Howdy, Kathy. Look at the (relatively) bright side. The Baucus fill has fizzled, and has been criticized by Dems in the _Senate_ as well as the House as being too far to the right, so now you'll be able to enjoy the reasonable expectation that the Senate revisions and the House-Senate conference is going to pull resulting legislation farther to the left than the Baucus fill. In fact, I would not be surprised if the legislation that does eventually make it to Obama's desk is a derivative mainly of HR 3200 (lib Dem House bill) rather than the Baucus bill, which nobody but Baucus seems to like.

Well, yeah, no kidding.

Your second and third paragraphs are infused with this presumption of conspiracy that hasn't been proved.

My 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of what? My last comment? My post? Because neither of those two possibilities make sense as being “infused with this presumption of conspiracy that hasn't been proved”? What presumption of conspiracy? What are you talking about?

I don't know where you think I referred to a “conspiracy,” but there doesn't have to be a “conspiracy” to keep women in low-paying jobs. But if most of those low-paying jobs are filled by women, then it might be a good idea to find out what the reason is and address it. Having said that, the larger problem is the incentive created by the Baucus bill for employers to prefer hiring workers for low-wage jobs, whether it's men or women who fill them. The point about women is that since women *are* more likely to be filling such jobs, it affects them disproportionately. I mean — obviously.

I don't know what part of this you don't get.

I'm uncomfortable with how easily you and many others hand out “guilty” verdicts without even the semblance of a trial.

I don't think it's a terrific outcome, and I doubt many liberals or progressives would, either.

Just for clarity, I trust you understand that the word “bottom” in “race to the bottom” in the context Marcy Wheeler was using it refers to the quality of the jobs, not of the individuals who would be hired to fill them.

Also, when you say, “I don't believe this women-are-underpaid mantra stands up to scrutiny,” can you point to evidence that women are not over-represented in the kind of low-wage jobs employers would be hiring for with the incentives the Baucus bill creates?

But the broader point is true. The more complicated the regulations get, the more loopholes and side effects they open up. Those are hard to foresee in advance, and they'll be wonderful…occasionally.

The Baucus bill seems like another layer on top of a system already teetering under too many layers. Of course we can't predict the consequences, and of course we can imagine some we might not like. I'd much rather see a reform that moved toward simplifying the system, leaving us with fewer layers rather than more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114351554851509…

Redundant, I know, but until we get rid of legalized bribery, special interest money and influence in Washington, this is what every piece of legislation turns into. It won't move unless the insurance lobby, the trial lawyers, the AMA, the AHA, the drug companies and the unions get what they want, or some great piece of what they want. Proof: look at the rise in stock value for health insurance companies across the board the day Baucus announced this proposal.

We have a legislature inured of systematic bribery (that they call “access”), a Supreme Court that encourages it under the rubrik of “commercial speech”, and pretty much nobody in the power corridors willing to take it on.

That's always been able to be pursued from the very beginning, and never required the public option.

Instead, the Dems chose something else (incremental federal takeover). That, coupled with their increasingly disturbing overreach and rushing of bad legislation this year, has wrecked them.

And now the adult Dems' Hope [tm] that the Baucus bill would Change [tm] their self-made dismal prospects is shattered. They're in even worse shape now.

Now we await the new Dem Senator from Massachusetts (Dukakis, say) and see what stunt is next.

Krugman: arrgh. What toxic waste. I was thinking of him and someone else while on the road yesterday and the day before. Krugman is such a pathetic hack and worse that he makes somebody else well to the Left actually refreshing and desireable to hear, as an alternative: Robert Reich!

I agree, Leonidas. There's a somewhat positive article on the plan from Krugman today, so maybe the details and some compromises can be worked out.

Well, I'll try to keep an open mind anyhow, but if Krugman likes it, its probably a disaster. There is no one I find to be as foolish as that man outside of the looney bin.

That's all they're up to: buying time until the Mob gets back in the Whitehouse and Congress again. That's what the fury is about with Obama. A small group of superwealthy are milking ignorant racism from ever-willing sections of backwards populace at its flanks. The real issue is a money monopoly and the never-ending gyrations of MedMob to try to cloak it as an act of irrevokable compassion.

The keyword is “revokable”. If the public ACTUALLY is allowed to taste the sweet nectar of total coverage with no premium, like free police protection and free fire protection and free military…they'll never deregulate THAT…and MedMob knows it. Long ago I called them out on their sham “the public option is too expensive, too unwieldy…yadda yadda crapola. I asked why, if it's such a disaster waiting to happen, they just don't let it happen, laugh and say “I told you so”? The answer is, they know it will work, it will catch on, people will love the Public Option like they love police protection without effort. Private insurance will lose their precious monopoly and will be forced to actually compete with excellent rates and top notch service. In other words, their profit margin will decline…

That's what this ENTIRE BS is all about since day one: MedMob's profit margin vs the wellbeing of US citizens. Their trying to divide our country by inciting riots during war…? That's a side issue that should be addressed accordingly. Using trying to divide the country during time of war for profit…hmmm…what's that called again? hmmm…I think it's called “treason”. Reward accordingly Congress..