Dean's Blind Spot (and that of his fanbase)

[BeyondGeography]

This is a thoughtful piece, though too many of you will stop at "Brownstein":

Maybe one reason former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and so much of the digital Left can so casually dismiss the Senate health care reform bill is that they operate in an environment where so few people need to worry about access to insurance.

The 2004 presidential campaign that propelled Dean to national prominence was fueled predominantly by "wine track" Democratic activists-generally college-educated white liberals. (In the virtually all-white 2004 Iowa caucus, for instance, exit polls showed that two-thirds of Dean's votes came from voters with a college degree.) Those are the same folks, all evidence suggests, who provide the core support for online activist groups like MoveOn.org or Dean's Democracy for America and congregate most enthusiastically on liberal websites. (According to studies by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, college graduates are more than twice as likely as those with only a high-school degree to communicate about politics online.) Along with Dean, those digital Democratic activists are generating the loudest demands to derail the Senate bill.

Some individuals in these overlapping political networks undoubtedly face challenges with access to health care, but as a group college-educated whites are much less likely than any other segment of the population to lack health insurance.

The latest annual Census Bureau figures show that in 2008 just 5.96 percent of college-educated whites lacked health insurance. For whites without a college education, the share without insurance jumps to 14.5 percent (the number is surely higher for non-college whites who are not union members). Among African-Americans, the share of those without insurance rises to 19.1 percent. Among Hispanics, the share of those without insurance soars to a daunting 30.7 percent, the Census found.

In his Washington Post op-ed Thursday, Dean wrote: "I know health care reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill." Yet the bill that Dean so casually dismisses would spend, according to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly $200 billion annually once it is fully phased in to help subsidize insurance coverage for over 30 million Americans now without it. That's real money--the most ambitious and generous expansion of the public safety net since the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson. And that money, based on the Census results, would flow most into minority and working-class white communities.

Minorities don't seem to have much doubt about their investment in this debate. In November's Kaiser Family Foundation health care tracking poll, two-thirds of non-white Americans said that their family would be better off if health care reform passes. Though the evidence suggests that non-college whites could also receive a disproportionate share of the bill's spending (since they constitute more of the uninsured), they are dubious: just one-third of them believe they would be better off, a reflection of the mounting skepticism about government such blue-collar whites are expressing across the board. Yet the most skeptical group is the college-educated whites, the same constituency that has the most access to health insurance today: only about one-fourth of them expect to be better off under reform...

...The broad mass of college-educated white voters are an increasingly central component of the Democratic coalition. But it remains a challenge for the party to manage the expectations of that community's most liberal segments because they tend to see politics less as a means of tangibly improving their own lives than as an opportunity to make a statement about the kind of society they want America to be. That is not a perspective that encourages compromise or pragmatism. It may be easier for Dean, and the activists cheering him on, to view the Senate bill as an affront to their values precisely because so few of their interests are directly at stake in the fierce fight over this imperfect but landmark legislation.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/deans_blind_spot.php

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. I get it now! Dean's supporters are too edumicated.

:think:

[BeyondGeography]

3. Yeah, that's it

:eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. This article fails in the first sentence.

Maybe one reason former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and so much of the digital Left can so casually dismiss the Senate health care reform bill is that they operate in an environment where so few people need to worry about access to insurance.

1. Nothing casual about it. Look around, people care.
2. Just because many may have HC that doesn't mean that they can't empathize with those who don't. It's a distinctly progressive trait. The "I've got mine so I can dismiss it" mindset is distinctly a conservative trait. It's called projection. The "casual dismissers" want a bill that will work for those without HC, not for the middlemen and their vigorish.

Blaming the left for failure is patented horseshit.

[BeyondGeography]

20. At least you apparently made it past "Brownstein"

Not much, though.

This is more an analysis of how the party, particularly those who most identify with Dean, came to be split on how to proceed with the current bill. It's not blaming the left for failure.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. It's just blaming the left for casually dismissing one of their pet causes.

It's ridiculous on it's face.

[Zodiak]

63. It's a sideways accusation of being a "limousine liberal"

It's the Democratic party's version of the Club for Growth ads from 2004.

You know....latte-drinking, socialist, leftie, liberal, birkenstocks wearing, etc. etc.

[janx]

69. Yeah, we're all a bunch of naive college kids...

with lots of money.

A ten-year-old could have written this.

[ljm2002]

84. Nothing sideways about it...

...it is actually quite blatant.

And of course it's another way to divide us. Because we all know that educated people don't have the best interests of the masses at heart. Oh, wait, let me amend that: educated *liberals* don't have the best interests of the masses at heart.

Educated *conservatives*, on the other hand, well you will never ever read an article like the one above about them. Even though it is the educated conservatives who lie and manipulate and demagogue and then lie some more, while raping the masses.

Nope, it's those latte-drinking limousine liberals you gotta watch out for. While the rich conservative assholes with their vacation homes in the South of France (yes, *that* France) get a pass.

Ho hum, nothing new here.

[eridani]

32. Or maybe some of the digital left is 50-65, a class the OP dismisses

--as disposable human garbage. It's just fine for us to pay three times as much for a shitty invisible product with barely more than catastrophic coverage that is no help with ongoing expenses. The guy dying for lack of a battery would be just as dead without "reform."

[tsuki]

123. This bill is very like RomneyCare where 21% in Mass. do not seek

medical help because of the shitty product with high deductibles and copays they are forced to buy. Where's that figure? It is a preview of things to come.

And I would like to know more about this magical competition that is going to form out of the vortex of this fantastical bill? Apparently, in this free-market climate, we somehow missed having competition in health care, but if this bill passes, there will be competition in the government exchanges. From whom? I'm missing something.

I will be on medicare in two years, but I worry about the future of this country. I remember when Medicare passed. It was supposed to universal in 2010. I am just afraid that if we hand over American health care to the parasites called the health insurance industry, we will never be allowed to revisit that decision again. It will final.

[jgraz]

109. I think it actually IS patented.

The OP better watch out or he's going to get sued by disgruntled Gore voters.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

115. Or by horseshit makers.

Quite the dilemma.

[jgraz]

116. And the difference would be...?

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. No, just selfish or myopic. (nt)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Yes, it's farsighted to shovel trillions to the HC industry instead of using that $ for actual care.

You've convinced me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I never really thought I would convince you. (nt)

[MellowDem]

103. And too white...

don't forget that!

[Gman]

2. LOL!!! This is precisely why I'm infuriated with the far left at DU

They don't have a clue how critical it is to pass just something to get people something. How dare they tell someone, like my son-in-law's uncle who is going to the public hospital for cancer therapy that what's proposed isn't good enough. I don't think he, or any of us would live long enough to get a health care bill that's good enough for them. They claim to be so enlightened compared to the rest of the world when they've never even seen how poor some people can actually be. Not to even mention those middle aged folks recently laid off and now have no coverage. I guess the left here would want them to go to the emergency room like republics suggest.

[Armstead]

8. First Do No Harm

Don't further entrench the industry that created this problem in the first place.

Do provide a public program that provides needed care that is affordable.

Don't burden people who can't afford insurance with a mandate to buy soemthing they can't afford in the first place. That is not a solution. As Obama himself said -- "That's like trying to end homelessness by telling people gthey have to buy a house."

Who doesn't "have a clue"?

[Gman]

15. That is the "slow down you're going too fast" argument the GOP makes

and that the left is supporting. However well meaning the left seems to be, they're screwing with people's lives.

[Armstead]

21. My God....Do you people have some special software that types these meaningless cliches?

Most Republicans believe that it is bad to get in an automobile accident.

I believe it is bad to get into an automobile accident.

Therefore, it is wrong to believe that it is bad to get into an automobile accident.

[Gman]

27. That has no relationship to the current debate

It reduces the discussion to a level so simple, so black and white, so right wing, that it is totally irrelevant. Think a little deeper about this.

[Armstead]

54. Your use of that same tactic is what I am referring to

There is nothing more simplistic or black and white as saying that because someone is critical of the current bill they share the goals of Republicans.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that we are wrong for some practical reason you might cite. But don't fling simplistic crap out there and then complain about simplistic crap.

[Gman]

64. They certainly don't share the same goals as the GOP

but they damn sure are, if anything, inadvertently helping the GOP and right wing accomplish their ultimate goal through their own goals of ideological purity.

[Armstead]

81. That's closer to a real answer

And I would respond by saying that if you think Democrats have an uphill battle winning over moderates now, wait until mandates to buy insurance without the protections of real price controls and/or an affordable public alternative kickj in. That's going to be a giant political Christmas present for the GOP.

Mandates. You know where people are told they have to buy a poroduct, regardless of whether they can afford it or not. And, you tell an average working stiff that he can apply for the equivalent of welfare (subsidies) and his back will go up.

A mandate might make sense for a public program like Social Security. But not for an overpriced and shitty product like private healthcare with little control over it.

[eridani]

35. Bullshit. It's "change direction--you are going the WRONG WAY" N/T

[cornermouse]

19. That pig doesn't fly with me.

I had a child who required medicine that cost $75,000 a year. You can guess how fast the insurance company dumped us.

What Obama and the democratic congress are proposing is not enough. The mandate and the extra cost for the premiums would not make health care available for most of us because once we got done paying the premiums, people won't have enough to cover the co-pay. In effect, people will be put in the position of paying for insurance that they can't use and therefore might as well not have. I guess you could call it a cruel irony.

Oh and that how poor people can be crack? I can remember washing clothes by hand in the tub, sometimes without any detergent. I can remember the kids and I "camping out" on the floor with every blanket and sleeping bag I could get my hands on, in the living room during the winter in order to be near the furnace. Don't tell me that we don't know how poor people can actually be.

And let us not forget the hole in the floor because the floor rotted out underneath the linoleum or all the times I ate one meal a day because there wasn't enough food to go around for everyone. I still have a lot of anger from those years.

Bottom line is that what Obama and Congress propose is no good for anyone.

[Gman]

22. The fact is that with even the Senate plan you would never have been dumped

and killing a bill that would have kept you covered with affordable premiums is wrong.

[cornermouse]

30. Our credit was no longer any good due to medical bills.

They absolutely and most certainly would have dumped us. Today it would be on grounds of bad credit if nothing else. They were willing to do whatever it took to dump us. In our case they simply doubled the monthly rate repeatedly till it was more than we could pay. No ugly words were ever said. Just up the insurance till it was more than double the house payment. Eventually we lost the house as well.

[Gman]

38. I am so sorry that happened to you

I really am. It's something I've never experienced so I can never really know what it is like. But I maintain that under even the Senate plan it would have been completely illegal to do what they did with the premiums. Control of premiums is one of the big points of this whole thing

[eridani]

39. Nonsense. She would have been dumped. Then she would file a complaint

Then the government would investigate it and probably rule in her favor. By then it would be too late. That's exactly the way it works in states that already have some regulations along these lines.

[Odin2005]

124. the insurance companies are PURE EVIL.

:puke:

[eridani]

34. People get NOTHING from this shit

And don't bother mentioning Medicaid expansion--that could be done at any time without extra legislation. As could expanding Medicare.

I'm one of those early retired middle aged people and this legislation SUCKS!

[The Green Manalishi]

40. "...pass just something to get people something.."

That really is the crux, isn't it?
Do we pass a bill that may well help some at the cost of rewarding and further entrenching the industry that is a big part of the problem, or do we prevent anything from passing unless it meets our definition of "good enough".

Personally, I don't think we've defined what the heck it is we want well enough. Are we talking about cradle to grave every need met, access to basic preventative and emergency health care or exactly what point in between?

Do we really we have the resources as a society to provide the very top level of healthcare to everyone everywhere? The point the conservatives DO have is that there will be some rationing. But rationing already goes on; there are three ways to ration health care:
1- the free market
2-some sort of public review
3-an insurance industry person or review panel.

The final concomitant is should we pass even a badly written bill on the hope that we can fix it later? I lean towards doing something now and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, as much as I love and respect Dean (Dean/Grayson 2016!)

Disclaimer: college educated white male wine drinker with above average income.

[Sebastian Doyle]

112. "not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good"

That overplayed phrase might have fit when we were talking about a true public option (good) rather than a single payer system (perfect)

But everything GOOD has been stripped out of this bill. It is no longer reform, it is making things worse. It's now more like the absolute shit (the current bill) being the enemy of the status quo. Neither are acceptable, but we gain NOTHING by further enabling of the insurance criminals with the bill as it now stands.

[The Green Manalishi]

132. Look, you and I don't get to write it.

The simple fact is that EVERY Democratic senator has to be on board.

What that means is that the outcome is beholden to the most conservative prejudices of the most conservative "Democrat"

The PROGRESSIVE party does not have 60 votes, if it did then we could bitch about a sell out but, in case you haven't noticed, there are "Democrats" who are not "progressives"

There's time to say either"it's as good as we can get, even if it sucks" or "It's worse than nothing, kill it".

The point of the original poster is that if you call for the second option then YOU are morally responsible for the fate of people who might have gotten coverage under an admittedly shitty bill but got nothing instead.

From where I sit, with a job, Kaiser, good health, etc, it's a dreadful mishmash of giveaways and obscene fumbling, but the argument that some here won't respond directly to is that it is better than nothing for the people who actually have nothing.

[ShortnFiery]

68. Using the erroneous term "the far left" just destroyed all your credibility.

There is NO *far left* in this country's political system.

Look to Europe? Some countries have "a SOCIALIST Party."

Yes! An actual *socialist* Party among many others who may be considered super FAR LEFT of where "liberal democrats" from this country are now.

We are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

Your condescending term "far left" is both insulting and in error.

[Hamlette]

87. the post said "far left on DU". Why does that destroy the poster's credibility?

[Hamlette]

91. I agree. Funny how that happens. We have huge wars here, the first being Nader.

Someone should do a study. How we do or don't resolve our differences and when and under what circumstances. The most united I ever saw the left was in defense of Clinton. Even those who were mighty pissed at him for NAFTA, welfare reform, etc. Maybe we need the GOP to bring an impeachment action against Obama. Maybe the right is so united because they have cultivated this victim complex (out to destroy our way of life, terrorists!, war on christians and christmas).

I think Nate Silver's analysis is better reasoned than Dean's. I've supported him for many years and was thrilled when he headed our party. He and Cheney should both button it.

[Hello_Kitty]

99. Very little is going to change for people in your uncle's situation

If you think he's going to get to go to a nice private hospital, think again. Poor people will continue to be on Medicaid and the only thing HCR will do for them is expand Medicaid so more of them will be on it. Which is something that could have been done without shoveling trillions of dollars to corporations in the form of mandates and subsidies.

[treestar]

126. [phone]

They are willing to let real people suffer for theoretical purposes.

[PassingFair]

136. "Far Left"? Don't you mean "Birkenstock wearing, latte sipping wild-eyed liberals".

You'd have better luck finding a Squonk than the "far left"
people this asshole writes about.

Its ridiculous.

[Armstead]

4. This is stupid -- Access to care is the WHOLE F'ing POINT to us

We want it done right, in a way that really does offer access to care in a real way that is affordable for everyone.

We acknowledge the good aspects of the current version of "reform" BUT it also contains elements that are counterproductive on a "real world" and "pragmatic way."

We can disagree about the methods, but don't fucking question the motives or "realism" of critics of this Insurance Industry Support Bill.

[BeyondGeography]

7. The question is why kill the bill and the immediate help it would extend to those most in need

and why that's clearly easier for some (fortunate) people to favor than others.

[Armstead]

10. If you bothered to listen, Dean is not saying "Kill the Bill"

He is saying save it by taking out the rotten parts and putting immediate help in place now, and then come back with a more thoughtful and useful plan to deal with the larger systemic need.

What part of "improve" don't you understand?

[BeyondGeography]

11. He never said he would kill the bill?

[Armstead]

18. Go to MSNBC and listen to his interviews from last nite

He was on two or three times on different shows. Hardball I know (as much as he could get a word in edgewise with Tweety) and I think Ed Schultz and/or Keith Olberman.

He explained what he believes should happen very suuccinctly.

[BeyondGeography]

25. He said "kill the Senate bill" and go back to the House and start the reconcilation process

which is what touched off the frenzy here.

[Armstead]

28. Did you listen to him last nite?

Go listen, then come back and tell me what he is advocating for.

You may not agree, but at least know what you are talking about first.

[BeyondGeography]

36. I have listened and he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth

which is a trait that his fans conveniently overlook (and which should make them more careful about going over a rhetorical cliff with him). We even have opposing threads saying that he will "vigorously" and then "not vigorously" support Obama in 2012. This, just from his pronouncements yesterday.

[Armstead]

43. He does tend to put his foot in it sometimes, but he made his real position clear last nite

I will acknowledge that Dean sometimes gets caught up in hyperbolie and has to come back and explain what he meant.

However, he has made it abundantly clear that he believe that he supports passing then most popular and least damaging things now, to provide people with immeduate benefits to people now, and take the time to handle the tougher aspects aftwer that.

Seems very reasonable to me. Also politically smarter for the Democrats.

[Gman]

33. Sounds to me that's exactly what Dean is saying:

Howard Dean: Kill The Senate Health Care Bill, Start Over

Many Republicans in the Senate have been saying for ages now that the health-care bill is fatally flawed and that lawmakers should start all over and re-write the bill.

Such calls have been for the most part uniformly rejected, scoffed at, or ignored.

Now comes similar advice from the opposite side of the political spectrum: Howard Dean. The former Vermont governor and Democratic National chairman says today, in an interview on Vermont Public Radio, that the bill has been too weakened, thanks to compromises made to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), to be worth supporting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/12/howard_dean_kill_the_senate_he.html

[Armstead]

37. Listen to his interviews on MSNBC from last night, and then you can talk about it

Feel free to disagree with him, but at least listen to what he is actually saying first.

[babylonsister]

53. He changed his tune, but he DID say that, if you bothered to listen. nt

[Armstead]

62. He did a Dean, I'll admit but he correct himself later

Howard does tend to toss out rhetorical bombshells and then have to come back and correct himself. Especially when he gets angry about something.....You guys used to like that when it was aimed at Rrepublicans.

Unlike blind apologists for the stratus quo, I am willing to admit something like that.

But given time to cool down, he explained what he really wants to see. That is what matters, and that's what you should be discussing.

In that light -- What is wrong about taking out the aspects of the bill that are offensive, and keeping the things that most people can agree on and passing those now? Deal with the difficult things with more time to come up with workable solutions.

[babylonsister]

102. The problem is, parts of the bill some find offensive are

obviously not offensive to those who wrote the bill. I don't know how to reconcile those two facts. I do wish someone would or could.

[Armstead]

108. There are mixed opinions on some and some were pushed through by shills

There are some legislators whose main goal has been to protect and beenfit insurance companies.

In the trade offs, some who would normally object allowed them to go through in the negotiations and compromise.

But so many things that were beneficial to the public were taken out that much of what is left is the crap.

That is part of the point though. The things that have to be reconciled are not ready for prime time yet.

We should focus on the things there is general agreement on, and which are needed now, and work on the rest to get it right.

[shireen]

89. +1

it amazes me that the 'kill the bill' mantra is still being propagated. Dr. Dean wants it re-done, not killed. Thanks for making that point.

[eridani]

41. It extends help to NO ONE

A shitty high risk pool? Spare me--I've see how lousy it is in my state that already has one.

[BeyondGeography]

46. Andy Stern, from the same article

"We can't just focus on what we don't like--it's the largest expansion of coverage since Medicare, it's the largest expansion in Medicaid; with the bill it would make things way better than what our current system does, for our members at least."

[eridani]

51. You don't need ANY fucking bill to expand Medicaid!

Medicaid is already law, needing only revision.

[Exultant Democracy]

48. help all those poor executive to the spoils of govermental deep capture. That always works

[Hello_Kitty]

101. Immediate? Nothing kicks in until 2014. eom

[Gman]

12. No. What Dean and the left are doing is affecting life or death decisions

out of ideological purity. Just as with the right wing, that is infuriating and wrong.

[eridani]

90. Yes. My life. This bill could kill me

Of course I'd be just as dead without it, but I'd prefer not being forced into poverty first.

[Gman]

107. The problem right now is the definition of "done right"

and how long it takes to get that, while people die. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE that was worth fighting for, including civil rights, voting rights, you get something done, then improve on it.

[YOY]

5. So educated they see a fucking working system that fucking works elsehwere in the civilized wolrd.

and DARE to think it could work here.

Stupid (white thrown in there to be an ass as if educated folks of any race don't come to the same common conclusion) educated people.

[Laelth]

6. Dean-bashing is not the way to win friends and influence people on the left. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[murielm99]

13. This is exactly the split we see in our central committee here.

I hate to put it this way, since I am college educated. My husband, who also has a degree, is union and blue collar. We are both pretty far to the left, too.

Our base is still the unions. They are loyal. They work, they canvas, they put feet on the ground, they give money. And they are informed.

I am sorry to say this, but in my experience out here in the trenches, the college educated whites are naive. Maybe they need a few hard knocks.

Obama knew how to use this demographic to get work done and to get votes. Now let's see him keep them satisfied.

[eridani]

42. Tell us how they feel about this shitty bill taxing their benefits n/t

[murielm99]

110. This is not the final product.

We need to see what changes are made.

[eridani]

137. Yep. Shitstain Nelson just said their would be "limited review" in conference

Thanx suckahs!

[msongs]

14. another educated white people are all racists scum column. thanks for sharing nt

[BeyondGeography]

16. And the Missing the Point award goes to...

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Count me as a college educated unisured white "fan of Dean" blah blah

Count me as self employed, and count me as over 55 but ineligible for Medicare. I am among the people HCR is supposed to help, and I oppose this legislation as written. I do not have the resourses to face a major illness or accident should one befall me, count me among the people who oppose this legislation as written.

The thesis of this article contains two parts hogwash for one part truth, it is overly simplistic and it fails to addresse the real issues, preferring to do a demographic study instead.

The less well educated in this nation are also more likely not to believe in evolution than college educated; that is a valid statistic also, but I would never trot that out to belittle non-college educated Americans. Excluding minorities, less well educated white Americans break strongly for Sarah Palin also. What do you do with that piece of data?

[TwilightGardener]

29. There's truth to this--I see many people here,

who are presumably well educated and politically sophisticated, who want to score a big ideologic victory, rather than a simple nuts-and-bolts improvement. As illustrated by the popular (but meaningless) DU slogan "We want HEALTH CARE, not HEALTH INSURANCE!1!!1"

[eridani]

44. All the people who have insurance whose claims are denied are just imaginary?

All the people who go bankrupt even though they had "good" insurance are imaginary? Why is it that such bullshit DOES NOT OCCUR in any other developed country?

[TwilightGardener]

50. Isn't that the point of this reform attempt? To reduce these problems?

I'm not saying we don't have a ridiculously stupid system. We are talking world-stage embarrassment. However, I can't bring myself to scream "Kill the Bill" just yet (maybe soon, but not yet) because I am related to a woman who would immediately benefit from what is being proposed (the inability to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions). There's the IDEA of what this reform should entail, and then there's the reality that no bill at all CERTAINLY won't help my relative.

[BeyondGeography]

55. Plus this bill serves as a new (and better) baseline for more reform, which Dems. like Rockefeller

and Harkin are promising, and which will be at least slightly easier to achieve as they will be able to address specific issues. Scrap it and you've gone from midfield to your own 15-yard line again.

[TwilightGardener]

56. That makes sense to me. I think totally scrapping it is just shooting

ourselves in the foot, unless there's clear evidence that it will be undertaken again SOON and made better.

[ShortnFiery]

73. NO! It will only serve as a windfall profit to Insurance Companies MANDATING payments...

then when you get seriously ill, your rates go up 5X and you can't afford the premiums.

What the hell GOOD is health care coverage when you can't afford the premiums?!?

KILL THIS BILL! :grr:

[eridani]

57. How do you know she would benefit?

Does she have good credit? If not, no insurance. If she gets the insurance, would it pay for the care she needs? very likely not--see Amanda's comment. If she's over 50, she gest to pay 3 times as much for her premium.

Do you realize how shitty the Basic Level is? You are on the hook for 30% of costs, and you can have $5000 in out of pocket costs.

[TwilightGardener]

70. Well, she has no insurance right now--and she's afraid to

go to the doctor and pay out-of-pocket for any official diagnostic tests (right now they just have an unofficial diagnosis of what's wrong) and treatments because then she will have a pre-existing condition on the record, which will almost certainly keep her from being insured in the future until she can get Medicare. What we know for a fact is that if this bill doesn't pass, she'll most likely continue to have no insurance. The "what might be's" as a result of this bill passing is still probably better for her than "what is now".

[eridani]

80. How does being forced to pay premiums that don't pay for care help?

That would put her in the same situation she is in now, only with less money. Why are you not pushing for the compromise that offered early Medicare? Or treating people with pre-existing conditions as disabled and letting them in? And eliminating the 2 year wait period for people on SSDI to get on Medicare?

How is her credit record? If it's bad, she gets turned down with or without reform.

[TwilightGardener]

83. I have no idea about her credit--I assume it's OK, she and her

husband have both been consistently employed (except for a brief period, which is when she lost coverage) for many years and live in a decent home. She's over 55, I think the Medicare buy-in would have helped her, and I supported that. I don't know that she can't pay for premiums under the proposed bill--how do YOU know that? And how do you know that any future policy won't help her? Those are just wild-assed assumptions that are being tossed around the blogosphere with no facts to back them up.

[eridani]

88. I'm going by what I will be able to pay

I can pay now, but my discretionary income becomes near ZERO. That means that any out of the ordinary expense could force me into a choice between dealing with it or paying for shitty insurance that makes me be near bankrupt before it kicks in. People in the upper 20% income brackets with pre-existing conditions might be helped, but it is at the expense of everyone else.

[TwilightGardener]

93. Why is it that the quality of future private policies under this bill is assumed to be less

than private policies now? I keep seeing the phrase "junk insurance", and assumptions that future policies (after the bill presumably passes) will only take premiums and deliver nothing. I have no idea where the assumption comes from that the entire nature of insurance would radically change just because new regulations are in place--but I see that assumption over and over again, here and in other left-leaning forums. And I don't know how everyone already knows how much it will cost them each month, either--only thing I saw was an individual plan for a family of four with a total estimated yearly payout (including copays and deductible) of $9000 on a 58,000 income. That's steep, but what does an individual plan cost for a family right now? Especially without any subsidies or tax breaks?

[eridani]

131. Why are you justififyine the government continuing to fuck us over just because the inrusers--

--are doing it to us already anyway? Being on the hook for 30% of expensens is SHITTY, barely more than catastrophic, insurance. If you have comparatively high ongoing expenses, say insulin, and you get into a bind about having to either cover those costs or pay for a shitty policy you can't even use unless you pay $5000, what in hell are you supposed to do? And WHY in fucking HELL do we have to put up with this shit when nobody in any other industrialized country has to?

[Laelth]

77. Ideological victory? Not by a long shot.

That's certainly not what I am seeking. I am seeking to improve the lives of Americans and the bill currently being considered by Congress does more harm than good. My concerns are very pragmatic, and I think the same can be said for most here who oppose the current "health insurance reform" bill under consideration in Congress.

Those of us on the left don't need an "ideological victory." In the battle of ideas, we have already won. Even the President has said he would prefer a single-payer system. No. Those supporting the current plan have already lost the battle of ideas. We're just trying to make sure that a bad idea doesn't become law.

:dem:

-Laelth

[eridani]

31. Joe Bageant's comments on Brownstein's elitist bullshit

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant09092004.html

The truth is that Dottie would vote for any candidate, black, white, crippled blind or crazy, that she thought would actually help her. I know because I have asked her if she would vote for a president who wanted a nationalized health care program?" "Vote for him? I'd go down on him!" Voter approval doesn't get much stronger than that.

[ananda]

45. Bullshit!

Health insurance is virtually worthless these days!
The companies are corrupt. I should know.

I have something with Aetna through a group, and it's
crappy.

They don't even cover routine mammogram screening,
and only partically cover labs, mri's, etc.

This is freaking scary because it's pretty clear that
they won't pay out for anything serious.

[eridani]

47. Why does this sound like punditspeak about the NAFTA protesters?

Or the Iraq war protesters? Or the WTO protesters?

[ShortnFiery]

75. Yes, it's "Here Kitty Kitty?!?" Then MANDATES for ALL! Heath care delivery - denied for lack ...

of payment of super-high premiums for WHATEVER the insurance companies deem appropriate.

This BILL is nothing more than "a gift" of our hard earned tax dollars to Health Insurance Corporations and Big Pharma ...
with NO DELIVERY to the People in need ... unless you "declare bankruptcy" and are willing to live from hand to mouth. It's another GIVE-AWAY of our middle class tax dollars. :thumbsdown:

[ruggerson]

49. Why did you add "and his fanbase" to the article's headline?

[BeyondGeography]

52. So you would click on the thread

Worked?

[Moochy]

98. He knows the secret techniques!

of flamebait! I bet that's a valuable skill around here for you Message Disciplinarians!

[ruggerson]

128. Not really

I just remember you being sensitive to certain pejoratives about Obama supporters - made me wonder why you would do the same to Dean admirers.

[madmom]

58. I have health insurance now through my husband pension plan. I can NOT afford to

go the the doctors because of co-pay. That doesn't even include any test and/or meds I might need. This is the exact same thing that will happen to all the other people they so generously want to "give" health care to.
I am diabetic my meds come to about $300 a month, but I don't take them all because I can't affords them, the ones I do take I take every other day to make them last longer. This is with insurance from a large corp plan. Don't get the disease when you can't afford the cure!!

[NJmaverick]

59. No doubt those with insurance can afford to be cavalier about trying to get it for others

human nature.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. forget it n/t

[NJmaverick]

67. Good point about the Unions having the luxury of killing a bill they don't need

and points for honesty about you wish to unrecc my post for bringing up the TRUTH you don't want to face. Bonus points for showing the mindless nature of the unrec crowd (you readily admit that I am correct, just that you don't like the facts).

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. Get into the substance of it.

Unions are having insurance takeaways with virtually every negotiating cycle. Employers change insureres at will and union members are forced to accept new watered down plans. Deductables are increasing while pay is being frozen or in some cases even being cut. HCR is supposed to improve those problems, but they balk because they are not convinced. If Unions get to keep their current coverage options, and they do, under this legislation, why do you think they care at all what happens with HCR? You should paint them indifferent or supporters of the status quo if the status quo works for them. But that is far from the case. Unions have invested tens of millions in this fight.

A key premise of this artical is that resisistance to HCR is centered in upper middle class college educated whites. That is the fallacy I meant to addresse, but your post wasn't the surest path to making that point to in reply. I was pissed at your attitude and that led me to start posting to your post. The Unions are far from being a bastion of college educated whites. Opposition to the current HCR efforts can not be chalked up to "fans of Dean" and white college educated twnety somethings.

[NJmaverick]

92. The main point is that those with insurance are more willing to sacrifice a bill they

feel doesn't help them as much as others. The unions fall into that same catagory.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. And unskilled illegal immigrants without money to feed their kids

are more likely to accept sub minimum wage jobs in unsafe sweathouse conditions. That doesn't make the provision of such "employment opportunities" a social good because those with the fewest choices are forced to seek that employment.

[ShortnFiery]

78. The WORKING and MIDDLE CLASS don't need. The abject poor and the rich will be covered.

But it will be more GUTTING of THE MIDDLE CLASS by the Insurance Corporations.

[Hello_Kitty]

105. Thank you

Half to 2/3 of the "30 million uninsured" they keep throwing out will be put on Medicaid. Some of the rest will be getting heavily subsidized private insurance. The rest will be told they make "too much" for subsidies and presented with a big, fat insurance premium with a buttload of out of pocket costs.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. P.S.

I've used Unrec maybe 5 times since it was instituted. I did not use it on this OP which I strongly disagree with, I posted my disagreement instead. It was your barely disguised insult to opponents of the current legislation that made me wish I could unrec you - that is all.

[freddie mertz]

60. Yeah, it's better to ignint. nt.

[jonestonesusa]

61. The article says very little of substance about the bill and its merits

unless you think that it's a good value to get $200 billion in subsidies for the uninsured for a $900 billion price tag, insurance mandates, and all the rest of the candy and cookies for the health insurance industry. Mainly, the article just continues an obsessive focus on personality (Dean) rather than policy, and that's one of the big fat failures of the MSM in recent decades as it is. It reinforces the meme that Democrats (liberal Democrats in particular) are elitist, a shell game that is one of the big reasons that truly progressive legislation never seems to get traction. There's plenty of ways to identify how privilege functions in this society (including who gets to write for Atlantic Monthly - probably a "broad mass of college educated white voters" indeed). But the HCR bill needs to be debated and decided ON ITS MERITS - benefits provided, cost controls, who it covers. It's that simple. To use this occasion to bash the Democratic left is - at best, curious. If we allow this kind of superficial journalism to deepen the wedge between moderate/liberal Democrats - it's no wonder that we've got a Democratic president, close to 60 senators, and still can't manage to pass a decent bill.

[BeyondGeography]

66. It said more about it than you just did

[jonestonesusa]

72. If I were employed with Atlantic, I'd be happy to say more.

I expect more from professionally employed writers for nationally esteemed publications than I do from random bloggers like myself on Friday morning. Wouldn't you?

:shrug:

[brentspeak]

71. What is this weirdo's infatuation with "college-educated white voters" and "the left"?

People are against this piece of garbage bill because average working people simply won't be able to afford it, not because of some bizarre accusation of "liberal purity". Dean is a centrist, not a leftist.

[ShortnFiery]

76. Exactly. Calling Howard Dean "a leftist" is an insult to Liberal Democrats everywhere. eom

[eridani]

86. Don't tell me. He's one of the shitstains who called the WTO protesters

trust fund babies who didn't want to "help poor people." All the poor people who had been protessting "free" trade for 10 years and more, often getting killed or maimed in the process, obviously don't count. Neither do those of us on very modest incomes who think that "reform" is a piece of shit so far count.

[reggie the dog]

82. I am white

have a master's degree, have health insurance and want the USA to adopt a single payer system.

[MellowDem]

106. Well then...

you're an elitist racist doncha know, at least to some on here.

[treestar]

129. So am I

But if it does not go that far and does someone some good, I'm not against it on the ground that it isn't single payer.

[BlueIdaho]

85. "Fanbase"

The use of that term as an insult tells you all you need to know about this OP.


This kerfuffle is not really about Dean, he's just the messenger. If the message didn't resonate with folks it would have zero traction. A fact they are all too willing to ignore.

The emperor has no clue.

[grahamhgreen]

95. +1

I should have read your post first!

[grahamhgreen]

94. Fanbase? Is that meant to be demeaning? This is not about Dean, it's about VERY BAD POLICY CHOICES!

Not just HC, but Afghanistan, and bailing out billionaires, not prosecuting for torturing innocent people, etc..

[Moochy]

97. "Deans fanbase"

Message Discipline talking point of the day. Equate Dean to a celebrity, and people who agree with him are his "fanbase"

Fuck your spin.

[QC]

100. It's especially ironic coming from this poster, who is as giddy a fan as the world has seen

since the days of Frank Sinatra.

[treestar]

127. Dish it out but can't take it

Come on.

[MellowDem]

104. This article is idiotic...

I really think most on the left are willing to compromise, it's just that the current health care bill seems like it could make the situation worse rather than better. The sad truth of the matter is that for those whom the bill will most effect, those without health insurance, about half of them are conservative idiots, and 5/6 of the rest know next to nothing about it or don't vote. Just because the educated, informed wing of the party sees the shitstorm that is to come doesn't automatically make it "elitist". Would you rather have educated whites sit by quietly because these matters supposedly don't concern them? Of course, the HC bill effects everyone, considering the high cost of HC even for those who can afford it.

[blueworld]

111. There's not a single fact mentioned that supports his basic premise

except for a poll of non-white Americans. They BELIEVE they'll be better off but where are the figures???? I'm so tired.

[GreenPartyVoter]

113. Well, technically I am one of those 5.96 percenters. Unless you count my medicaid.

[Cali_Democrat]

114. K&R!!!

Fantastic article!!

Now we know why the Deaniacs are against this bill. Most of them will have their health insurance anyways.

It's the working-class whites and the minorities that will truly benefit from this bill, but the Deaniacs don't care. They want to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of millions of uninsured Americans.

[ClarkUSA]

117. The Outrage here from those who are always deriding Obama supporters as his "fan club" is amusing.

Holier-than-thou sanctimony is always hilarious.

Anyway, Brownstein makes good points. As someone who has family members and friends who would benefit immediately ftom HCR,
I totally agree with his obvious points.

[Moochy]

130. "Holier-than-thou sanctimony is always hilarious."

And thats why I never will put you on ignore.

[JVS]

118. Who better to know the shortcomings of the insurance system than those already in it?

Sicko showed us that having insurance means almost nothing if it isn't good insurance. While those who don't have insurance might think that these reforms will help them, they're really going to be forced to buy shitty insurance they can't afford.

[girl_interrupted]

119. Dean has done more to get health care than the whole damn bunch of them

What he accomplished in his state, is more than the so called "democrats" bashing him, ever have.

"Before entering politics, Dean received his medical degree from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1978. Dean was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives as a Democrat in 1982 and was elected lieutenant governor in 1986. Both were part-time positions that enabled him to continue practicing medicine. In 1991, Dean became governor of Vermont when Richard A. Snelling died in office. Dean was subsequently elected to five two-year terms, serving from 1991 to 2003, making him the second longest-serving governor in Vermont history, after Thomas Chittenden (1778–1789 and 1790–1797)."


"Dean served as chairman of the National Governors Association from 1994 to 1995; during his term, Vermont paid off much of its public debt and had a balanced budget 11 times, lowering income taxes twice. Dean also oversaw the expansion of the "Dr. Dynasaur" program, which ensures universal health care for children and pregnant women in the state."http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=howard+dean&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

Imagine,elected 6 times, lowered income tax, paying off debt and getting Universal health care for children and pregnant woman..and I doubt it depended on what race they were. As a doctor, I'm sure he has seen first hand what it's like, more so than some of the democrats bashing him. I would have loved to see what he could have accomplished nationally.

Oh and for the poster who whined yesterday "But Dean lost in Iowa!" Yes..to John Kerry who went on to lose to George Bush. Dean was against the war in Iraq, Kerry voted for it. Obama lost the California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire & Pa primaries to name a few. Who the hell cares.

But hey if you disagree with Obama, you have to be wrong.

I'm sorry but with Obama bowing to Banks and their Credit Cards, Home Foreclosures, no real Regulatory Reforms, And the NRA, by allowing concealed weapons in National Parks via a Credit Card Bill, Big Pharma, & Insurance companies, the escalation in Afghanistan, then kissing Joe Lieberman's ass and calling Dean "irrelevant" just makes me sick. Go check out how Insurance stock is rising. Then tell me that we aren't being sold down a river.

You have the biggest unions in the country telling Obama to "fix it". Fix the damn bill or start over. As it is now it sucks.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt

That's as valid today as when bush was in office.

No one wants Obama to fail..if he fails...we all fail. But what we want him to do, is listen to the people who voted for him. Not the teabaggers, who never voted for him in the 1st place and NEVER will, but the people who helped HIM get into office. Regardless of race, I'm sure all the "white" people who voted for him in November...didnt just wake up and go..."Oh! He's black! I don't like him anymore" There is discontent out there. I live in NY, we are definitely a mixed racial state...and no matter the race, all I hear people saying is: "What the hell is going on here?" They are not interested in "supporting" a politican..they already supported him, now they are looking for how they are going to support their families. And they are looking to the guy they voted for, to help. Not hand out give-a-ways to Banks & Big Pharma & Insurance companies. Tune into it. Listen.

'We're Turning Insurance Companies Into Halliburton-Style Monopolies' http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/marcy-wheeler-were-turning-insurance

[Odin2005]

120. What a moronic screed. It's full of projection to boot.

[HuckleB]

121. K & R.

[depakid]

122. Thanks for the warning re: Brownstein

Sort of like Brooks & Nagourney.

[whatchamacallit]

125. Come on liberals dumb yourselves down and join us! (n/t)

[Honeycombe8]

133. That's an insulting post. Why would you insult your brethren? I'm no Deaniac.

In fact, I don't like him. I absolutely couldn't stand him when he ran for the nomination.

But he HAS been a doctor. He HAS passed successful health care legislation in his state (albeit a tiny state). He HAS had this as a cause for some time.

In short, he knows a thing or two. Unlike Rahm Emmanuel.

I agree with Dean on this one. And it was WRONG for the W.H. to attack him as "irrelevant." That REALLY got me mad. No one is allowed to voice a differing opinion anymore? Really?

[BeyondGeography]

134. Wanna see insults? Go post something positive about Obama

As for Brownstein's analysis, the point about the importance of Dean and his supporters to the party's recent success and the difficulties of selling political reality and the inevitable legislative compromises that come along with it to this same group is spot on, and it will be a recurring issue throughout Obama's presidency, however long that lasts.

As for Rahm and his qualifications, he has some that Dean utterly lacks, which is how to get a bill through Congress. As such, he probably deserves more respect on the matter at hand than you accord him.

[mzmolly]

135. Dean is doing what he should right now. He's fighting for a better bill.

eom