With health care’s fate (in the Senate, at least) sealed, things are starting to wind down into holiday mode. Tune in tomorrow morning at 7am ET for another exciting cloture vote! There is still enough news to generate another helping of The Roundup, however.
• My boss Jane caused quite a stir with those top 10 reasons to kill the Senate health care bill. Igor Volsky and Jonathan Cohn offer rebuttals, with Cohn’s based on his article today about how the bill will save families money, complete with full-color graphs.
• I prefer to call your attention to Jon Walker’s 35 ways to improve the bill, which is a distillation of the work FDL and other progressives have been doing on health care policy for months. Some of these changes, though probably not all, are realizable in conference. Those who are saying to pass the bill are hurting the opportunities to make these changes and help people get better, cheaper and more moral health care choices for all Americans.
• Mike Lux makes an important point that the Senate bill cannot pass the House as is. I’ve been writing about this fairly extensively. There are not 218 votes for the Senate bill in the House, and so at least some of Jon Walker’s 35 changes will have to be adopted.
• The United States and Russia are close to inking a deal that would reduces nuclear stockpiles in both countries by at least one-quarter. Plutonium Page has an excellent story on the ins and outs of this deal, and the potential pitfalls with Senate ratification (yes, Republicans will play politics with this, too).
• The President announced $19 billion dollars in savings just from federal contracting reforms, like consolidating software purchases. Effective technocratic government at work.
• If you were wondering how the Senate Democratic leadership is touting its bill, well, here you go.
• Boy, David Paterson is unhappy about their share of Medicaid funding under the new health care bill. He’s calling it “unfair” for New York State.
• Mortgage delinquencies are up again for the sixth consecutive quarter. That’s a sign of a still-struggling economy. Allow me to dissent from these economists that we don’t need any more stimulus.
• Check out Tom Coburn defending the President against the GOP’s claim that he’s to blame for unemployment and the soaring national debt. That’s going to be a valuable piece of video come election time.
• Looks like Hamid Karzai is following the directive of his American paymasters, keeping their favorites in the cabinet while getting rid of the most obviously corrupt members.
• GOP State Sen. Roy Ashburn could challenge Blue Dog Jim Costa in a Central Valley district in California. This gives Costa a legitimate contender, but Ashburn has a flaw – he voted for tax increases in the California budget early this year, seen as a sacrilege to the hard-core Republican right in this state.
• I am shocked, shocked that the Bush Administration relied on a con man to overhype terror threats and raise fears in the public.
• Is the CHIP program still in jeopardy? I think there are efficiencies to folding CHIP into the exchanges, but until the minimum coverage in the exchanges is as good for children as CHIP, that shouldn’t happen.
• Sweden is becoming an advocate for nuclear power. They see it as an acceptable alternative in an age of climate change. Interesting.
• Tony Blair to The Guardian: “It’s not true nobody likes me!” Now that’s the mark of a successful post-Prime Ministerial career.
• I’m a bit fascinated by volcanic eruptions, especially their major impact on global climate. There’s a major potential eruption likely in the Philippines. Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991 tangibly lowered global climate and caused massive environmental destruction.



5 Comments



Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Drew Westen
Almost as though that were the plan from the outset, right? IT WAS!
When will people finally wake up and realize that literally everything that happens is 100% planned and intentional, and that “incompetence” is not an explanation for any of it?
The globalists wanted an apparent moron to be in charge to chalk up 9/11 and the failed wars (successful occupations) to “incompetence.” Mission Accomplished!
They followed that up with an apparent charismatic leader who could sweep the fence sitters into a frenzy – only to leave them so disillusioned and disenfranchised as to swear off politics for good.
The disreality you perceive is all by design.
Mission accomplished. IT WAS ALL BY DESIGN.
Yup.
That msnbc panel believes unemployment will be 9.8% at the end of 2010 — and they still don’t want any more stimulus!!?
How bad is it that it’s come to this? I find myself cheering for the volcano. Maybe if it erupts it will buy us a few years to get our act together.
Nah. It’ll just give us more time to put off doing anything at all.
David, in case you didn’t see this diary (it wasn’t up very long)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/21/817731/-What-Some-Bloggers-Havent-Told-You-About-Health-Reform
The progressive “journo/blogospere” is sharply split over the Senate health bill. Some, like Jane Hamsher and Matt Taibbi, are saying “kill it.” Others, like Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, and Jonathan Cohn, are saying “pass it” – as is. Steve Benen says ” it’s worth appreciating the vibrancy, energy, and seriousness with which progressives are engaging in the debate.”
I say maybe – but there’s been a lot of condescension and hostility, too. And what bothers me even more is the tendency of some bloggers – good people, people who are seen not only as advocates but as as information gatherers on health policy- to ignore data that undercuts their position while pushing a false political choice.
RJ Eskow’s diary :: ::
I’m not saying their decisions are deliberate, and I assume they’re not. But it’s disappointing, and it’s worth discussing.
It’s difficult for me to name names, since I respect their work a lot, but I’m talking about people like Jonathan Cohn, David Leonhardt of the New York Times, and Ezra Klein (who has been very friendly and helpful to me since the beginning.) Since I know they’re people of good will, I can’t help wondering if the polarized nature of this debate has something to do with what’s been going on.
I’ve been working on a campaign to resist the excise tax, which I have long thought was based on flawed logic and would turn out to be counterproductive both as politics and policy. (Let the first part of that statement – “I’ve been working on a campaign” – serve as a disclaimer and full disclosure regarding what follows.) Both Kleinand Leonhardt have written admiringly about the tax’s ability to “bend the cost curve,” but a broad range of studies have been released that challenge that assumption, whole polls have shown that its likely to be highly unpopular politically.
These are not unscientific, flaky studies. Two papers were published in the highly respected journal Health Affairs. These are studies from respected firms that seem to overturn the conventional economic wisdom behind the excise tax. Citizens for Tax Justice has reviewed data from the Joint Committee on Taxation (pdf) and drawn negative conclusions about the tax. Other studies by top benefits consulting firms like Martin E. Segal, Watson Wyatt, Mercer, Towers-Perrin, and Hewitt (whose livelihood depends on a corporate clientele) challenge the arguments made in support of the tax, while polling from a well-regarded firm suggested the tax would have a devastating political impact in front-line states. So how much have Klein, Leonhardt, or Cohn written about all of this new and revelatory information?
As far as I can tell, not a word.
The silence bothers me more than disagreement ever could. These guys are viewed as experts in health policy and as gateways and interpreters of the latest research. Sure, they’ve come out foursquare for accepting the Senate bill, but does that really excuse the silence? Maybe they’re too busy to write about these reports. Maybe they haven’t seen them (although I sent a few links to one of them.) Maybe – and I hope this isn’t true – they’re so concerned about ensuring that a bill passes that they’d rather not muddy the waters with new data that undercuts that position.
Or maybe I’m out of line. Maybe people don’t see them as reliable sources for all the new health policy info. Perhaps they’re perceived as strong advocates for a certain position, with no newsgathering brief. If so, I apologize – sincerely. But, if I’m right, they really need to address these studies. They can argue that they’re methodologically flawed , or that they’re inconclusive, or that it’s too late to change anything now. But ignore them? That’s disturbing.