An Upside to Opposing the Bill?

By Dave

While I feel strongly that killing the health care bill would be a tragic loss for the American people, not to mention a blow to this administration and the Democratic party, there may have been one upside to the recent outburst by the left: It may have given Ben Nelson less leverage to negotiate his position. Here's Nate Silver:

While the very nature of last-minute negotiations makes it hard to draw straight lines from point A to point B, it seems likely that if the kill-billers had not pushed back so hard against Lieberman, the bill would have been worse -- maybe much worse. It's sometimes said that a good compromise serves to make everyone equally unhappy. I'm not quite sure if that's the case here, but it does seem that Lieberman pushed things very close to the brink, to the extent that Nelson didn't have much leverage. Allow states to opt-out of their Medicaid obligations, for instance, as Nelson was said to have desired, and the unions might have gone from neutral to outright hostile to the bill, the opposition in the progressive blogosphere would have become nearly universal, and even the "wonk bloc" -- people like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krguman and myself -- might have said this was a bridge too far. Nelson certainly could have voted to kill the bill outright, but he wasn't going to succeed in making it substantially more conservative.

To the extent that the backlash by the left was a signal to conservative Dems that a pound of flesh had been exacted and no more would be tolerated, I say more power to 'em. However, to the extent that progressives really want to kill the bill because it lacks a public option, I still say that's downright crazy.

Andres Duany Interview

By Dave

Great interview with one the father's of "New Urbanism" Andres Duany. Duany talks about the problems with implementing Smart Growth strategies. I found this bit particularly thought-provoking:

BUILDER: What is the biggest impediment to smart growth?
DUANY: Citizen participation in the planning process is probably the biggest roadblock. If you ask people what they want, they don’t want density. They don’t want mixed use. They don’t want transit. They don’t even want a bike path in their back yard. They don’t want a grid that connects, they want cul-de-sacs. They can’t see the long term benefits of walkable neighborhoods with a greater diversity of housing types. This book is a quick read and is dedicated explicitly to them. It’s for the people, not for planning professionals.
BUILDER: Proponents say that smart growth can’t happen effectively without regional-scale planning because so much of it is about connectivity. How do you reconcile citizens’ rights to have a say in their communities with the need for big-picture thinking and decision-making?
DUANY: There is a theory of subsidiarity that considers at what level a decision is properly made. Most of today’s planning decisions--large and small--are made at the wrong level. Take transit. You do not ask the neighbor next to a 16-mile bikeway whether they want a bikeway in their back yard because they will say no. That’s a decision that needs to be made at the regional level. Conversely, let’s say you want to have free-range chickens to provide eggs for you and your neighbors. Right now that’s controlled by municipal ordinance. City zoning codes say no chickens, when really this is a decision that should be made at the block level, because chickens affect the block, not the whole city. Then you have municipalities enforcing rules about what color you can paint your house, which is ridiculous. That’s the wrong level of decision making.

Worst Christmas Song: Part 4

By Dave

If you're like self-righteousness, patronizing views of the developing world, and mullets, this songs for you.



This is the last in the 'worst' series. Starting tomorrow, we'll begin the 'best Christmas songs' series. Just so you know, we could have kept going. It turns out there are a ton of awful Christmas songs.

A Decision Best Left to the Individual

By Dave

Ezra Klein points to David Waldman's take on the Nelson Amendment:

The problem with leaving the decision up to the states, he says, is that it doesn't go far enough. "I think states should leave the abortion question up to the counties," he explains. "Then I think counties should leave the abortion question up to municipalities. Then the neighborhoods should leave the abortion question up to each block." And each block, as you might have guessed, should leave the abortion question up to each household.

At the One Yard Line

By Dave

Big news today! The Democratic Caucus has struck a compromise with Ben Nelson over abortion and it looks like Reid has his 60 votes. They are now scrambling to get this done before anything else can derail it. Here’s Reid’s schedule:

• 1 a.m. MONDAY – To end debate on “a manager’s package” that includes all the latest changes to the bill. 60 votes required.
• 7 a.m. TUESDAY – To approve the manager’s package. Simple majority required.
• Also TUESDAY – To end debate on Mr. Reid’s original health care proposal, as amended by the manager’s package. 60 votes required.
• 1 p.m. WEDNESDAY – To approve Mr. Reid’s original proposal. Simple majority required.
• Also WEDNESDAY – To end debate on the finalized health care legislation. 60 votes required.
• 7 p.m. THURSDAY, Christmas Eve (or anytime after the prior vote if all senators agree) – To approve the final bill. Simple majority required.

The Nelson compromise essentially tries to keep federal money from subsidizing insurance plans that cover abortion procedures. Apparently, it give states the ability to 'opt-out' of receiving those funds. It's by no means an optimal compromise. The Pro-Choice Caucus is obviously upset, but it sounds like it is less bad than the Stupak Amendment.

Speaking of Stupak, it sounds like he may try to block the Nelson language, if that's what comes out of the conference committee. In order to pose any real threat, Stupak needs to keep 45 of the 64 conservative House Dems who helped push his amendment. I don't think it's clear yet who in his coalition couldn't as easily be satisfied with the Nelson compromise. But my guess is, that at this point Stupak's opposition will be a minor roadblock.

From Fox News:

"Former comedian Al Franken apparently is done cracking jokes.
...
Unlike during his days on "Saturday Night Live," no one is laughing."

Yeah, it's almost as if he's acting exactly how he said he would when he won the Senate seat! What a great example of Fox's brazenly bad reporting to continue to qualify Franken as "Mr. Funny Guy," as the title suggests. Franken has proven time and time again that he's the kind of person we want on Capitol Hill, the kind that actually reads bills.

Help Me Jeebus

You might wanna put a pillow on your desk to prepare for the inevitable head thumping.

Undersea nuclear Christian warrior! The new toy from Hasbro! Er... actually just the crazy guy on Wheel of Fortune. DURP!

Microsoft Seeks to Continue to Lose Money

Source.

Here's the relevant bits:

"An avatar generator for a virtual environment reflects a physiological characteristic of the user, injecting a degree of reality into the capabilities or appearance...Physiological data that reflect a degree of health of the real person can be linked to rewards of capabilities of a gaming avatar, an amount of time budgeted to play, or a visible indication. Thereby, people are encouraged to exercise."

I love Wii Fit. I love that video games have avenues for bettering your body and mind (Big Brain etc.). I will be very interested to see where they go with this. If Microsoft still has business sense, then they will take a similar route to Nintendo and incorporate this into a game where only you and your closest friends will be able to see just how chubby you've gotten. Otherwise, Microsoft will face the same deserved ridicule that Lincoln University received.

Whether the weather....

It really isn't a surprise that Bill Kristol thinks Ben Nelson should filibuster health care reform because it might snow.

Everyone knows it's classical neoconservative theory that when the chance of percipitation in DC gets above 50% we should screw the poor and go to war.

File Under: IOKIYAR

IOKIYAR.

From the WaPo, this pretty much sums it up:

"They are prepared to jeopardize funding for troops at war," Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday evening. "If Democrats did that, there would be cries of treason."

Two things: 1) Why aren't there cries of treason?
2) Why are the Democrats so much worse at spinning their blunders than the Republicans?

Seriously, Durbin is absolutely right about this. This would be a minor mass media explosion if the roles were reversed. And how is it that, even still, in the face of a bill that could potentially give millions of people much-needed healthcare, we still have people like Nelson throwing minor tantrums over abortion? At the very least, Feingold (D-Wis.) puts aside his personal disagreement with a Pentagon spending bill to block the filibuster, but too many other Dems are refusing to follow this good example. I know we've come a long way into understanding why the left seems to collapse in on itself whenever it should be powerful and dictating the agenda (see: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant for starters), I'm just wondering what else it'll take besides a mandate rewarding one of the most well-run presidential campaigns in history.

Regardless, the meat of the article is a demonstration of something I've always maintained: Republicans are like the Sith. Fear, anger, hatred, and deceit are their weapons, and they wield them well.


Addendum: And here's the exciting conclusion.

The Questions that Keep Chuck Norris Awake at Night

Like what if the Virgin Mary wanted to have an abortion and the government agreed to pay for it....

"What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington's wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn?," -Chuck Norris, Human Events.

...seriously....

Via The Daily Dish

The War on Christmas Heats Up

Don't tell Bill O'Reilly!

Worst Christmas Song: Part 3

It's not Christmas until Bon Jovi says it is...

Medical Term of the Day: Scabs and Synthetic Platelets

Hooray for scabs!

Platelets, or Thrombocytes, are the small, non-nuclear cells in your blood that are one of the main factors that cause clotting. When you cut yourself deep enough to cause bleeding, a mechanism is activated in which platelets are sent to the site of the wound and begin to build up. They are irregularly shaped, so they catch onto each other and the other components of your blood to basically form a dam. As the site is exposed, the dam dries up and becomes our good friend the Scab.

Scabs are a very important part of the healing process. A scab is like a bandaid that is made directly from your body! They are great protection against infection, and as they cover the wound site, they allow for the regeneration of cells that will replace the tissue that was lost in the initial damaging of the area.
(photo courtesy of photobucket)

New research is being done on synthetic platelets. Scientists are working on a powder that can be administered intravenously to a patient with severe bleeding to speed up the clotting process. This is great, because some people have blood-clotting conditions called Thrombophilias in which their body has a hard time producing clots. This can be due to lack of platelets or inefficient mechanisms of the blood.

This research will be especially helpful for trauma that causes internal bleeding. As it stands, internal bleeding is a big problem for doctors because you have to physically get to the site to stop the bleeding, which means, in some cases, opening the patient up and having to clamp the blood vessels closed. BUT, if the bleeding is somewhere critical, such as the BRAIN, the patient is S.O.L. (wear a helmet everywhere!)

If surgeons could simply give the patient an IV drip of clotting agent, then there would be more time to find the injury and take care of it.

The Upside of Supporting the Bill: Updated

In response to my post, a friend writes:

I don't see the upside of supporting the Senate Bill. When people realize how bad it is, they will abandon the Democratic Party

There's plenty to be upset about, but we can't walk away without a victory. It has come too far, with too much heartache along the way. I'm not unconditionally supportive of the Senate Bill, it's not perfect. It doesn't help as many people as it could with the Medicare Buy-in or the Public Option. BUT, that doesn't mean it's not good.

Here are some of the upsides of the bill:

• Insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny people based on pre-existing conditions
• Insurance companies are no longer allowed to practice rescission (essentially canceling a patients contract because they became too expensive to cover)
• Millions more will gain access to health care, as many as 31 million more
• It will lower premiums and make healthcare more affordable
• It provides billions in subsidies for lower- and middle-income families
• It mandates minimum levels of coverage
• It controls costs by bundling payments, ensuring 'prudent purchasers' with exchanges, and by creating a Medicare Commission. (Ezra Klein has more)
• It creates health insurance exchanges. These are marketplaces that will certify, rate, and regulate insurers and will allow consumers to find and compare insurance plans.They also regulate how insurers raise their premiums. These exchanges will likely begin small but grow over time. As they grow, consumers should see prices become more competitive and the quality increase.
• No lifetime or annual limits.

This is not a comprehensive list, but its still nothing to scoff at. Here's a few more defenses from Senator Jay Rockfeller, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, John Podesta and Nate Silver.

I would support the outrage coming from the left if I thought it could achieve something tangible. But I don't. The votes don't exist to keep a public option. Worse, I'm afraid this outrage will only convince people that success is a failure.

Unfortunately, the Senate is broken and majority rule doesn't carry the day. Democrats need 60-votes, 100% group compliance, to pass this bill plus a Republican or two. The leverage lies with those at the margin. So we get people like Lieberman, who can anoint themselves as the '60th vote.' With that power, Lieberman destroyed a really good compromise for what appears to be no good reason.

And while that really sucks, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't walk away at the finish line. Starting back over, beginning from scratch, is a recipe for disaster.

If the bill fails, and reform collapses, it is likely that Congress will become more risk averse and enact even less of the President's agenda, Democrats will look like failures, and the momentum will be given to the teabaggers. To me, this is an unacceptable alternative.

People won't leave the Democrats because they didn't go far enough, but they'll leave if Dems do nothing at all. Just because we can't finish the journey in one step doesn't mean it's not worth taking that step. Our system favors the incremental revolutionary.

Final thought: why can't Democrats come back, after this passes, with a reconciliation bill to add the parts they still want? Why does this bill have to fail?

Update: Krugman says 'pass the bill"