Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto I, verse CXVII:
And Julia's voice was lost, except in sighs.
Until too late for useful conversation ;
The tears were gushing from her gentle eyes,I wish, indeed, they had not had occasion ;
But who, alas ! can love, and then be wise?Not that Remorse did not oppose Temptation ;
A little still she strove, and much repented.
And whispering "I will ne'er consent " — consented.
After claiming for months they couldn't vote for a bill without the strongest possible government-run insurance option, liberals are putting aside their disappointment over the weaker version in the legislation for a historic chance to remake America's medical system.
"The current language is far weaker than what I would have preferred, and I think that is also true of the Progressive Caucus," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Friday. "But because I did not come up here to participate in gridlock and acrimony, I have told leadership that I am willing to compromise."
Indeed. The temptation to engage in yet another narrative of weakness is almost overwhelming. But isn't it more fair to say, "Mission accomplished?"
The insurance companies are bailed out. Single payer is outlawed. Costs will not decrease. And everybody played their part! Republicans opposed everything. The finance wing of the FKDP
sold out to Big Pharma and the insurance companies while Obama was still lowering his right hand after taking the oath of office. Blue Dogs took their cut. "Progressives" sucked all the oxygen out of the discourse for real reform with their doomed [a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan]. And the liberals... avoided acrimony.
Well done, Democrats! Well done "progressives"! Well done Versailles
! Everybody played their part! I'm proud of you.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version


Front page


Comments
Is single-payer really outlawed?
I'm hoping that's not the case.
Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
ERISA...
... for reasons I can't explain (it's late) leaves state single payer plans open to legal challenges, and such challenges have been made, successfully. The Kucinich Amendment would have removed the grounds for those challenges under ERISA. So, any state plan can be challenged on those grounds. I'd call that outlawed.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I've seen other state efforts suggest that ERISA wouldn't
be a problem.
And even if it is, I think our side could win a court battle, even if we fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Of course, a campaign of intimidation waged against the insurance companies would certainly be helpful as well.
Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
Here's a summary of the ERISA issue
Center for Policy Analysis:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
And that's before the new "reform"
I think the "reform", which mandates insurance, sets national standards, establishes exchanges, arguably makes the case stronger that the field has been preempted by the federal government.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
preempted by the federal govt
i was just rereading some of your writing on that. do you think that would hold if a state passed single payer before the exchange[s] opened up?
It's disgusting
The only silver lining is that the fundraising ops for progressive block/ads/posters may finally cease -- at least until Democrats take up the next set of 'reforms.'