Will LieberCrats Swallow Everything?
-
Bob FertikWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
At the moment, the debate over LieberCare is dominated by LieberCrats: party-line Democrats who, for the sake of passing any bill, appear willing to swallow everything Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson want to force down our collective throats. In the blogosphere, the most aggressive LieberCrats are Ezra Klein and Nate Silver.
So here's a challenge to the LieberCrats: is there anything you won't swallow from the insurance and drug companies in the name of "reform"?
This is not a theoretical question, because there are significant differences between the Senate and House bills which must be resolved in conference committee. Lieberman, Nelson, and other LieberCrats are threatening to kill the whole bill if they don't get everything their way. They've used this blackmail technique brilliantly for weeks, and the LieberCrats have accepted every single ransom payment.
In terms of not swallowing, I'm not talking about weak rhetorical complaints or meaningless vows to "fix it later." I'm talking about line-in-the-sand, grab-your-torches, to-the-barricades opposition - the kind that translates into "vote no even if it kills the bill."
Because if you won't draw any lines, that means you have no principles; you're just party hacks. And in that case you shouldn't mislead yourselves or anyone else by calling yourselves "progressives."
- Bob Fertik's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-

- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000

-
42,758 of 60,000

-
94,686 of 100,000

Comments
Is there anything they WOULDN'T support?
Bob, that's a great question, one that should be asked, even though Lieberman and Nelson would not give useful answers.
On the overall subject of passing a bad bill, I'm not clear on how possible (or impossible) it might be to change the bad provisions.
Another point I'd like to make is that giveaways to the insurance industry are not enough to sour me on the bill in and of themselves, as long as the companies' behavior improves as a result. Obviously if the worst predictions come true, the companies will get a lot more money and continue to charge high rates, find ways to deny services and so forth. But I don't know any way to evaluate objectively the possibility that changes can be made in the near-to-medium term.
Incidentally, I'm very much in favor of what Jane Hamsher is doing. Her courageous stand is one that needs to be discussed and argued in public. There is no reason why liberals should not have radical figures espousing populist views. God knows the other side has plenty of such people. Jane may well be right -- I'm not sure.
we can easily separate what's good in the bill
from what's bad simply by removing the Individual Mandate.
that way if insurance companies want new business, they'll have to earn it.