What’s Ahead for Health Reform in the Senate

I think everyone knows what is ahead, dropping the public option, to appease one independent and one Republican. Then Liberals will be asked to send money, not waste their vote on a third-party candidate and keep their mouth shut.

One thing that is certain is the need to ignore the doomsday prophecies of folks like Nelson and Lieberman. These media-addicts are playing as if the House bill was coming to the Senate en masse.

New deals will be made, votes will be bought…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

“And he has been pleading with liberal interest groups to ease up on Senator Joe Lieberman — an independent whom Reid counts as part of his 60-member caucus — over Lieberman’s public declaration that he will filibuster any bill that contains a public option. It was Reid who made the risky call to put a version of the public option in the bill that he will be taking to the Senate floor. “He’s telling everybody, ‘Leave Joe Lieberman alone. I’ll handle him. I know Joe,’ ” says a Democratic strategist who has been part of those conversations.”

Which “liberal interest groups” has Reid been in contact with? And why would that quote have to be unsourced?

If Harry wanted to go on the record saying he has Lieberman handled that might be one thing but secondhand anonymous assurances really aren’t that comforting.

P-NNTO; Unfortunately, on this one, my source refused to be named. That put me in the position of either (1) concealing the source, or (2) not reporting the information that Reid has been trying to get people to back off Lieberman. I chose the former, as I thought it would be of some interest to my readers. (It clearly was in your case.) However, I did get it confirmed by a second source before I reported it. In both cases, these are sources I have dealt with before, and who are in positions to know what is going on.

I believe it is truly a sad sad day when Democrats need to send “the Ghost of Failures Past”, Bill Clinton, to the Capitol as the rabble-rouser for Democrat Health Care Reform.
.
Doesn’t this just bring back bad memories of the last time it all failed miserably? This is a grave mistake in my opinion. Just because Clinton represents the old centrist meme of the past, doesn’t mean that the present players will listen to him at all.
.
Who likes to have the same old bad dream or nightmare the next night they go to sleep?
.
All this says to me, there is much desperation on Capitol Hill.

Thanks KT. Any idea who the interest groups were?

‘Leave Joe Lieberman alone. I’ll handle him. I know Joe,’ ” says a Democratic strategist who has been part of those conversations.”

.
1. says Lindsay Graham
.
2. says Dede Scozzafava (well she is not that far from Connecticut, it’s possible)
.
3. says John McCain
.
4. says Ed Kilgore
.
But, in other news. I found a good chart that breaks down the differences between what the House has proposed and what the Senate is working with, and then a 3rd column showing Obama’s needs as well.
.
For those of you who do not like reading the mis-mash of words in the actual bill to decifer it all.
.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_healthcareproposals_20090912.html

Yes, but if I would name them, they would know who my source is. I also suspect that the group/coalition in question is not the only one to whom Reid has been making this argument, and perhaps that Leiberman is not the only member on whose behalf Reid has been trying to run interference. It’s a tough situation for him. He doesn’t want to alienate people whose votes he needs, and will in the future. At the same time, these outside activists think that the best way to bring them in line is through public pressure. That creates a fair amount of internal tension.

Karen is there a reason they cannot get agreement on most things and limit the amendments to one or two by both sides like the House did? They know the Republicans are going to do what the House Republicans did and that will be a disaster if dragged on for weeks.

Both sides have had long enough to be Prima Donna’s.

That would require unanimous consent under Senate rules, and on this issue, that’s not going to happen. Republicans want to drag this out as long as possible. Coburn may even demand that they read the bill out loud on the floor.
.
http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/coburn-could-force-senate-clerks-to-read-entire-health-bill/

Ok thanks KT.
.
My sense is that part was given to you to shut up your liberal/progressive readers with regard to Lieberman.

Thank you for replying Karen, I do have one more question. Will the Democrats be able to stop amendments and debate once started with sixty votes?
.

Thanks for responding to commentary, KT.

Democrats must not be “hoodwinked and fooled” into an abortion fight that does not really exist by the Tricksters!!! We should know that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would never let abortion go by the wayside. We should be smarter than that… AND, we must keep our “eye” on the Prize — and the long awaited and wished for Goal of healthcare for all Americans and lower premiums for those who are already insured. Democrats have a chance to lead by actually doing something good for Americans — like health care, which is tied to the deficit and the bankrupting of businesses and families. We must keep our “eye” on the Prize and not be labeled with the title of another “do nothing Congress”!

GOP politicians and operatives continue to dishonestly and deceptively say that they cannot support a public option, they claim that they want to keep costs down for the American people! Really? This they claim all the while knowing that a public option/competition is the only way to really control cost and to bring about true reform thereby putting a definite Halt to the “out of control” medical costs and premiums crippling people and businesses today, making it harder and harder for average Americans and young people to realize and take advantage of the slowly, slipping away American Dream. One could ask themselves, If you happen to lose your job today or tomorrow in these unstable economic times and at a time when we currently do not have healthcare reform for all, who would pay you or your familiy’s health care costs, that is, if you are lucky enough to be able to see a doctor without insurance? This American Dream, now being called Socialism by the GOP has slowly been slipping away, and is in the last throes of dying, if we do not forge a new path onwards toward inclusion and cooperation for all. This dream of America will die to be replaced with just another third world country — only to go into the history books as another failed experiment.

Again, let us not be fooled by the GOP Trojan Horse “abortion” to distract us and divide us while they laugh gleefully behind our backs as to how they have beat us once again on a myth and an illusion!

(FYI: The Conservative blog “Powerline” barred me from commenting on their blog because my ideas were opposite theirs. This is something a Liberal blog would never do — censor free speach because it did not agree with theirs!)

bacalove:
.
I asked you this yesterday when you posted something very similar (link to almost word for word duplicate post), and you didn’t respond, so I’d like to ask you again:

a public option/competition is the only way to really control cost and to bring about true reform thereby putting a definite Halt to the “out of control” medical costs

In the spirit of honest discussion, I must ask you:
.
How so?
.
How will a public health insurance option reduce health care prices in the US from twice that of the rest of the developed world?
.
Doesn’t Medicare already pay more for hospitals, medical procedures, prescription drugs and laboratory tests than every other OECD country?
.
Even if the public option were to reimburse at Medicare + 5% (which is not in any current legislation), how would that “control costs”, except to slightly slow health care’s already wild inflation rate?

BTW, I don’t think that these sources should be quoted unnamed.
.
I’d rather not have that “information”, i.e. what people are willing to say about other people when they can hide behind anonymity, than have something that’s predictably deniable by Reid’s people out there to become He Said-She Said–leaving us no better off than if we hadn’t hear the gossip in the first place.
.
If people don’t go on record, then it doesn’t matter if you believe at the moment that they’re credible, KT, it matters if we, i.e. any objective observer, can determine for ourselves if they’re credible, and can then begin to establish a pattern.
.
If Reid’s office denies this anonymous claim, how do we know that they’re telling the truth or not? All we have is you saying “But Senator, some people claim X“, and we’re right back to more He Said-She Said, which (I hope we all understand by this point) leaves readers with a less clear picture than before the whole thing started.
.
Transparency is the new objectivity, KT.

They can table them, rather than vote on them, though I’m a bit rusty on how that works. Also, at some point, Reid has to decide that there has been enough debate and call for a cloture vote.

stuart, this isn’t really a challenge to dual or heavy criticism of the reporters (like I ever do those), but sometimes background info. is the only way to move a story. The classic examples are Watergate and Enron. We only recently found out who was Deep Throat. And who back then was going to risk everything by stepping forward? Would you have preferred to wait and risk no coverage at all? What else would Nixon have gotten away with? Enron biz coverage was a disaster – nearly everyone missed that and didn’t get cautionary names on record …with rare exceptions as Bethany McLean. Her book on this (w/ Peter Elkind) is stuffed with conversations and facts but BM / PE said up front that many sources were on background. (still waiting for KT’s book) If KT has to make the call on dropping names, so be it. To the point – do YOU trust Karen to make that call? I do. (or Amy, but I digress) Relying on ONE source without verifying is quite another matter. One of the few things I agreed with Reagan was his “trust but verify” motto. I think Karen, Jay, and yes, even Amy try to do this. I’ll cut them slack here. I’d appreciate your (disagreeing?) thoughts, stuart.

The reason I brought this up in the first place was because that kind of secondhand quote is given for a reason.
.
Often not for the reason stated. This was a signal to the reader from the unnamed source that they should back off Reid and Lieberman.
.
There is zero evidence provided that Reid spoke to any groups about Lieberman.

What would constitute “evidence”? A picture? I talked to two people (the person who told me, and the one who confirmed it) who said it happened. Under your standard, it seems that nothing that happens behind closed doors in Washington would ever be reported.

What you reported is what you were told.
.
Evidence would be something beyond unnamed (to the reader) people telling you “it happened”. A group that was spoken to for instance, as I mentioned earlier.
.
Forgive me for having the temerity to question blind self-serving quotes but the run up to Iraq wasn’t that long ago and was filled with them and reported in very reputable places.
.
Not that this compares in importance but…

deconstructiva:

stuart, this isn’t really a challenge to dual or heavy criticism of the reporters (like I ever do those),

No problem, but it’s curious that you are so reticent with respect to “heavy criticism” of reporters. Why shouldn’t we criticize reporters? It’s good for them, IMO.

but sometimes background info. is the only way to move a story.

“Sometimes”? It seems like almost every time, doesn’t it? That’s a system of official secrecy at work, not “moving a story”. That’s a system in which only a select group of people know who really says what, and why they’re saying those things. That’s the opposite of transparent politics, government and journalism. If it were rarely used, that would be one thing, but it’s systemic –and corrupting.

The classic examples are Watergate and Enron. We only recently found out who was Deep Throat. And who back then was going to risk everything by stepping forward? Would you have preferred to wait and risk no coverage at all? What else would Nixon have gotten away with?

You’re right, those are “classic examples” –classic examples of the rare exceptions that journalists throw out to justify their everyday abuses of anonymity that serve the press corps’ interests and not citizens’. Asking those rhetorical questions posits an argument nobody is making. Nobody’s saying that anonymity should be abolished, or that genuine whistleblowers should have no protected place to tell the unofficial story –that’s a straw man. We’re saying that the system of casual anonymity justified only by the rationale “everybody we talk to refuses to go on record” serves news consumers (and democratic government) poorly.

To the point – do YOU trust Karen to make that call? I do.

No, of course not. Of course I don’t hand over my intellect to someone just because secrecy is the currency of their trade. I’m not saying that Karen is an untrustworthy person, I’m saying we shouldn’t have to trust reporters in most circumstances to exercise judgment for us poor, blind baby mice. It’s not our job to trust journalists, just like it’s not their job to trust government officials. That’s not what freedom of the press is for.
.
We shouldn’t be trusting little chicks in our nests, begging the political press corps to regurgitate information into our open mouths, deconstructiva. That’s not our proper role as citizens in a democracy.
.
Journalists play along with sources refusing to go on record about the most banal, he said-she said comments because it puts them at an advantage over news consumers, because it forces us to rely on them more than if we possessed the knowledge of who said what ourselves. It works for them, which is why they do it.
.
Until we demand differently, until we let them know that lack of transparency degrades trust, credibility and confidence, this disempowerment will continue.
.
That’s why I say “transparency is the new objectivity”, deconstructiva.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this.

There is a part of this process that is self-correcting. In this case, both the source and the confirmation were people I have dealt with frequently, and people who I know are in a position to have the facts at hand. Long-time sources get to be long-time sources because they give you good information. Also, with long-time sources, you have a greater sense of their agendas. Can I share all of this with my readers? No, I cannot. But my reputation is on the line with every story I write, and I know that, which is why I do not use background sources lightly. I know that if I write something that is really off-base, my reputation will suffer. And ultimately, that reputation is all I have.
.
Last week, I had a very weird situation where a source told me something on background, and then when it got out (in another reporter’s story) and this source got blowback, issued a public statement denying it. What was the right thing for me to do there? Write what the source says on the record, or write the truth?

…thanks stuart and Karen. Lots to ponder here. And KT, I was going to ask you for more thoughts on this thx to stuart’s replies, but once again, you type much faster than me.

Thank you for giving us your perspective KT.
.
I trust you can understand mine-and not to speak for him-Stuart’s.

P-NNTO writes:
.

This was a signal to the reader from the unnamed source that they should back off Reid and Lieberman
.

If that was indeed the intended “signal,” it was not received that way, as evidenced by this piece by J-Ham:
.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/12/harry-reid-leave-lieberman-alone-ill-handle-him/

P-NNTO: See my reply at #8.

All this said, BTW, I do agree that too much is allowed to be “on background” in Washington.
.
The next Swampland commenter to buy me a beer can hear all my war stories on this, including the time that Al Gore declared that everything that was said aboard Air Force Two (a piece of government property where our news organizations were paying through the nose to have us travel) was off the record.

KT, thanks for your thoughts here. If we feed you margaritas and LI iced teas, would you also start writing in fiery, pottymouthed prose as Jane does when she’s really, royally po’ed?

I didn’t say it would work-ha.
.
Frankly that’s the response it deserved.
.
Thanks for the follow up.

KT I won’t be offended if you want to move on but if my guess is wrong can you say why your sources told you that?

You mentioned that you know and trust them enough to “have a greater sense of their agendas” so what was theirs?

The initial source actually mentioned it in passing, more as an anecdote and not as a major point. (Quite frankly, I probably found it to be more interesting than the source did.) It was a brief part of a wide-ranging conversation about Reid’s strengths and weaknesses and challenges in passing health reform. I also called Reid’s office, and while the person I talked to there was not aware of this specific incident, he allowed as this is in fact Reid’s view, and said it is one that he has expressed frequently with regard not only to Lieberman but to other members of the caucus who are getting heat.

As usual, your blog post (and Time.com) is made more valuable to engaged news consumers through your interaction with commentary, KT.

KT:

The next Swampland commenter to buy me a beer…

Would a bottle of Lone Star be acceptable?

Pelosi isn’t exactly helping matters:
.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#13993
.
Calling jail time for people who don’t buy health insurance is plain nuts.
.
By the way, all of you moonbats who called me a liar on this point can eat some crow. Ya see, even Nancy Pelosi didn’t serve up the ridiculous argument that you’re not being jailed for not buying insurance, but that you are being jailed for being a tax cheat.
.
Doncha hate it when your buds don’t make the arguments you make thus making you look ridiculous. I’d say some moonbats got pwned.

Here’s a question–now that Obama has endorsed the House bill, isn’t he violating his campaign pledge not to up taxes for those making less than $250K?
.
And why in the world are we thinking of taxing medical devices? Isn’t that in the same ballpark as taxing groceries, i.e., a regressive tax?

Thanks for the background.