Anthony Weiner now says it's a good bill. Says Dean is wrong.

[madfloridian]

How long Anthony since you were nightly on MSNBC saying there needed to be changes?

:shrug: :shrug:

Rep. Anthony Weiner: ‘Howard Dean Is Wrong,’ We Shouldn’t ‘Let The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good’

This morning, single-payer advocate and public option supporter Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) defended the merged Senate bill, arguing that it’s still worth passing. “It’s not that they got a bad bill on their hands, it’s a pretty good bill,” Weiner said. “I think that Howard Dean is wrong. And I don’t think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Asked “what is it in this bill that’s going to lower costs and provide more choice” since Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) insisted on stripping the bill of the public option and the Medicare buy-in provision, Weiner argued that covering more Americans would minimize the cost shift from the uninsured:

WEINER: No, that’s easy. I mean frankly, when you have 30 million people who are uninsured today going into hospital emergency rooms getting very expensive costs, passing along the burden. We in New York City pay $6 billion what could be in extra taxes for the uninsured. Theoretically, those people are going to be covered now, so they’re going to get better health care than they’re getting today.
O’DONNELL: How if there is no public option?
WEINER: I understand there is no public option but there are 30 million people who are going to be getting health insurance who don’t have it today. Those people are going to be getting more efficient less expensive care, not passing onto you and me higher costs. That’s a good thing. That’s an unvarnished good thing.

May I quote another source recently.

Bill doesn't really "cover" 30 million more...just fines them if they don't buy insurance

Here's the deal, Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say, even without a public option, the bill still "covers 30 million more Americans." The problem is that's not really true.

What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess.

A public option would have provided the competition needed to drive down costs and improve coverage. It would have kept insurance companies honest by providing an affordable alternative Americans can trust. That's why, without a public option, this bill is almost a trillion dollar taxpayer giveaway to insurance companies.

All that and no cost control?

I guess getting the bill through is all that matters. Especially now that someone spoke out against it. :shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Now we can dig a hole under the buss, and put Anthony Weiner in the hole...

then put all the peole on top of him, then add the bus.

[madfloridian]

2. He can sit next to Dean who is already under there with everyone else.

I guess the WH speaks strongly.

[Hissyspit]

5. Whether someone puts Weiner under the bus or not

doesn't change the nature of this pile of shit (as it stands now).

[madfloridian]

9. That is true.

And it's a sad thing to watch.

I thought things would be different.

[Larkspur]

3. Wonder how much they bribed or threatened Weiner with?

Without a public option, people will be criminals if they don't purchase crappy health insurance.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. My first thought.

[Lorien]

55. Mine as well. Why else would he sign on for legalized extortion?

Obviously he's never paid for his own health insurance, otherwise he'd know how worthless those policies are.

[invictus]

63. +1

[closeupready]

65. That's what I thought, too.

n/t

[Winterblues]

4. Oh Oh now we know Lieberman will be against it..

:shrug:

[rollingrock]

6. Weiner is just another typical caving, spineless democrat

so what else is new??

the moral is: don't ever trust a politician of either party when the chips are down.

[Laelth]

8. More evidence of serious arm twisting.

Seriously. That's all I think this is. Weiner was threatened, and he caved. He must now toe the Party line.

:dem:

-Laelth

[tekisui]

11. Curious that all this arm-twisting was not utilized to keep public-option in.

[Laelth]

18. Very curious, indeed.

The Administration's arm-twisting seems exclusively reserved for those on the left.

:dem:

-Laelth

[AndyA]

10. The current bill is basically a NEW TAX.

Obama promised no new taxes to most Americans.

Another lie? Sure seems to be. No way this isn't truly a new tax if this "reform" :eyes: goes through.

17%+ unemployment, and new taxes. What the hell are they thinking? :shrug:

[madfloridian]

12. Guess who is NOT getting their arm twisted.

From the Miami Herald's Morin

[earthside]

14. The Party of Lieberman.

It would appear that the Democratic Party is quickly morphing into the Lieberman Party.

He speaks and the White House takes a deep bow and says "Yes, sir."

Progressives speak and we get called "irrational."

How about the 'Liebercratic Party'?

[rollingrock]

27. Obama and Lieberman might as well switch places now

its becoming clearer by the day who the real 'president' is. might as well make it official.

that is, put Joe in the WH where he belongs and Obama back in the senate.

[Lorien]

56. Yep. nt

[Dream Girl]

13. Perhaps this bill is a beginning and their will be additional

changes later on.

[madfloridian]

15. Then why not pass the changes now while we have a big majority?

[rollingrock]

22. Uhh...it was the beginning six months ago

the bill started out months ago, and what we have now is the the end result, or close to it.

...the bill has grown into a giant turd of epic proportions.

[Zodiak]

49. That is the talking point

However, it has already been said that they will not revisit this idea at all in 2010....then we have an election, then we have another election with a thin one-year window to do something off of the election schedule.

Sorry.....they will not fix this. Just like they did not fix NAFTA even though that deal turned out to be a disaster.

Do not accept a turd in exchange for a promise of "some day". You will find that the promise is nothing but vapors.

[subterranean]

71. You could be right.

When the republicans regain power, perhaps they will cut the subsidies and remove any remaining consumer protections.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. Well, I guess its time to get rid of my "Sign Weiner's Petition" link in my sig.

[lame54]

17. At what point did we ever have the perfect?...

we started with a dismal compromise - then we started giving way anything that was worthwhile about the bill

[BlueIdaho]

19. There are no more chilling words than "The President needs a win."

[Robbins]

20. Bill

Public Opotion=No

Expansion of Medicare=no

Expansion of Medicaid=no

Ending preexsisting conditions=Yes but no cost containment or competion to stop the sick from being
charged more

money to Insurance companies=yes

mandates=yes


So what exactly Is good about the bill?

Cut the mandates out and put more regulation and then they can claim with a straight face it still
has good things that could be Improved later.Mandates with no Public Opotion or medicare/Medicaid Expansion Is a bad move.

[GreenArrow]

21. It's not a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good

it's a case of the BAD being and enemy of the good.

Shit can this POS.

[sabrina 1]

23. Weiner is just wrong on this. I don't know what changed

his mind, but it's not the first time he's wrong about something. Eg, calling Rep. Grayson 'crazy' and later retracting it. People should be careful about making heroes out of politicians because of their position on one issue. After his tirade against Grayson eg, I reserved judgement on him until I know more about him.

He's ambitious. You can never underestimate the compromises politicians will make to further their careers. He has done a complete flip-flop on this and he's wrong.

When they say '30 million more will be covered', they always neglect to say how. Obama himself opposed the way is being done in the campaign saying that 'forcing people to buy Insurance who could not afford it would require enforcement' and that didn't seem right to him at the time. That was a principled stand, one which he has now flip-flopped on also. He was right then, it is not only not right, morally, it is probably also unconstitutional.

It's so easy for these wealthy politicians to pass laws that will put the working poor into even more untenable financial situations than they are already in. After all, most of them cannot imagine making a choice between paying a few thousand dollars for something that this year you have calculated you don't need, and putting food on your family's table, or paying for the car you need to get to work.

I see both he and Obama have now adapted the 'meme' of the rightwingnuts, that the working poor who are not covered, 'are a burden on the rest of us' because as we all know, they are greedily hoarding all that money to buy plasma TVs, like the blacks in NOLA were 'looting' rather than trying to survive.

So sad to see this from Democrats. If this was a Bush bill the outrage on the left would huge.

Iow, the truth is, the Bill is NOT 'going to cover 30 million more Americans'. It is going to force the poorest who cannot afford premiums, to find a way to pay Private Ins, or receive a punitive tax (something all Democrats should be against) and if they fail to do that, go to jail.

Not really disappointed in this flip flop from Weiner. I was wary of him after his attacks on Grayson. Not that I agree with everything Grayson has to say either, but when a Dem stands up to Republicans, as he did, I didn't think it appropriate for Weiner to call that 'crazy'. Looks like he's been persuaded not to risk his career by telling the truth and standing up for the working poor, and he got the message.

[madfloridian]

25. There has been serious arm-twisting of everyone but Joe.

[madfloridian]

24. "Theoretically, those people are going to be covered now"?

And will that be the job of those who have watered the bill down completely?

[PassingFair]

26. Weiner is not a member of the Progressive Caucus...in fact, I can't find a particular caucus for him

...at all.

Rahm must be breaking ARMS in the House now.

Either that, or Obama has cut some deal for
a hidden public option in the final bill....

Wishful thinking ....

[TwilightGardener]

28. Ouch.

[spanone]

29. democrats know that they will be teabagged to death if this bill fails...

[madfloridian]

31. Then we must fear the teabaggers. Right?

Or could we just for once be honest and stand up for what is right instead of running scared.

[spanone]

38. ???? WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/

[madfloridian]

40. Did you read the description the poll gave of that party?

I did not see the poll, but Dean on Morning Joe yesterday said that the way the question described them made them sound like really good Americans who loved their country and did not mention taking guns to legislative offices.

The video is in DU video.

[FarLeftFist]

30. For some reason I believe Weiner and Sanders over 99% of the posters here.

We all know it's not a perfect bill but it does have a lot of pro's. Even with a mandate. It would help costs and your own well being having insurance, whether it's employer coverage or personal. I believe a public option would make this bill much better, I'am also not an anti-corporatist. I do believe the Govt. has a place in the insurance market b/c it is a social issue that would be a benefit to the welfare of our citizens.

From the same article, Bernie Sanders says:

I’ve known Howard Dean for many, many years. I think a lot of his criticism of this bill is constructive. And I think he makes good points. On the other hand, as a United States Senator and a member of Congress, I got to deal with the reality that a lot of people are hurting out there. There are a lot of people who desperately need health insurance, so that has got to be taken into consideration.

We’ve all got to deal with the reality that if this bill goes down, what does it mean politically in this country. When is the next time legislation is going to come up which will increase health care reform for 30 million people, provide insurance, deal with some of the major abuses in terms of pre-existing conditions. … Is this a good bill? It is not a good bill. But we’re going to try to make it as good as we can.

[madfloridian]

32. Do NOT kid yourself. They did NOT change their minds.

They are being good soldiers to make Obama look good.

Besides, Dean criticized the bill and that will never be allowed to stand.

Now they MUST get it through.

[FarLeftFist]

37. But if it's a shitty bill...

Wouldn't that make Obama look bad. So are they being good soldier's or bad soldier's. And why would Independent Bernie Sanders care about making Obama look good, wouldn't it make him look bad? I find it hard to believe someone that runs as an independent cares about making Obama look good. Especially during election season. Are you saying they are sacrificing their own reputation to make the President look good? Sander's is an Independent and this bill is already out of Weiner's hand's. Maybe it's b/c I'm from NY that I trust Weiner.

Edit:Spelling

[madfloridian]

44. Oh, come on.

You know presidents twist arms. Even Obama does. Threats by Rahm and Obama are not meaningless. Their seats could be endangered.

[FarLeftFist]

51. Endorsing a "shitty bill" can endanger your seat as well...

With their voter's. Sure presiden'ts twist arm's, but I don't believe they would go on national tv, on the record, and support something they don't believe in. For that matter they could just spend 10 minutes trashing it, then give it a yes vote and Obama wouldn't care the same. Believe me, I DO NOT trust 99% of politicians, but Weiner and Sander's are 2 that I do. We all know it isn't a perfect bill, but it does do a lot of good too. Further amendments can be added to tweak and perfect this bill, further amendments can't be added to a non-existing bill. The real problem is you can't make everyone happy all the time. But over time maybe we can. I believe this bill is a big first step in holding corporation's accountable for some of the more dirty tactics they use. The fight must go on though. Perfection through progress, as Democrats and citizens we will continue to fight for the forward progress of this nation every inch of the way.

[madfloridian]

54. ok

:shrug:

[dionysus]

33. "For some reason I believe Weiner and Sanders over 99% of the posters here"

we have a winnah folks!

[dflprincess]

59. Sanders just said on Thom Hartmann that he'll try to find a reason to vote for the bill

but as of now, he thinks he'll be voting "no".

[madfloridian]

66. Last night on MSNBC he said he'd try for a good bill, but would vote for it.

And then implied Dean was being an idealist.

[Blasphemer]

34. They are going to pass this crap no matter what. 2010 is going to be NASTY... nt

[madfloridian]

35. That is exactly right. They will pass it to spite the left.

[Cleita]

36. Listening to Bernie Sanders on Thom Hartmann and he's emphasizing

the "good" too. Did they pass out the Kool-Aid this morning? Bernie admits they are still working on the bill so it's not finished yet.

[FarLeftFist]

39. According to Jim DeMint:

The Dems have been working on a secret HC bill behind closed doors.

HOST: Alright, so we read that quote from your spokesperson about how you’re basically being obstructionist and it sounds like you think that’s a badge of honor at this point. But let’s face it. Are you just postponing the inevitable and do the American people really just want you to obstruct it or are they looking for progress here?

DEMINT: We’ve tried to work in good faith with the Democrats for the last few weeks, debating a bill on the floor, proposing amendments. But its turned out that this bill is just a decoy and that the whole strategy’s bait and switch. They’ve been working on a bill behind closed doors that we haven’t seen. That no Democrat other than Harry Reid has seen. And what I mean by obstructing is at least slow it down in time, give us a time to even look at it or read it. But they’re gonna file this bill at the same time they file a motion to cut off debate. Before we even have debate. So the definition of obstruction is really maybe slow it down for a day or two, so we can at least see a little bit of what’s in the bill.

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. Sounds like they had to take some pills in order to praise this poison pill.

[madfloridian]

45. Bernie backed down and left Dean hanging on MSNBC a couple of nights ago.

He already backed down.

[quiet.american]

41. You know, everyone is acting like this bill is the final word -- Pelosi on the bill:

If Senate Democrats want their version of sweeping health care legislation to carry the day, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said they have a tall order to fill: prove they have written the better bill.

Ms. Pelosi, speaking to reporters on Wednesday, said House Democrats could live without a government-run insurance plan, or public option, like the one in their bill — if the Senate has a better idea.

“The president said from the start, ‘I believe that the public option is the best way to keep the insurance companies honest and increase competition. If you have a better idea, put it on the table,’” Ms. Pelosi said. “So we will see what they have on the table.”

She added: “My members like our bill. So we have to show them why we would go someplace else.”

House Democrats adopted their health care bill last month by a vote of 220 to 215 after a wrenching debate that looks more and more like a piece of cake compared to the ongoing agony in the Senate.

Ms. Pelosi was not shy about chiding the Senate to get things moving. She also made clear that the House was not going to simply accept the Senate bill and that further negotiations would be needed

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/pelosi-to-senate-were-waiting/?scp=2&sq=pelosi&st=cse

[madfloridian]

46. Haven't they been talking about making the Senate bill the final bill?

I don't understand the process of ping-ponging, but I gather it would give the House less power.

[quiet.american]

47. You know, I had to look this up myself, but here's the procedural process for passing a bill:

Long story short, technically the Senate bill could be passed by the House as is, however, that's not going to happen given what Speaker Pelosi stated pretty strongly at her press conference.

http://ezpetition.org/congressorg/issues/basics/?style=legis

Introduction:
Anyone may draft a bill; however, only members of Congress can introduce legislation, and by doing so become the sponsor(s). There are four basic types of legislation: bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions. The official legislative process begins when a bill or resolution is numbered - H.R. signifies a House bill and S. a Senate bill - referred to a committee and printed by the Government Printing Office.

Step 1. Referral to Committee:

With few exceptions, bills are referred to standing committees in the House or Senate according to carefully delineated rules of procedure.

Step 2. Committee Action:

When a bill reaches a committee it is placed on the committee's calendar. A bill can be referred to a subcommittee or considered by the committee as a whole. It is at this point that a bill is examined carefully and its chances for passage are determined. If the committee does not act on a bill, it is the equivalent of killing it.

Step 3. Subcommittee Review:

Often, bills are referred to a subcommittee for study and hearings. Hearings provide the opportunity to put on the record the views of the executive branch, experts, other public officials, supporters and opponents of the legislation. Testimony can be given in person or submitted as a written statement.

Step 4. Mark Up:

When the hearings are completed, the subcommittee may meet to "mark up" the bill, that is, make changes and amendments prior to recommending the bill to the full committee. If a subcommittee votes not to report legislation to the full committee, the bill dies.

Step 5. Committee Action to Report A Bill:

After receiving a subcommittee's report on a bill, the full committee can conduct further study and hearings, or it can vote on the subcommittee's recommendations and any proposed amendments. The full committee then votes on its recommendation to the House or Senate. This procedure is called "ordering a bill reported."

Step 6. Publication of a Written Report:

After a committee votes to have a bill reported, the committee chairman instructs staff to prepare a written report on the bill. This report describes the intent and scope of the legislation, impact on existing laws and programs, position of the executive branch, and views of dissenting members of the committee.

Step 7. Scheduling Floor Action:

After a bill is reported back to the chamber where it originated, it is placed in chronological order on the calendar. In the House there are several different legislative calendars, and the Speaker and majority leader largely determine if, when, and in what order bills come up. In the Senate there is only one legislative calendar.

Step 8. Debate:

When a bill reaches the floor of the House or Senate, there are rules or procedures governing the debate on legislation. These rules determine the conditions and amount of time allocated for general debate.

Step 9. Voting:

After the debate and the approval of any amendments, the bill is passed or defeated by the members voting.

Step 10. Referral to Other Chamber:

When a bill is passed by the House or the Senate it is referred to the other chamber where it usually follows the same route through committee and floor action. This chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it, or change it.

Step 11. Conference Committee Action:

If only minor changes are made to a bill by the other chamber, it is common for the legislation to go back to the first chamber for concurrence. However, when the actions of the other chamber significantly alter the bill, a conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions. If the conferees are unable to reach agreement, the legislation dies. If agreement is reached, a conference report is prepared describing the committee members recommendations for changes. Both the House and the Senate must approve of the conference report.

Step 12. Final Actions:

After a bill has been approved by both the House and Senate in identical form, it is sent to the President. If the President approves of the legislation he/she signs it and it becomes law. Or, the President can take no action for ten days, while Congress is in session, and it automatically becomes law. If the President opposes the bill he/she can veto it; or, if he/she takes no action after the Congress has adjourned its second session, it is a "pocket veto" and the legislation dies.

Step 13. Overriding a Veto:

If the President vetoes a bill, Congress may attempt to "override the veto." This requires a two thirds roll call vote of the members who are present in sufficient numbers for a quorum.

[laughingliberal]

43. Unfortunately, courage is in short supply with today's politicians

I'm sure they find some way to justify their cowardliness within themselves.Where are the people willing to stand up and say, " this is not about my reelection. I need to stand with the people?" What happened to the Americans who believed, really believe, this country was more important than their next election? Where are those who were not afraid to oppose a President of their own party when he is wrong? We're a nation of wimps and our reps are worse than anyone.

[pnorman]

48. So let's throw Obama under the bus too, while we're at it.

Whoooeeee!!!! That'll really piss off those Dixiecrat-Republicans!!

[Zodiak]

52. Obama cannot go under the bus, he is driving it

You do understand the concept of "the bus", right? It's a statement of power.

Those that do not have the power can be thrown under the bus, but they cannot be the ones driving it.

Those driving the bus can throw people under it, but they cannot themselves be thrown under the bus.

[pnorman]

53. Driver or not,

under the bus he goes!

[Zodiak]

57. Yup...my post was completely lost on you...you ignored it almost completely

Amazing what intellectual dishonesty passes for "discourse" around here lately.

[pnorman]

61. Since you seem to be such a nice feller, I'll tell you what I'm going to do.

I'll meet you halfway. One of us is coked to the gills on self-important omniscience.

[Zodiak]

62. Followed by the baseless insult simply for the sake of snark...ad hominem fallacy

Typical, but it scores no points at all...just wasted electrons. It also failed to get the rise out of me that you seem to wish.

DUers should be better than this.

[pnorman]

64. DUers shouldn't be so full of themselves!

n/t

[madfloridian]

67. Neither should party leaders. They choose to blast their own.

This is a turning point to me. The fact that when the time came they chose the activists of the party, those of us who care about issues...to blast out of the water while protecting Holy Joe.

Laugh about those of us who care about issues, taunt us, make fun.

It's all good, makes decision time easier.

[Zodiak]

68. "Full of themselves"

"Pointy headed know-it-all elitist", "you think you're better than me", "so full of yourself"...all rhetorical chaff

Seriously, these are the kinds of arguments people make when they don't have any arguments. You know zero about my personality...it is all just supposition and speculation in the service of ad hominem.

You want to debate? There are rules to an actual debate. Intellectual honesty is the FIRST rule for debate. Otherwise it is a shouting match and pointless.

I suppose that if you do not feel that DU is this place to fling poo at other people, it certainly looks like that is your intention.

The bottom line...you have no idea what "the bus" meant, and rather than just take the advice and go on, you go into this attack the messenger mode rather than just admitting what is plain to see.

You see...I know when I engage some of you in this manner that you will respond exactly like this. I don't care, really, because my goal is just to expose you for being intellectually dishonest and interested in nothing but snark. You, in a very predictable fashion, fell for it and dug yourself deeper and deeper.

Now if you want to chalk that up to "full of myself", whatever makes you sleep better at night, but my goal is still accomplished. People who have little credibility or interest in conversation on this message board should have these characteristics put to the test and exposed.

[pnorman]

73. Sounds like you're voting me off the island!

Here's where I'm coming from: In 2000, I voted AGAINST "snake" Lieberman (along with his running mate). "If not now, then WHEN?" A life-long radical, I subscribed to the Ghandian idea of "Lose, lose, lose, until you win". We self-confessed "Naderites in 2000" got much flack on DU from the 'hard-headed pragmatists", and continue to get it.

So here we are in 2009, with several CRITICAL "tipping points" on our doorstep that weren't visible in 2000. There is very little room for that Ghandian precept, when we're dancing so close to the edge of a cliff. So now, it's "There's not a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Lieberman!" Are these the same people who jeered & sneered at we Naderites these past 8 years?

On edit: To "Zodiac" regarding ad hominem comments: If you can't take it yourself, don't be so eager to dish it out!

[madfloridian]

60. He just threw Dean under it.

[butterfly77]

50. We don't have a bill,,,

it goes back to the House so they can start over again,and some more lying ass bluedogs can start jumping out of their boxes..

[Zodiak]

58. the Weiner is wrong

And he is countermanding everything he has said up until this point.

Sorry...looks like someone "got" to him. Consistency of principle engenders trust....this behavior does not.

Weiner is selling himself out, and it is obvious.

[Blue_In_AK]

69. The fix is in? n/t

[grantcart]

70. lots of adjectives for those in support and no details

what is the MLR? Does it have a sunset clause? will the OPM approve plans?

More details and less cheerleading guys.

[subterranean]

72. "Don't let the good be the enemy of the not-entirely-awful."

Isn't that what he really means?

[slipslidingaway]

74. From September - Rep. Weiner agrees that the PO is weak and watered down...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6576051&mesg_id=6577956

Start at the 6:30 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGqA13WeAmI




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7142379&mesg_id=7145401

Dec-03-09

I started to follow up with Weiner's office about the CBO score for SP when I read on DU that Weiner said this was being done over the August recess.

As the months went by I began to question what exactly was being done, or more accurately what was not being done ... then came the new website by Weiner for the public option.

And no mention or website to generate support for his single-payer amendment.

:think: