Remember when?

[Rahm] Emanuel really teed off on the Dem-versus-Dem attacks, calling them “f–king stupid.” This was a direct attack on some of the attendees in the room, who are running ads against Dems right now.

That was then, this is now:

Via FDL, Bloomberg's interview with Obama OMB head Peter Orzag:

Congress will likely complete a health-care bill within six weeks, and a measure being drafted by the Senate Finance Committee may provide the basis for final legislation, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said. . . . Orszag signaled the administration doesn’t consider a government-run insurance program essential to the legislation. He suggested it would be sufficient to either create nonprofit insurance-purchasing cooperatives or set “triggers” to activate a public option if needed to cut costs.

(Emphasis supplied.) Three points. One, 6 weeks is AFTER the deadline for including a public option in a reconciliation bill. Second, it has been established that co-ops are usless. Third, it has been established that President Snowe's trigger proposal is a joke.

If Orzag is right, on the issue of health care reform President Obama has turned over the reins to "President" Olympia Snowe. What a wimpy Administration. Jimmy Carter comes to mind.

Speaking for me only

So many want to focus on GOP obstruction as the problem regarding health care reform. This is a dodge. The Democrats control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. If there is a failure of governance, particularly on health care reform, the fault will be placed, properly, on Democrats. Ezra Klein writes:

What Republicans -- and, when they're out of power, Democrats -- are doing is essentially discrediting the political process. . . . Republicans may think they've found a clever strategy in making it hard for Democrats to govern, but what they're really doing is making it nearly impossible for anyone to govern. American politics is trapped in a cycle of minority obstruction, and though that's good for whomever the minority is at the moment, it's not particularly good for making progress on pressing issues.

This is simply false. Republicans governed during the Bush Administration. They governed very badly. But they governed. I can only speculate why Ezra insists on emulating David Broder (personal ambitions?), but it is demonstrably false.

If Democrats want to be successful, they need to understand that it is their turn to govern, not the Republicans. And if they fail to govern well, they will rightly be held to account. That is how politics works. And that is how it should work. Elections are supposed to be about choices. Republicans do not agree with Democrats. If the electorate chooses Republicans, then Republicans should enact Republican policies. If they fail (as they did), they get voted out. Same for Dems. It's called accountability.

Speaking for me only

From a surprising source, Ezra Klein, riffing off of Sen. Kent Conrad:

[SEN CONRAD:] [T.R. Reid] found [that] many countries they have universal coverage. They contain costs effectively. They have high-quality outcomes, in fact higher than ours. They're not government-run systems in Germany, in Japan, in Switzerland, in France, in Belgium -- all of them contain costs, have universal coverage, have very high quality care and yet are not government-run systems.

Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France and Belgium have a level of government intrusion in their systems that would make the average tea partier retch. In France, for instance, the government provides all basic insurance coverage directly. In Germany, insurers aren't permitted to make a profit. In Japan, health insurance is publicly provided, and private insurance is available only to ease co-payments or cover services that the government leaves out. This stuff makes the shackled public plan look downright objectivist.

James Joyner writes about the new GOP opposition to mandates that I posted about yesterday. He links to a blast from the 2008 primary past by Ron Chusid defending then candidate Obama's opposition to mandates:

Here is an interesting thing:

Pelosi is planning to include a government-run public option in the House version of the healthcare bill. She wants to model it on Medicare, with providers getting reimbursed on a scale pegged to Medicare rates. "The speaker is full-steam-ahead," said a senior Democratic aide.

Speaker Pelosi is rejecting the Ross-Waxman deal that Blue Dog Ross already rejected. Of course, the normal course, insisted upon by the JournOListers, would be for Pelosi to appease Ross and take the legislation further to the right cuz, you know . . . 'health care reform' . . . 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good' . . . 'Dems are chumps' . . and all that. Indeed, it is time for Matt Yglesias to accuse the Speaker of "sociopathic indifference."

Speaking for me only

Want a "bipartisan" bill, Max Baucus? Well those mandates will have to go:

On Tuesday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) described the health care legislation being considered by the Senate Finance Committee as a "stunning assault on liberty" due to a provision that would require individuals to buy insurance. The attacks have confounded Democrats in and out of government, who noted quickly that mandating coverage was, until recently, a relative given when it came to health care reform.

Demonstrating the sheer political stupidity of Democrats, here was their reaction:

The attacks have confounded Democrats in and out of government, who noted quickly that mandating coverage was, until recently, a relative given when it came to health care reform.

Idiots. What? They thought the GOP would stop bullying them once they gave them their lunch money (a robust public option)? If there is a more incompetent political bargaining organization than the Democratic Party, it would be hard to find.

Speaking for me only

Globe. John Cole is displeased. That's a lot of agita from Cole for a 4 month appointment. This too shall pass as there will be an election in January.

For the record, I was not paying much attention to what Massachusetts did in 2004, but after the fact, it was pretty outrageous. This? Common sense. It's good legislation.

Speaking for me only

JournOLister Jonathan Cohn joins the bash Howard Dean and the public option party, this time pooh poohing reconciliation:

Democracy for America, Howard Dean's group, has (via TPM) launched a campaign to pass health care reform through the reconciliation process. The idea is that while there may not be 60 votes in the Senate to support a public option, there may be 50. And, in the reconciliation process, legislation can pass with just 50 votes, with no worries about rounding up the 60 it takes to break a filibuster.

. . . [R]econciliation might alienate more conservative-leaning Democrats in the Senate. . . . As a result, holding even 50 votes for reform via reconciliation might not be that easy. It could be done, for sure. But, once concessions to those centrists are made, the bill might not look that different from what the Senate would have produced through the usual procedures.

Here's a simple math lesson for the JournOListers. 60 is more than 50. Having to placate Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu is not the same as placating Bill Nelson and Jon Tester. More . .

First and foremost, let's hope Senator Byrd, 91 years young, is all right.

Second, the search for 60 for meaningful health care reform seems a Sisyphean task. d-day writes:

Robert Byrd is 91 and quite unwell. Ambulances raced to his house today because he got up too fast. Democrats may gain one seat in Massachusetts by the end of the week if the appointment law goes through, but Byrd has been in and out of hospitals for months and is rarely seen on the Senate floor.

d-day wants a replacement. I think it is time to stop chasing the unattainable 60 votes for real health care reform and instead pursue the Schumer Strategy -- a good bill with a public option through reconciliation and a second bill with the mythical "80%" that "everyone" agree on.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein billed Sen Ron Wyden's exchange concept as "the idea that could save health care reform." Unfortunately for Ezra, who buries the lede, the CBO says it does virtually nothing:

Relative to the Chairman’s mark, the amendment as modeled would reduce the net impact on federal deficits by about $1 billion over 10 years. There would not be substantial effects on the total number of people with insurance coverage or the sources of that coverage, relative to the Chairman’s mark.

(Emphasis supplied.) So, this is the "reform" you have been waiting for. The one that does nothing. Of course, Ezra could take a page from Kent Conrad and ignore the CBO's findings when he does not liek them. Hurray for the JournOList!!

Speaking for me only

I'm in a New York State of mind tonight. In the news: Rudy Giuliani may be attempting a comeback with a run for NY Governor. Which is the reason President Obama suggested Gov. Patterson not run again. Polls show Rudy would handily beat Paterson but lose to Andrew Cuomo. [More...]