"So the actual position is rather the opposite of how it was presented in the Hill article. Rockefeller isn't saying we can't pay, so we shouldn't try. He's saying, essentially, money shouldn't be the object here. We shouldn't let budget mismanagement tie our hands on major priorities."

Yup. Good reporting.

Ezra - Thanks for clarifying! I was shocked when I read that Dems were starting to back off healthcare reform.

"we shouldn't be tying our hands with budget rules."

That attitude makes a certain amount of sense to me. Clinton balanced the budget in the 1990's, only to have the Republicans destroy his work. I'd like to see the budget balanced, but there are more important things to spend political capital on. If the Democrats can pass a decent health care plan, they will have an accomplished something that the Republicans won't find it easy to undo.

I find Rockefeller's approach refreshing. If we aim for 2009-10 for health care reform, we have half a chance of builing consensus and finding common ground across party lines. We did research in both Iowa and Washington state on what the public wants, and there was more consensus on key issues than one would think. The trouble is, the parties aren't into building consensus, they are into being right. I would not rely much on resarch in just two states, except they were mirror images of each other. There was only one issue out of 20 where there was a statistically significant difference. When we asked our market research firm what that meant, they said that it demonstrated that in the absence of our leaders doing something about health care, that the American public has been thinking about it for a long time and has come to some pretty solid conclusions.
By starting with priorities, we might be able to make some headway.

We might even have the chance to ask what a health care system is supposed to do. You can't build a ship unless you know it is supposed to float.

Yeah, everyone knows we need to greatly expand government spending without expanding raising taxes. After we do that, we can raise taxes. First things first.

Precisely. The big priorities, after three decades of Republican and quasi-Republican administrations, are those things were shortchanging action now ends up costing a much larger amount down the road.

Health Care is an excellent example, where the refusal to fix the problem with a Universal Health system is threatening the fiscal viability of Medicare.

Sustainable Energy Independence is another, where pandering to the short term needs of oil companies have left the country with very little time to make very substantial changes if we are to get to a sustainable Energy Independent economy now, starting from the global Peak Oil plateau and through the global decline in oil supplies.

...is threatening the fiscal viability of Medicare.

Wow! And I was just lectured here on this board recently about how successful Medicare was and that all of this talk of fiscal problems is scare tactics by the Republicans.

Great! The Dems aren't backing off healthcare reform, they're backing off their other pledges! (Aren't we still waiting for Pelosi to complete her first 100 days promises?)

Well at least I know I can't trust them now ... I'm still waiting for the Dem congress to do something about gas prices - as they promised they would during the 2006 campaign.

And Ezra - the reporting here was accurate. That's what Rockefeller said, that's what was reported, and his PR guy didn't deny it. What we have here is a clarifying comment (somewhat reminiscent of Obama): "What I MEANT was ..."

Ezra Jan 2007: "Under a PAYGO regime, a health plan that required new funds would...require new funds. PAYGO doesn't bar all spending increases, they just need to be offset by revenue increases. ... Maybe I'm missing something here, but it's long been understood in the health policy community that their plans will have to be funded. ... It's certainly true, ...that this largely eliminates the chances of sweeping universal health reform in the next two years, ... Blaming that on PAYGO is like blaming the lack of turquoise trees on the Anti-Turquoise Tree Legislation of 47."

Barack Obama promised to "restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency—called Paygo—that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue." ...twice voted for PAYGO measures when Republicans were in power. ..."strongly supports and has voted for commonsense “Pay As You Go,” or “PayGo” rules,...is now a candidate for President, so...Barack Obama, the politician, has just had a miraculous change of heart at Yearly Kos...
Obama says he's not going to sacrifice his domestic priorities for deficit reduction. Universal health care, renewable energy, and all he rest won't be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO.

So, you know, never mind.
(http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=6598)

Exactly - never mind. Nothing to see here. Vote for us, don't listen to us.

Maybe I am just naive, but doesn't the U.S. already pay more then any other nation for health care? A single payer plan without the 25% administrative overhead of the current system would actually save money.

Since single payer is not going to happen(such a system isn't even viable in continental Europe, much less the US), it's pointless to speculate on how single payer will save us money.

Anyway, Democrats have already established that fiscal responsibility won't be a priority over the next few years.

If they are going to propose a health care plan, it should have it's own funding mechanism and it should be structured the same way the Medicare tax is.