Tab dump

A comment at WashMonth:
By the time this is done, we'll have a bill that forces people to buy insurance priced at whatever the market will bear or be fined and basically outlaws abortion coverage? Futhermore, if progressives oppose this bill we're effectively irrational, bitter, and not smart enough to understand policy? Why don't progressives understand that the real enemy is not Lieberman, Nelson, etc. but Howard Dean?

Don Williams at MY's:

Here is a recording of the July 20 Conference Call Obama had with Progressive bloggers in which he said a robust public option was one of his bottom line demands.

Most of the meat is in Obama’s concluding remarks starting at 20:10

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/obama-calls-on-bloggers-t_n_241570.html

An excerpt from around 20:50:

“Conference is where these differences will get ironed out. And that’s where my bottom lines will remain:

Does this bill cover all Americans?

Does it drive down costs both in the public sector and the private sector over the long-term……..

…Does it have a serious public option in place? Those are the kind of benchmarks I’ll be using. ”
———–
ha ha ha. Had us going there for a while, no?

Hey, Matthew, don’t you feel kinda ..USED?

As far as I can tell, the following scenario is perfectly legal:

- Reintroduce the House bill into the Senate under reconciliation rules.
- Republicans will raise countless points of order arguing this or that provision violates the Byrd Rule.
- The Senate parliamentarian will probably, on some issues, recommend to uphold the relevant points of order.
- The presiding officer of the Senate, however, is free to ignore the parliamentarian's recommendation and arbitrarily reject every single point of order. Vice-President Biden, or someone else acting in his stead, is the presiding officer.
- It takes 60 votes to overturn the chair's ruling, which they'll seldom get.

And presto! Only 50 votes needed to pass a bill, not 60.

I have not seen any explanation as to why this can't be done, other than "Republicans will throw a hissy fit".

Ask yourself: How would Ayn Rand's universal health reform plan differ from the Senate bill as currently formulated?

Howard Dean 2012

Remember: Greed is Good.

if greed means Americans die, it's their fault they don't have the money to stay alive.
the profit motive proves it works in America

Via the Rand link, the usual incompetently derived assessment:

"Even the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (for more than two decades a member of Rand’s inner circle, and the disciple who tried to carry her doctrines into the very heart of the American economic system) has been obliged to admit that he overestimated capitalism’s capacity to foster its own best interests."

Apart from the fact that it's difficult to reconcile "Randian" with "Chairman of the Federal Reserve" (shouldn't he have turned the job down, and worked to abolish the institution?), it is plain that Greenspan was and is essentially confused about "capitalism's capacity", or, as he put it, "the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity". Additionally, Greenspan was too miserly with his blame, and, of course, his criticism of "capitalists" was prominently highlighted by a progressive-leaning main street media. But it wasn't just capitalists who didn't see the problem brewing in their midst. The government regulated ratings agencies deserve a lot of blame (and Greenspan blamed them), but Greenspan didn't blame himself, and I don't think he blamed the SEC, which also was asleep at whichever switch it's ostensibly its job to watch. And the smarmy politicians, and the bureaucrats at Fannie and Freddie, what about them?

But *was* "capitalism", to at least some degree, culpable, as partisans like Klein would have the world believe? Hardly. The failure, such as it was, boiled down to an imperfect understanding of David X. Li's Gaussian copula function widely, and unwisely, used in pricing subprime mortgage securities. Greenspan alluded to it at his visit before the House's Oversight and Government Reform panel. Li and others had warned for years that Li's elegant formula was being used inappropriately, but because it worked for a time, people kept using it. Even in government bureaucracies.

For what it's worth, Greenspan also noted: "It is important to remember, however, that whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today's markets." That is precisely capitalism's capacity.

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20081023100438.pdf
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all

ps. At the link, Greenspan favored the TARP bailout. Some Randian.

Somebody poked fun at your idol, soggy? Oh, poor you. Still, in denouncing supposed heretics, you're keeping the old witch's spirit alive.

In a more nostaglic spirit, it's a year and a day since someone replied to Soggy the Randroid Reindeer at Ezra's old digs:

"I think you're about seventeen years old, and have read too much Ayn Rand, and probably Farnham's Freehold or Lucifer's Hammer."

Ah, good times.

Robert Reich has a good post today about the sorry state of HCR, which he nonetheless continues to support:

"In all likelihood, the White House and the Dems eventually will get a bill they can call reform, but they will not be able to say with straight faces that the reform is a significant improvement over the terrible system we already have."

Personally, I think it would be better to start over. I think the bill is much less a framework for further health reform than a framework for further dismantling of entitlements.

I was wondering why Ezra's posts on the politics here have been so simple. The fact that he's getting his "political science goodness" from a VAP at Depauw actually explains a lot. Try someone who actually satisfies at least one of these conditions: (a) got an actual tenure-track job, or (b) is at a decent school. Bernstein satisfies neither condition.

""Try someone who actually satisfies at least one of these conditions: (a) got an actual tenure-track job, or (b) is at a decent school. Bernstein satisfies neither condition.""

I never cease to be impressed at the ability of adjunct faculty to self-promote and receive attention far beyond what their positions and publication track record would warrant.

Yglesias has been wrong on many issues, not only Iraq. Let's face it, he is a articulate blogger, but not exactly an intellectual heavyweight. And so, his opinion shouldn't have too much weight in this discussion, too.

And the point about Atrios not wanting to kill the bill is rich! In his posting, Black pointed out a misinterpretation of his words! And making it sound now as if Atrios sees only two alternatives, all or nothing, is also a misinterpretation. Afaik nothing he has written recently supports that view. Quite to the contrary, Atrios has written time and again about all the problems and shortcomings of the crippled Liarman bill, this is hardly an endorsement.

But this points at an ugly truth about the current public discourse: There are powerful forces out there framing the issue, and the possible alternatives! Politicians, pundits, and the media make it asound as if it's "all or nothing", either the perversion of a bill, or no reform at all. That's untrue, there's the third alternative of going through reconciliation., where large, important parts of the bill only need 51 votes. It is doable, the GOP has used that method countless times. And, apart from Nelson, there are two Senators out there who voiced oppsition to the currecnt bill, making it increasingly look as if reconciliation is the only way to get a reform passed.

But the rebel Senators, Burris and Sanders, get almost no media attention! Obviously, neither media nor politicians want the public to know that Liebercare is far from unavoidable, and that another way is possible and would bring a much better result for the people. And you, Ezra, play along. It's a huge disappointment.

Ezra - can you please address this post from Marcy Wheeler re: the health insurance excise tax:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/12/17/the-cadillac-turned-chevy-salary-increase-myth/

"The failure, such as it was, boiled down to an imperfect understanding of David X. Li's Gaussian copula function widely, and unwisely, used in pricing subprime mortgage securities."

I love that. It's totally clueless at such an elevated level.

Yes, Ezra, that link at #2 is not worthy of you and might get "some people" saying that you are using Glenn Reynolds-style linking tactics when they read what was said about Howard Dean down the page. The Monkey Cage is far better.

Today's Drasha
Hanukkah celebrates a temporary victory which seems very small to the people who light the menorah the first day and means that the Jewish people live to fight another day. Hanukkah also celebrates that the seemingly small effort was blessed and became a spiritual gift.
In this week's parsha, the original Joseph (cough) offers the brothers the choice of whether to leave Benjamin in Egypt and go home with the food they had bought: i.e. is it an acceptable choice to leave someone out?

Even though no one has answered Nate's question about how many would be left out in the sense of thinking they got a bad deal, that is the implication of the above.

Better link than any of that garbage (Excepting the chexmix recipe):
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/doubling-down-on-us-status.html

brucds,

Try reading the wired.com story. Then read the Greenspan .pdf, where he mentions the same thing. Then come back and explain what's so ludicrous about it.

For extra credit, have a gander at the Wikipedia page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline

... and come back and tell us who it overwhelmingly describes as the driver of the subprime crisis.