6/19: Health Care Wars

As we noted yesterday, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for health care reform. Yesterday Ezra Klein posted the latest outline of the Senate Finance Committee's proposal, and lefty bloggers were disappointed to learn that it does not include a public option. Anonymous Liberal complains that "the Finance Committee is essentially giving away our biggest bargaining chip with insurance companies." Other bloggers argue that the cost savings generated by a public option would help achieve Chair Max Baucus's goal of lowering the legislation's projected $1.6T price tag. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated by what they perceive to be Senate Dems' willingness to make unnecessary compromises (e.g., giving up on a public option) in order to win GOP votes. Markos Moulitsas complains: "Why can't Dems in Congress realize America voted them huge majorities because they DIDN'T WANT REPUBLICANS involved in legislating?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Several liberal bloggers (Bowers, Sinhababu) are suggesting that progressives would be better off if Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) lost his next election to a GOPer, since Peterson is using his chairmanship of the House Ag. Cmte to block passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. Matthew Yglesias is particularly critical of Peterson.
• Conservative bloggers (Howe, Malkin) are pleased that Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Howard Berman (D-CA) are introducing "a strongly-worded resolution condemning the crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Iran." However, Spencer Ackerman notes that the National Iranian-American Council thinks this resolution will hurt the protesters' cause.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Dayen, Moulitsas, Benen, Wheeler, Nolan) are criticizing The Washington Post for firing liberal columnist/blogger Dan Froomkin. Andrew Sullivan (1, 2, 3, 4) thinks the Post fired Froomkin for ideological reasons.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: This Is Weak Sauce, Baucus

Liberal bloggers are disappointed that the latest outline of the Senate Finance Committee's health reform proposal does not include a public option:

• Think Progress' Yglesias: "What's really missing here is the public plan. [...] This is too bad, and not just as a token of socialistic goodness. The cost savings implied by a robust public plan would do a lot to resolve some of the financial issues that are making it difficult for Finance to offer coverage that's as generous as they initially intended. Thus far, unfortunately, cost conscious centrist senators haven't tended to look at the public plan in that light. But since any legislation will go through several rounds of ping-pong with more liberal outfits -- HELP Committee, the House of Representatives -- I hope there's still some time to turn their thinking around."
• Anonymous Liberal: "By including a mandate but not a public option, the Finance Committee is essentially giving away our biggest bargaining chip with insurance companies. Once a mandate is in place, the insurance companies will have what they want and will simply devote all their lobbying efforts to killing any future attempts to create a public option. It's just bad strategy. And frankly, it's bad politics as well. Mandates will be easy to demagogue. People don't like being told they have to buy something, even if there are lots of exceptions and subsidies. If the law is ever passed, Republicans will run ads highlighting the fines and penalties in the law for those who don't buy insurance. These attacks will be much easier to defend against if the bill also gives people an inexpensive, reliable public option."
• Atrios: "As Hunter says, there isn't meaningful reform without a public option. More than that, reform without a public option is actually likely to make things worse, pouring even more money into the corrupt insurance industry and giving them even more political power. And someone should inform Baucus that if he wants to get a good CBO score he just needs to include a robust public option. But saving money is less important that keeping insurance companies happy, so that's not going to happen."

Firedoglake's Scarecrow is particularly critical of the outline: "Apparently, the major focus is on cutting federal budget costs, rather than providing health care at affordable cost to all Americans. [...] That's a pretty pathetic package, and the Committee should be embarrassed to call it 'reform.' It also looks like the Committee is just bouncing alternative packages off CBO to find one that gets the budget impact under $1 trillion. There's no connection to any other public policy goal."

Meanwhile, other lefty bloggers continue to press hard for a public option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Since When Do We Need 60 Votes?

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated by what they perceive to be Senate Dems' willingness to make unnecessary compromises (e.g., giving up on a public option) in order to win GOP votes:

• Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "The Senate Dem's problems are mostly caused by a handful of senators hiding behind the crazy notion that health care reform should require a supermajority. Senators like Kent Conrad are pushing the nonsensical notion that the success of health care reform depends on votes from Republicans. Al Franken will be the 60th Democratic Senator. You don't need 60 votes to pass health care -- you only need 60 votes to block a filibuster, and no Democrat who filibusters health care reform will manage to get through a primary. If Senate Dems are banking on a 'we're not Republicans' strategy to pass health care reform, they'll be sorely disappointed. Instead of playing procedural games, they had better get around to the business of joining President Obama in making the public case for health care reform. If they don't, they'll learn how quickly electoral fortunes can change."
• Oliver Willis: "The Dems are about to screw up health care reform by trying to give in too much to the fringe Republican party. Stop it. We didn't win the White House, House and Senate to ask [IA Sen.] Chuck Grassley for permission to do stuff."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "Someone please explain to me why a bunch of House Democrats are more afraid of making Republicans sad than letting their party's most important agenda item collapse."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Why can't Dems in Congress realize America voted them huge majorities because they DIDN'T WANT REPUBLICANS involved in legislating?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Kiss real health care reform goodbye. This is what happens when you have a Democratic president and Congress who fear angering the right, who put 'bipartisanship' -- read: appeasing Republicans -- above substantive policy. They cave on everything of importance that might cause 'controversy.' But hey, passing crap still lets you claim a victory, provided nobody reads the fine print (or in this case, gets sick). Get ready for the health care version of the gay 'benefits' bill. Less filling, tastes great. Coming to an Oval Office near you."

DASCHLE: Over? Did You Say "Over"? Nothing Is Over Until We Decide It Is!

Liberal bloggers are blasting ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) for giving up on a public health insurance option:

• The Huffington Post's Mike Lux: "Tom Daschle has been a friend to me for many years, a mentor and some who has done a great deal for me personally. I admire him greatly, and will always be appreciative to him. But I have to break from him on this issue: Tom Daschle is dead wrong on the public option in health care. Dropping it from the health care plan is not a minor issue, and doing it will not help get health care reform passed. In fact, it will almost certainly make the bill die a quick death. [...] This kind of politics -- trying to avoid a fight with the big special interests by walking away from the most important piece of the puzzle -- is exactly what has gotten Democrats into political trouble time and again over the last 40 years."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Add Tom Daschle to the list of people who think that serious healthcare reform is simply not possible, and so instead we should all reach for the consolation prize of substanceless bipartisanship. [...] Again, I point out -- 76% of Americans want this 'public option.' That's a mandate, as close as you can possibly get in red-blue-purple-whatever America. The fact that we're struggling to find 51 senators willing to do what the public demands, rather than what the insurance companies want, demonstrates how badly even three-quarters of America can be outnumbered by the interests of a single industry."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "Back in February, I pointed out that Daschle received close to $2.5 million from the healthcare industry and its lobbyists over two years, and he's still on Alston & Bird's payroll. But despite that glaringly obvious fact, Daschle is treated as a Serious Statesman with A Serious Plan instead of just the latest healthcare industry shill trying to kill off the public option with a half-assed substitute."

MyDD's Josh Orton wonders if the WH shares Daschle's view that a public option is no longer feasible: "The ground is starting to feel shaky on health care reform. Daschle was Obama's longtime rabbi on Capitol Hill -- so if he's floating this view, it must not be dead in the White House. This is one to watch carefully..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't You Guys Know How To Debate?

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

"President Obama has taken a cautious tone toward the demonstrators in Iran, with his stated reason being that more open support would discredit their cause. This strikes me as a sensible position. The revealed preferences of both sides suggest a mutual belief that an American embrace would hurt the protestors. The regime is trying (so far, without much success) to tie the demonstrators to the U.S., and the demonstrators are embracing the symbolism of the Iranian revolution (the color green, chants of 'Alluah Akbar,' and so on) in order to demonstrate their patriotism and mainstream cultural status

Still, this kind of judgment about an unfamiliar country's internal politics is just a guess, and it's a rebuttable proposition. What's remarkable to me is that those on the other side refuses to rebut it. Today's Washington Post op-ed page has two more columns lambasting Obama for failing to embrace the demonstrators. Today's offerings are by Charles Krauthammer and Paul Wolfowitz. Neither one of them even mentions, let alone answers, Obama's argument for why embracing the demonstrators would be counterproductive.

I don't understand how you could write a column without ever once addressing the primary argument for the proposition you're arguing against. The low quality of argument on this topic from the right is striking."

LEST WE FORGET: Iran Crisis Temporarily Disrupts CNN's Jon and Kate Coverage

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"CNN apologized to viewers last night after a story about the political crisis in Iran temporarily disrupted its 24-hour coverage of the 'Jon and Kate Plus 8' reality show.

The disruption occurred during a broadcast of "Larry King Live" in which the host, Larry King, who was interviewing comedian Kathy Griffin about 'Jon and Kate' at the time, inexplicably tossed to a story about Iran instead.

Viewers were forced to watch a story about the political unrest in Iran for several minutes before CNN returned to its regular programming."