all that useful. Comparing the national budget to a household budget makes for a nice talking point for a politician who wants to mouth platitudes about fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail, but the two entities are, as I said, and as clay illustrates, fundamentally different. Second, the US is not in the situation of having a $0 balance in its checking account. It has trillions in income, and trillions in outlays. That the latter is a little higher than the former is not the same as being flat out of money. Sure, it can't go on like this forever, but no one -- including this tax-and-spend liberal -- is advocating that.

Quoting piscivorous: P.S. I hope i spelled everthing right here because we all knpw how germain that is to the point being made.

Well ... since you asked: spouse's, not spouses (since you want to indicate possession, not pluralization); creditworthiness, not credit worthiness; analogous, not analogues; I, not

Quoting jimM47: ... but why create an LA Unified Health Care Provider District to compete with LA Unified School District, when you can just give out consumer subsidies to those who need them?

I think there are a number of savings to be had from a gov run HC facilitity that serves an area and population similar to that served by a post office. Consider 10 general practioner doctors offices in an area, each of which accepts medicare for payment. Compared to 1 gov clinic that serves the same area. First, the economy of scale. 10 small offices, each with receptionists, nurses, billing specialists, waiting rooms, equipment. Obviously more expensive than the single government clinic. Second, the Drs. in each private practice have to compete on quality and level of service. Presumably, no Dr. fresh out of training has the experience and skill to run their own practice. In the government clinic, such recent graduate Drs. can be used. Cost advantage to the gov clinic. Third, malpractice insurance. The government Dr. can't be sued. ( the feds set the rules ) The private Dr. can. Of course the gov HC network has standards in place, has a complaint dept, does what it can to correct its errors and fires incompetent Drs. Cost savings to the government. Fourth, rationed care. At

Quoting claymisher: You said "the country is out of money." That's obviously not true. You want to back down? Or do you want me to look up the numbers for you?

Wikipedia has a good definition of hyperbole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
"... is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally. ..." ( regarding WIPI, I am still noodling what it has to say about "normative" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative . But, I have "fungible" down pat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility Here it is used in a slightly hyperbolic sentence: The US dollar will always be fungible, but it is most definitely not the currency you want to denominate your retirement savings in. )

Quoting claymisher: You said "the country is out of money." That's obviously not true. You want to back down? Or do you want me to look up the numbers for you?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/futility

So you were exaggerating then? OK then, we agree that America (like every other rich country in the world) can afford to guarantee health insurance to its people and is not "out of money."

Financial advice from some anonymous commenter on a blog. No wonder the left thinks President Obama's budget is sound!

Quoting piscivorous: Financial advice from some anonymous commenter on a blog. No wonder the left thinks President Obama's budget is sound!

I'm confused. To which "anonymous" commenter do you refer? And what advice?

I'm pretty worried about the federal deficit, especially about the structural deficit. I don't think it's sustainable. I say this in a blog post today, and I quote from a newsletter I get from Roubini's group. The European Central Bank tries to get its member states not to exceed a deficit of 3% of GDP. I have a selfish reason for being worried. There could be a real collapse of the dollar. By the way, the value of the dollar is something claymisher did not consider in looking only at implied future inflation in 20-year rates. The dollar took a beating in 2009. It's been declining pretty steadily against the euro since 2001, as I have every reason to know. If there is a collapse of the dollar, say a euro exchange rate of $1.80 - $2.00, all that stability in long-term rates and inflation premiums goes out the window.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm confused. To which "anonymous" commenter do you refer? And what advice?

I think he means "harkin." And the advice would be: the "stimulus plan" is "disasterous."

I'm not the one that linked to the paragon of financial advice it was you so don't play idiot please!

I have a selfish reason for being worried.

You could just hedge your bets by investing in Euros or other currencies. If you have enough savings, buy a property and live off the Euro rental income.* We lived in Spain on sabbatical in 2000. We were buying our Euros (still technically Pesetas then) at .85 - .90 USD. Live was good DISCLAIMER: I generally give the worst possible free investment advice.

Quoting piscivorous: I'm not the one that linked ...

"I'm not the one who linked," you mean.

Quoting piscivorous: I'm not the one that linked to the paragon of financial advice it was you so don't play idiot please!

Run-on sentence. Lose 10 points. And as far as "idiot" goes ... well, you're the one who thought it was "financial advice." Let's just leave it there.

Gee too bad one can't use colors here then you could just make your corrections, in red, like the good little schoolmarm.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee too bad one can't use colors here then you could just make your corrections, in red, like the good little schoolmarm.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee, too bad one can't use colors here. Then you could just make your corrections* in red, like a good little schoolmarm.

* [Omit this comma]

I feel so much better now.

Quoting piscivorous: I feel so much better now.

y/w.

Via Tim F., here is Steve's take as of today, 5 February. I figured this thread was a good place to post this link, since part of Steve's thinking comes from a Jon Cohn post, published yesterday. Short version: not dead yet, and Tim F. (see) is therefore convinced that calling your members of Congress is still worth the effort.

Progressives seem increasingly pissed off at the administration over HCR; I know I am. It's still taboo on the left to take on Obama, but sniping at Axelrod, Emanuel, Gibbs and the other WH operators is getting more permissible and frequent. I watched Rep. Anthony Wiener on The Daily Show last night and just saw Rep. Peter De Fazio (D-Org.) on MSNBC. The MSNBC talk-show host ("Ed" What's-his-name) noted the buzz about Sen. Al Franken and Sen Bernie Sanders standing up to the Obama White House. He also brought up progressive outrage over Rahm Emanuel's dissing of liberals as "retarded." There was an article in the LA Times today about Blue Cross (a nonprofit) jacking up premiums 35% after a similar increase last year. You'd think Republicans would get blamed for obstructing reform, but you'd be wrong.

Paul Krugman refers to Jon. Cohn and notes that not passing the bill is "political poison"

“If Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that’s how democracy works, with the elections coming up. And they will be able to make a determination, and register their concerns one way or the other during election time.” Obama, 2/4/10, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...n-a-vote-.html Hard to argue with that. He's done his best. If the American people want to blame someone, they should blame the Congress. If you're really pissed off by what Congress has done over the last year, remember to vote on November 2nd. Gee, I'm developing strange new respect for Obama, maybe he is smarter than he appears to be. "The president was weighing in pretty heavily on the discussions between the House and Senate before the Massachusetts special [Senate] election," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told Huffington Post. "It's dried up since."
...
"Brown's lament was echoed in conversations with several high-ranking Senate aides this past week, many of whom agreed that the administration's involvement in health care negotiations has declined

Yep pass or fail I''m sure the debacle created by the Democrats for the Democrats, in trying to craft and pass HCR, will in the long run be remembered as Congresscare!

Quoting claymisher: I think the WH has decided that a lot of heat and attention isn't helping the process. That doesn't mean they've given up.

I know the fans really want Obama to throw for the end zone on every down, and take it as a sign of surrender that he's not, but he's still plugging away at the running game. He's still out there talking about HCR.

Pass and patch was a good idea last year and it's still a good idea now. Mark Schmitt back in July:

Ezra Klein keeps the gridiron metaphor: Obama calls the next play for health-care reform

Super Bowl Sunday isn't generally a hot day for health-care news. But if the Saints can be in the Super Bowl, then anything can happen. And so it did, with Barack Obama sitting down for an interview with Katie Couric to announce that he'll be inviting the Republican and Democratic leadership to a summit to sit down and work out the differences between their health-care plans. Oh, and C-SPAN is invited.

In conversations today, the White House was quick to emphasize a couple of points. First, they're not starting over. Legislation has already passed

Quoting claymisher: Ezra Klein keeps the gridiron metaphor: Obama calls the next play for health-care reform

Hmmm ... interesting. Thanks for the link. One small aspect that's kind of delicious: It being SBSunday, the sort of crowd that wants nothing more than to sit on their couches in front of their giant teevees while stuffing their faces with nachos and Keystone Light (i.e., The Red State Trike Force) is going to hate when Erick the Son of Erick and other self-appointed field-marshals start trying to rouse them to action.