Woo-hoo. The healthcare bill is done. People will see many of the provisions go into place immediately and then they can decide how they feel about these reforms based on reality instead of frenzied, uninformed rhetoric. Let's just take a moment to recognize this historic occasion.
It only took minutes after health-care legislation was signed into law by President Barack Obama for Ken Cuccinelli to file his bogus lawsuit against the Federal government. State Solicitor General E. Duncan Getchell Jr. and Deputy Attorney General Wesley G. Russell Jr. filed his complaint in U.S. District Court in Richmond.
I absolutely agree with David Mills, executive director of the Virginia Democratic Party, who said the attorney general's office is being used as a "piggy bank for Ken Cuccinelli's political agenda." I might have worded it a bit stronger, but Mills is right on target.
Del. David L. Englin (D-Alexandria) decided to give people a way to fight back. He said, "This is an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars...[Cuccinelli] claims he's received nothing but positive feedback from Virginians, but I have constituents call me every day asking what they can do to oppose Cuccinelli's efforts."
So, Englin has started an online way for Virginians to tell Cuccinelli they oppose his action. A website (http://tools.advomatic.com/59/Cuccinelli) has been set up that will directly connect you with the office of the attorney general.
Cuccinelli's waste of tax money is simply the latest in a long history of recalcitrant reactionaries trying to use the courts to sabotage social progress.
Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli is insisting that he will file suit against the federal government because the recently passed health reform law requires citizens to either purchase health insurance (with or without government assistance, depending on income) or pay a fine.
According to our legally-challenged attorney general, the federal government has no constitutional right to insist that individuals purchase insurance.
Cuccinelli said in a statement released by his office. "We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person - by definition - is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate."
What does Kookinelli think about Virginia's mandate that drivers either purchase auto insurance or pay a large fee into the state "uninsured motorist fund"? Isn't that government insisting I and every other person who drives buy insurance?
(Note: This post has been updated and slightly edited.)
With the list of those Senators urging a fight FOR the public option growing (now 23), Senators Warner and Webb should take note of both a new TPM article and a new poll. It turns out that Virginia voters want them to fight harder for a Medicare-like public option. Scroll down in the second link to find the really interesting responses.
(Note: Part of this has been revised, edited, and expanded from an off-the-record email communication. And I began it before I saw Elaine in Roanoke's call to action. Although I too write of cynicism, I believe it is different enough from Elaine's to also Front Page it. I also note that, since I began this over a week ago, and then broke for the holidays, and a visit from family, this diary is not a response or a rebuttal to any other diary.)
On the energy from the well of our passion, we bloggers draw upon up our values, ideals, and viewpoints. We seek a country embracing all of our people. We seek those things which our founders lumped into expressions, such as "life," "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness." How often these words are forgotten as some Americans try to legislate happiness, interfere w/ private decisions, and undercut programs that people need and want! We, or at least some of us, pretend that providing affordable health care isn't an obligation. How then does every industrialized country in the world afford it to their citizens? Even as we point this out, some people cry foul. I am mindful of the sensibilities of those whom I respect both here and elsewhere. And yet there are times when we should be angry, I think. There are times when outrage is appropriate.
The good news is that sometimes our passion yields effective words and action; the bad news is, sometimes not. But always, we write and we strive for the same thing--to make our country better for those whom, it seems, the country has forgotten. And we do so for our children, their children and those who follow after them. That is why progressives blog. We love our country enough to want to be proud of our nation's strengths, to see clearly her shortcomings, and, when necessary, to put in some sweat equity to right her course. That's the charge of people on this earth and it is the charge of nations as well. Our trajectory should move us along a path of self-correction and efforts to better in all things than we have done. I think of the quote, "Whatsoever you have done to the "least" of these..." The thing is, though, that they are not the "least." They are us. They are us as surely as we are all unified on the same planet, in the same country. They are us a surely as they are bound inextricably with us in the same economy and in the same ecosphere. And if we forget that they are us, some family member experiences hardship only to remind us, "but for the grace..." We are all, (almost all) of us, only one illness away from personal bankruptcy. We are one disaster away from homelessness. How should we --and they--want to be treated by our fellow citizens? Do those in need not deserve our efforts on their behalf? Is this not why we sought health care for those not having it. In doing so, we hoped not to harm what was already in place. It appears we were not so successful in the latter.
When all is said and done -- and, yes, there is a bit more saying and doing to endure, which means that anything can happen -- the health-care reform legislation that President Obama now seems likely to sign into law, while an unlovely mess, will be remembered as a landmark accomplishment.
He fully recognizes the flaws of the Senate bill, but that asks that before we count its flaws, we consider that
For the first time, we will enshrine the principle that all Americans deserve access to medical care regardless of their ability to pay. No longer will it be the policy and practice of our nation to ration health according to wealth.
His is an increasingly influential voice, now amplified both by his Pulitzer and his appearances on MS-NBC.
Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Friday, December 18.
1. Jon Walker is concerned that Ben Nelson could get his way and gut "the single best remaining piece of reform, Medicaid expansion." Walker concludes that "If using reconciliation is the only way to protect the Medicaid expansion, the decision to use it should be a no-brainer for every real Democrat."
2. Jon Walker suggests that "if you are are going to tax 'Cadillac' plans, you need to index it to make sure it only ever taxes actual 'Cadillac' plans." To accomplish this goal, Walker suggests "index[ing] the cap to roughly 165% of the average premium on the Federal employer health benefit (FEHB) exchange."
3. Jane Hamsher points to a new poll indicating that 38% of Americans favor the individual mandate to buy insurance, while 51% oppose it. Hamsher adds, "When it appears in the ads of a Republican challenger who notes that the IRS will act as Aetna's collection agency, I bet those numbers get dramatically worse."
4. Jon Walker calls Ben Nelson's latest idea - to make states "opt in" to health reform - "literally and completely insane." C'mon, tell us how you really fell about Ben Nelon's stupid idea, Jon. :)
5. Jon Walker writes that "Ezra Klein has a new, strange, and incorrect defense of the individual mandate in the Senate bill." Walker argues that "[t]he argument that removing the individual mandate would price unemployed people, like the reader, out of the individual market is not true."
6. Jane Hamsher discusses "the impoverished left/right dialectic that dominates the media coverage of politics, and its inadequacy when it comes to discussing the dynamics of the health care debate." It's a fascinating discussion; here's a sampling. "With unemployment at 10%, the idea that you can pass a bill whose only merit is that 'liberals hate it' just because the media will eat it up and print your talking points in the process is so cynical and short-sighted it's hard to comprehend anyone would pursue it. It reflects a total insensitivity to the rage that is brewing on the popular front, which is manifest in every single poll out there." Good stuff.
7. Jon Walker goes after Ezra Klein again, this time for "[doing] the discussion on health reform a big disservice by making false claims about what could, in fact, start a race to the bottom in the insurance market."
8. Jon Walker argues that the fact there is a "hardship waiver," as well as restrictions on undocumented immigrants to buy insurance on the new exchange ("even if they were willing to pay full price with no tax credits") both "undercut arguments for an individual mandate."
9. Finally, I've got a state blog roundup, including lots of discussion about "Liebercare," "Loserman," and Jane Hamsher taking "a corporate conman to the woodshed."
This was a fascinating, sometimes infuriating, occasionally highly entertaining week in health care reform. Next week promises to be more of the same. Stay tuned!
Oh, boy. The rhetoric surrounding the health reform proposals before Congress seems to get hotter and hotter every day, with partisans on both sides angry and unsatisfied. It takes a real effort for me to seek a broader vision of what is taking place.
As I have listened to the infotainment talking heads on what purports to be "cable news" declaring almost every day that health care reform is almost dead...revived again...almost dead...As I have listened to my liberal friends and the man who first got me personally active in politics, Howard Dean, declare that we might as well start over...I sometimes felt like throwing up my hands and saying, "That's it. I quit this. I don't need the stress."
Then, I stumbled upon a comment by another person I deeply admire: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who certainly qualifies as my kind of Democrat.
Tom Harkin reminded all of us a day or two ago that the same wrangling and political battles went on when Social Security was first enacted in 1935 and when Medicare was passed into law in 1965. Neither program was passed in anything like the form it has today.
So, I decided to look up the history of those two wonderful programs since I benefit from both. I was heartened by seeing that Harkin knows what he is talking about. None of us should be surprised that tempers flare, people jockey for the best they can get out of the debate, and compromises no one particularly likes are made. Once again, history can show us the way.
Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Thursday, December 17.
1. Jon Walker discusses "The Unholy Trilogy For Insurance Profits: Individual Mandate, Broad Age Rating, And Hardship Exemption." According to Walker, "Forcing the young to buy coverage with huge government subsidies, but having a way to price the old out of the market, is in fact the health insurance companies' dream." Is that the way to keep them from running a 2009 version of "Harry and Louise," to make their "dream" come true? Hmmmm.
2. Jane Hamsher reports on her MSNBC appearance this morning with Dylan Ratigan, at which time he made her argument for her, that "40 million new customers forced to buy your product with no competition and no regulatory body to oversee it is a pretty sweet deal." For more, see item #1, above, on the "health insurance companies' dream."
3. Jon Walker continues his back-and-forth on whether or not to "kill the bill" with Nate Silver of 538.com. In this installment, Walker accuses Silver of responding to his answers, "but only to a straw man, crib notes version of my answers." Who knew that dueling, wonky, blogger diaries on the intricate details of health care reform legislation could be so enthralling? :)
4. Speaking of exciting, I definitely recommend that you check out the heated exchange between Mary Landrieu and Howard Dean last night on Hardball. Jane Hamsher transcribes it, which is particularly cool given that it's not easy to transcribe spittle flying around a TV studio. Heh.
5. Jon Walker responds to an article by Jonathan Cohn, which tries to "defend the individual mandate in this bill by claiming the Netherlands also has an individual mandate." According to Walker, "The problem is the health care system produced by the Senate bill would be nothing at all like the health system in the Netherlands," and he lays out exactly why that is the case.
6. Jon Walker reports that Ben Nelson "has rejected Harry Reid's latest compromise on the abortion language," and that Nelson "is trying to go for the full Stupak amendment." Walker adds that "[w]e wouldn't need to be worrying about Ben Nelson's mountain of demands right now if they would just go with reconciliation." So true.
7. Jon Walker rebuts one of the "better-sounding arguments for passing the Senate bill", that "we can fix it later." The problem with that argument, of course, is that Walker "can't imagine there being a time anytime soon where the Democrats have more power." Neither can anyone else, which is why they need to get as much done now as possible, on health care reform and on a whole host of other issues. But they won't get those things done if they keep letting John McCain's Best Friend Forever pull a "Liebercare" on everything. Once again, if this hasn't been stressed enough, it's time to go to reconciliation and pass strong, progressive health care reform legislation now, not "later."
8. Last but not least, do NOT miss Scarecrow's post on the confrontation between Lanny Davis and Jane Hamsher on the Ed Show this evening. According to Scarecrow, "After just one round with Jane on the Ed Show, Lanny's credibility was in need of a waaaambulance. He was last seen being wheeled out on Joe Lieberman's gurney, on the way to the emergency ward." Ouch!
Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Wednesday, December 16. We'll call this the "Joe must go" edition.
1. Jon Walker writes about the "sad defeat of Dorgan's drug re-importation amendment, which would have saved American consumers billions on their prescription drugs." Walker notes that "[a]llowing Americans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe was one of Obama's campaign promise on health care," and also that this is a "very popular, bipartisan idea that would actually help 'bend the cost curve' on our health care spending." But now, it looks like it's not going to happen, and that's extremely unfortunate.
2. Jane Hamsher comments on the story that the White House is "very not pleased...with Dr. Dean speaking out about health care reform and this plan." The amazing thing is that the White House isn't upset with Joe Lieberman for all the bad stuff he's been doing, but is upset with Howard Dean for saying that we should scrap the current Senate bill, go to reconciliation and get a much stronger bill with public option, Medicare buy-in, etc. It's surreal.
4. Jon Walker demolishes the "great big myth that reconciliation would not work for health care reform." According to Walker, "That is pure nonsense," as "reconciliation would still protect the guts of reform." In addition, "provisions [not related to the budget] will only be removed if they fail to get 60 votes to wave the Byrd rule for those provisions." So why aren't they doing this?
5. Jon Walker argues that the health care "bills could easily be redesigned to increase insurance coverage by roughly 30 million Americans at a fraction of the cost if we drop the massive giveaway to the insurance companies, and the individual mandate." A new, revamped bill would contain "insurance market reforms," "the House's employer mandate and slightly increased small business tax credits," "Medicaid expansion to 150%-200% FPL," "Maintaining or expanding CHIP program," and a "permanent COBRA expansion with subsidies." According to Walker, such a bill, "depending on design, should cover close to 30 million more Americans, and for less than a net cost of $500 billion" - "a fraction of the cost to the government (with a bill done through reconciliation), and without enriching the health insurance companies trying to kill real reform." Again, why aren't they doing this?
7. Michael Whitney comments on "Jello Jay Rockefeller's rant against Howard Dean on MSNBC this afternoon," in which he asked, "So what do I do? do I take my football and run home and sulk?" Whitney's punchline: "No, you're going to kick it!" Heh.
8. Jane Hamsher notes that Robert Gibbs never called Joe Lieberman "irrational," as he essentially did about Howard Dean earlier today.
10. Jon Walker explains "How CBO Director Doug Elmendorf Wrote The Health Care Bill." In brief, Elmendorf put together a memo last May which "basically put the absolute limits on what Democrats would even attempt in health care reform." According to Walker, "There is no real logic to it, he simply decided what he thought was enough regulation to make something part of the budget." Somehow, given where we are right now, ending today's health care update with the words "no real logic" seems highly appropriate.
Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Tuesday, December 15. We'll call this the "Joe must go" edition.
1. Jane Hamsher writes about the "manufactured outrage of Joe Lieberman" regarding criticism over "money paid to his wife Hadassah by the Susan B. Komen 'Race for the Cure.'" Hamsher adds that "if Senator Lieberman is 'deeply offended' by the suggestion that his wife is a lobbyist, one has to wonder what he did for all those years when she was working for the biggest lobbying firms in Washington DC."
2. Jon Walker comments angrily on the message from the White House that Democratic Senators should "do anything to pass a bill with the title of "health care reform," even if that "health care reform...helps almost no one for four years, will not lower drug prices, will not slow down the out-of-control growth of health care costs, will make most Americans health insurance worse, will leave millions uninsured, provide no competition for the insurance companies, and not end medical bankruptcy in this country." Getting excited yet?
4. Jon Walker argues that "Without the option of a government-run insurance entity or extremely tight regulations to guarantee everyone has access to quality, cost effective health insurance, an individual mandate is both immoral and bad policy." Other than that, it totally rocks! (snark)
6. Jon Walker points out that "Joe Lieberman has never made a secret about his desire to bring down the public option," and that "Harry Reid must have known this whole time that he would never get Joe Lieberman's magical 60th vote on a bill with a public option." The bottom line is that if "Reid had gone with reconciliation, Joe Lieberman would not be writing the bill as we speak." So why didn't he? Did he actually trust Joe Lieberman to do the right thing here? If so, all I can say is "wow, just wow."
8. Jon Walker notes that "While everyone has been fretting about Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson has remained an equally big hurdle to get 60 votes for cloture." Believe it or not, even though Nelson "has already played a big role in removing the public option, preventing the bill from ending the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies, and possibly killing the CLASS long term insurance program," he also wants abortion language that "will likely end up one of the biggest rollbacks of women's reproductive rights in a generation." In short, with Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?
9. Jane Hamsher reports that even though Byron Dorgan "had the votes to pass his drug reimportation amendment, which would have saved the public over $100 billion and the government $19 billion," it's not going to happen because...you guessed it, "Joe Lieberman says it can't be part of LieberCare!" So here's the bottom line choice for the White House and Harry Reid: either tell Joe Lieberman to take a hike and go to reconciliation, or pass a watered-down health care "reform" bill without its best, and also most popular, elements. I believe this is what's known in the vernacular as a "no brainer," but why does something tell me the great brains in Washington, DC won't be able to figure it out? On second thought, maybe it's not their brains as much as it's their spines, specifically their willingness to stand up to bullies like Joe Lieberman?
Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Monday, December 14.
1. Jon Walker declares that "There is no longer a Democratic party in the United States Senate" and that "All the senators who were formally members of the Democratic party have switched to the Liebocratic Party." Yes, today was a frustrating day, to put it mildly.
2. Jon Walker reports that "health insurance stocks are up dramatically today after Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster health care reform." Well, doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
3. Michael Whitney asks everyone to sign the petition "asking Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) to call on Susan G. Komen for the Cure (@KomenfortheCURE) to dump Hadassah Lieberman as a compensated 'Global Ambassador.'"
This video shows the hypocrisy of Joe Lieberman, the same Joe Lieberman, who now stands poised to block health care reform. (The Senate has to change. It gives new meaning to dysfunctional). Now Lieberman has threatened to hold health care reform hostage. He wouldn't support single payer. He wouldn't support a robust, or even a weak, public option. Now that the so-called public option is only some figment of someone's imagination (via a supposed weak "trigger), he still won't support reform.
This is after Dems removed the real public option to appease Joe and a few others. They instead allowed a buy-in to Medicare for those 55-64, which Lieberman had long supported, even when he ran for VP in 2000. And yet he still won't support the bill. Every time they cave to him, he digs in his heels more. It's clear he is not operating in good faith. He wants nothing to change. And there's a reason why:
(FDL Action reports some important updates here. - promoted by KathyinBlacksburg)
Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Friday, December 11.
1. Jon Walker says that the "'Medicare buy-in' idea might not really be Medicare at all, it might in fact be fake Medicare, one which "would lack almost all the benefits of Medicare." Walker adds, "A Medicare buy-in program that does not actually allow people to fully buy into real Medicare is a farce."
2. Jane Hamsher writes that Harry Reid, "who is solely responsible for crafting the bill that he introduced in the Senate, decided that there should be a limit on lifetime benefits." Meanwhile, "Reid is also manipulating procedure to keep the Dorgan drug reimportation amendment, which would save both the government and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars, from coming to a vote." Hamsher wonders why "Reid never uses the powers he has against Joe Lieberman."
3. Jon Walker believes that, "For the past few days, Obama and Reid have rather publicly fought against bringing down America's health care costs."
6. Jon Walker reports that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has concluded that the "new excise tax on employer-provided health insurance will result in most people getting worse health insurance from their employer, insurance that covers less." Walker adds that if "this excise tax is the core of the plan to 'bend the cost curve,' it is a failure."
7. Jon Walker argues that the "reason Reid dropped the annual limit from the Senate bill was to make his bill appear cheaper in the CBO score, and make insurance premiums appear lower." "Of course," Walker points out, "eliminating the ban on annual caps makes a mockery of the entire idea of 'insurance.'"
8. Finally, Jon Walker has highlights of CMS' analysis of the Senate health care bill. Overall, Walker concludes, "the report is a mixed bag," with "very slightly higher" national health expenditures in 2019, but on the other hand it "shows a bad bill can still greatly expand insurance coverage without noticeably increasing our national health care spending." Ergo, Walker concludes, "Imagine what could be done with a good bill that is not full of massive corporate give aways."
4. Jon Walker says that the Senate health care reform deal is actually "less a health care deal, more an agreement on vague parameters for a possible deal." As Walker notes, "It is always easier to reach agreement on vague ideas," but as "with all things in this health care reform effort, it will all come down to details, details, and more details."
5. Jon Walker believes that nobody should be "shocked when the Democratic base doesn't turn out in 2010." Walker asks, "Who would want to support a party" in which "a simple temper tantrum by Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, or Ben Nelson really cause the other roughly 300 elected Democrats in Washington to abandon every promise they made and every principle they claim to stand for?"
6. Jane Hamsher writes about Nancy Pelosi saying "that a bill without a public option is now possible in the House." Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, apparently isn't going to be one of those votes, as he told Mike Stark that "what the Senate is doing is effectively emasculating an opportunity to have a public option."
7. Jon Walker reports that Joe Lieberman, "the biggest champion of the health insurance industry in the Senate, will chair the committee that oversees [the OPM-run] 'alternative' to the public option." Can we say "foxes and henhouses?"
8. With signs that the Senate health care bill might just "ping pong" straight past the House of Representatives without a full conference between the two chambers, a frustrated Jon Walker asks, "Why Don't We Just Go A Step Further And Abolish The House?"
9. Jane Hamsher asks, "what kind of a platform we should ask Medicare for All candidates to agree upon?" Hamsher adds that "[i]f you'd like to volunteer to lead a search committee in your district for a single payer candidate, you can do it here."
10. Finally, check out Jane Hamsher on the Ed Show as she invites Progressives to recruit primary challengers for any "Democratic member of Congress [who] decides to support the corporatist agenda and vote for a health care bill that makes the insurance companies say 'we won.'"
2. Jane Hamsher says that "despite the fact that the country wants a public option, the President campaigned on one and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both promised there would be one in the final bill, the woman who took $763,000 from health care interests for her upcoming Senate race is allowed to dictate what happens." And that woman's name is...you got it, Blanche Lincoln, who until recently claimed on her website that she supported "a quality, affordable public plan." And if you believe that one, I've got some awesome, low-priced private insurance I'd like to sell you. :)
3. Jon Walker writes that, at this point, "it is impossible to even evaluate this pile of vague ideas that may or may not be part of this 'deal.'" Walker concludes, "Fancy names like 'Medicare buy-in' sound good, but it could easily be worthless subterfuge, just like the trigger. I recommend everyone stay very skeptical and hold judgment for a day or two until we actually know what we are dealing with."
4. Jane Hamsher is incredulous that OFA is fundraising off of a health-care reform package that she sees as - to put it mildly - subpar.
5. Jon Walker warns Howard Dean that the "Medicare buy-in" he is talking about "might not at all resemble the Medicare buy-in that [he] wants." Or it might. The main thing right now is to "wait until you hear details" of this plan; until then, "we are simply chasing vapor."
7. Jane Hamsher reports that she contacted Physicians for a National Health Program to see what they thought about lowering the Medicare age to 55. The response was that it "only works if it is mandatory...Otherwise it becomes the place where all the sickest patients get dumped."
8. Jon Walker asks, "Why Did Snowe Not Demand Giving Americans The Freedom To Buy Cheaper Drugs From Canada?" More broadly, Walker finds it "very unfortunate that Snowe decided to use her new-found power for evil instead of good."
2. Jon Walker writes, "As a substitute for the public option, this OPM exchange is worthless, but I strongly hope this OPM exchange is structured to at least help fix the terrible, state-regulation-gutting "nationwide plan" idea."
3. Jon Walker says that the "grand compromise possibly being discussed is frighteningly similar to my theoretical compromise, although it is noticeably weaker," and that "Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and the Senate Democrats could have saved themselves lot of heart burn by hiring me four months ago." Yes, but then what would they do with all the time they would have saved? Focus on the economy and jobs? Deal with climate change? Pass comprehensive immigration reform? Pass appropriations bills so that federal agencies don't have to operate for months on continuing resolutions? What ARE you thinking, Jon Walker? (snark)
5. Jon Walker explains how Medicare expansion can be "done right" ("Simply dropping the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 50 would help tens of millions of Americans, and be a win for progressives.") or "done bad" ("Conversely, I can imagine a convoluted set of restrictions that would prevent the proposal from helping basically anybody."). Unfortunately, Walker concludes, "it sounds like the negotiations are much closer to the latter than the former."
6. David Dayen reports that a motion by Barbara Boxer to table Ben Nelson's anti-abortion amendment has passed with 54 votes. According to Dayen, "So the question becomes, what now?" Good question.
I've said it before, a "Trigger" is not a health care plan." What it is a PR term to silence the masses who want real health care options. But in Congress, they are still talking about a trigger. Of course, that's not even the half of what's been going on.
• First the Congressional Dems (especially Nancy Pelosi) took single payer off the table.
• Then some Dems along with Olympia Snowe tried to add a "Trigger," which would only kick in under certain conditions. The dirty secret is a "Trigger" is a way to pretend reform could kick in later. Historically, even when abuses occurred, a Trigger never has been "pulled."
• Then they said a real public option was off the table, but they continued to call what was left "robust."
(Unfortunately, there is much more dilution below the fold).
Blue Commonwealth is a community forum for the discussion of political issues of interest to Virginians.
The opinions expressed by users of this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Blue Commonwealth or its editors.