I hate to say it, but I'm generally feeling a less optimistic about health care after having some smart conversations today with some very smart people here in beautiful (not kidding!) Pittsburgh, where I'm here for the next couple of days for Netroots Nation.
Occam's Razor would suggest that a decent number of Congressmen will be scared sh*tless after seeing some number of their constituents yell at them. Yes, there might be a few who feel greater solidarity for the cause in the face of all the misinformation and screaming. Yes, there might be a few who feel repelled by the incivility of the protests. Yes, there might be a few who recognize that, even if the health care bill is fairly unpopular at the time of its passage, a failure to pass a bill would be worse for both political and policy reasons.
But Congressmen are, by and large, not the deepest people on earth. They like being popular. They don't like getting yelled at. They don't like taking risks. I still think health care reform is more likely than not. Nancy Pelosi's skills as a vote-whipper are way underrated. But after seeing the Gallup polling on the protests, after seeing the how Democrats turned and ran today on the end-of-life counseling provision, I think any bill is (1) likely to pass by the skinny-skin-skin of its teeth in both chambers; (2) going to require compromise on key provisions like the public option; (3) perhaps going to require a "big" leadership/regrouping moment by Obama in early September.
8.13.2009
Occam's Razor and Health Care
@ 7:44 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
300 comments
"(3) perhaps going to require a "big" leadership/regrouping moment by Obama in early September. "
Isn't that what we were saying going into August....
What really matters is that we all recognize that 2009 is just a stepping stone. We'll get a real health care system instead of this institutionalized extortion that we have now. It won't be this year, but this year we're going to start moving towards it.
Many people are still undecided about which health care plan they support. Congressmen usually win elections, and they like to have something to show for it. A loss on health care would be devastating for Dems. We're still talking about the loss in 1993, but arguably the battle is even more intense this time around. If nothing gets passed, Congressmen, including freshman, have nothing to tout in order to increase their personal vote. So it's a double-whammy if it fails. If it passes, by the next Congressional election, any worry of potential failure of health reform won't even be manifested yet. It's a win-win for House members.
What really matters is that we all recognize that 2009 is just a stepping stone. We'll get a real health care system instead of this institutionalized extortion that we have now. It won't be this year, but this year we're going to start moving towards it.
See, this is why healthcare is bombing and people are angry. They KNOW the purpose of this bill is to get us on the road to a single-payer system. You may want that, but most people don't.
the situation is quite sad, but it is impossible to tell what is really happening given all the deals and agreeements, It is like being in the midle of a storm. We can't see the end or the beginning, or even know which way the wind is blowing. It does seem so unlikely that all of the promises were charade....and we all know that compromise is inevitable.. Most likely is that this is the first step.
(slightly off topic)
Welcome to Pittsburgh! Glad you're enjoying yourself. If you need suggestions of good spots to eat, drink, soak in local culture etc. feel free to email. It's the least I can do for all the great articles you've written and keeping me sane during the incredibly tense election.
-Ryan (ryankushner@mac.com)
It's sad to see that the Finance Committee is caving into irrational fears about the common-sense provision. (Has anyone polled this issue? I bet the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of the provision of end-of-life counseling.)
I hope it gets restored during the reconciliation process, or in a separate bill next year.
It would be a real tragedy if all it took to kill necessary reform in this country is a few thousand screaming lunatics.
I know some of these folks. Health insurance is a symptom. These folks see that their world is changing and they are having trouble with it. lambaugh, palin, the republican party are gaming them. It is a perfect setup. lambaugh is making 40 million per year , the republicans are making tens of millions per year, the health insurance industry is making billions per year. These far right gamers have a large number of brainwashed folks who are filled with anger and hate to do their bidding for nothing. I have like for someone at the meetings to ask, "Who will help you if you lose your health insurance?" It certainly won't be lambaugh, palin, or the republicans.
Nate -
While past performance does not guarantee future results, here's a list of things Obama wanted to accomplish so far in his first year:
ARRA (or as I call it, No Road Left Behind, at least here in Chicago) - passed despite a lot of socialist noise
Justice Sotomayor - confirmed despite a lot of fear-mongering by the right and NRA
Cash for Clunkers re-auth - passed, despite some noise
F22 Retirement - passed, despite likely costing jobs in 46 states
and those are just four examples - there are more.
While the wing-nuts scream and yell, and the 'balanced' media continues to cover trivialities, Obama is getting everything he wants through. So 'give me my country back' crowd may be winning on the airwaves right now, but I'll reserve judgment about success/failure of healthcare reform until I see the actual bill being voted on in Congress.
Regards,
Aleks
Why aren't they slamming Grassley?
The great American tragedy is the cowardice of the modern Democratic party. They should change their color from blue to yellow.
The end of life provisions added 2.6 billion to the plan, so we sortof knew it was going away anyway.
Hoping some reconciliation finagling can happen.
Correction: Max "Insurance PAC Money Flowing Out Of His Hip Pocket" Baucus turned and ran from the Republican plan to provide end of life counseling.
For reference, this is the same person as Max "May I Lick A Republican Senators Shoes Clean?" Baucus.. and Max "What Do You Mean, We're Going To Have A Secret Ballot Every Two Years On Chairmanships?!?" Baucus.
I actually agree strategically with the decision to drop the end-of life decision counseling.
It is a small piece of the total, and something that could probably be explained thoroughly and voted on in a seperate bill some other day, but it had become such a rallying point and a point for misinformation for the opposition that it was better to cut it out and go on without it.
Scott, you don't know what most people want, because most people don't know what they want. So just cut the sanctimonious crap.
If democrats, with a majority in each house and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate are unable to pass healthcare, then I feel sorry for them in 2010 and 2012. I am a very representative sample of their base and I will not be voting for my representatives again. Politicians may like to be popular, but voters do not like cowards or sell-outs either.
It will be a regrouping. Hopefully Obama will be preparing a pivot back to more focus on the ecomomy and job creation.
He will have to address the persistenly high unemployment rate. A great leadership moment would be to go Congress to redirect the unspent stimulus money to infrastructure spending and extending unemployment benefits. This way, he improves on a bad stimulus.
Otherwise he going to be as toxic to Democrats as Bush was to the Republicans. I've come to the conclusion that massive health care reform just doesn't fit well in this country; Obam should have come out for a smaller (regulatory)
bill that addresses the insurance companies' worst practices.
The public option is dead. The GOP is united against it and every Blue Dog I saw on TV or heard on the radio is promising their furious constituents that they will vote against it.
The end of life counseling subsidy is dead. The Obama health care rationing folks made a bad mistake making their intentions that clear. They freaked out the seniors, which is always a bad move in health care legislation.
The next battle will be cost:
1) There is no way the seniors will tolerate cuts in Medicare to pay for this.
2) 2% of the population cannot pay for the health care for all the uninsured without tax rates far in excess of the EU. And the middle class sure are not in the mood for a tax hike with nearly 10% unemployment. No one else pays taxes.
3) Obama promised the doctors and the drug companies they would not be further gouged in compensation to get them onboard and avoid another series of Harry and Louise ads. The medical providers must sense this legislation is in trouble and will bolt if the President demands more concessions.
4) Thus, if the Tea Party movement demands that their Congress critters keep Obama's promise that any health care bill be fully paid for, the entire enterprise is dead.
The Dems could salvage something useful out of this fiasco if they enacted some simple and popular reforms:
1) Mandate that folks must be accepted by insurers regardless of prior condition.
2) Mandate that individual and small business insured get the same rates as large business insured.
3) Go bipartisan and co-opt some mutually acceptable legislation being proposed by the GOP.
Obama gets a big bipartisan win and proclaims that this is only the first step in health care reform. The disappointed folks on the left will still vote Dem as they always do and there will not be a wholesale slaughter of the Blue Dogs in 2010 as Nate is projecting.
Of course, this is too reasonable a course of action.
There will very likely be a civil war in the Dem Party between the Left and the Blue Dogs over the public option, which is the left's last best hope for single payer.
If the GOP is smart, they will just get out of the way and roast marshmallows over the resulting conflagration.
America has to FOLLOW the rest of the world & accept single payer health care. It is not a matter of desire but of economic necessity. How long it will take to get there is another question, but anything less is tampering around the edges & damaging to both the economy & individuals.
There is still some place for "for profit" if you allow gap insurance as Australia does. All I can say is that it does indeed work & it is not sending this small nation broke.
Right now it is probably impossible to go single payer, but it can't be too far away. There is no way that the health care industry greed can be contained indefinitely, no matter how stringent the laws, so they will bring it on by their behaviour.
I was naive enough to belive that back-to-back election victories, a sixty seat Senate majority, near universal disdain for the Republicans, and a very popular President would be enough to get the Democrats to grow a backbone. Clearly, I was wrong. Blame youthful ignorance, I guess. The Republicans may be the "Party of No," but the Democrats are clearly the "Party of Yes, May I Have Another?" It's pathetic. There's clearly no issue important enough for them to show some moral courage. Our healthcare system leaves 47 million of our fellow Americans uninsured. And we're obsessing over cost? How much is 47 million lives worth? How much money does it take to get a Democrat to stand up to fanatics? What the hell happened to the Party of Roosevelt? When did they get emasculated en masse?
We have people on Medicare whining about government-run healthcare. We have people on Social Security complaining about welfare. And none of our politicians have the guts to stand up for what is right?
You'll not see another edition of "Profiles in Courage" in reference to modern Democrats.
If we don't get *meaningful* health care passed (and yeah, *I* want single payer) but there is more than one way to get that, I will spit nails. But more than that, I fiendishly hope that when it all comes crashing down the cowardly B*stards in congress now are still in office and have to face the shouting down they hear THEN. They will think this was the good old days.
Nate, I hope you're right, but I fear you're not. And to call the protesters mindless is pretty mindless in itself. The current Congressional proposals may not call for "death panels" but Dr. Utopia (BO) has advocated that position repeatedly. The misinformation from the right comes no where near close to the leftist BS I am hearing. Please bring back term limits to get rid of all these creeps! Mandate health insurance for all, and subsidize those who can't afford with a funded plan which taxes EVERYONE on a progressive basis. Then call it a day. If you're for universal health care, you're willing to contribute. If you're not willing to contribute, you're against universal health care, pure and simple.
And though I'm from Chicago, I know Pittsburgh and it is a wonderful city.
They KNOW the purpose of this bill is to get us on the road to a single-payer system. You may want that, but most people don't.
My health insurance is awesome. I wouldn't trade it for anything- except a system where your health insurance doesn't depend on what job you or your spouse happen to have at the moment. Maybe I'd trade it for a system that didn't discourage entrepreneurialism by forcing people to gamble their families' lives when they start their own businesses.
Most people want to be trapped in jobs simply for insurance, which they'll lose in the next round of layoffs? Most ignorant people, and most corporate shills. Which of those are you, Scott?
Any chance of a Pittsburgh 538 meeting somewhere?
A health care bill will pass if the Dems remember one thing. Not one of those people screaming "Nazi" voted for a Democrat in the last election. By pleasing them you will not gain one vote in the future.
Ignore them and pass the damn bill.
NU'69 - I would *love* to see a complete quote or clip of even one time that Obama advocated for a death panel...this should be fun to see. And don't bother quoting the bs from when his beloved grandmother was dying, that is not a complete quote...lets see something real.
As someone who lives in Pittsburgh for grad school (and is not particularly happy about it), I will say that Pittsburgh is a gorgeous city.
You can't have a fight without at least two sides
There has never been the least cause for any optimism that the cause of reform would carry the day on healthcare, because that cause has no one fighting for it. The "reformers", at least the politically "serious" reformers, at the outset, before the battle was even joined, decided to rule out even trying for single payer, much less a national health system. But single payer was the least reform that would take control of health care away from the industry that now controls it.
If you're not going to take control of the system, any fancy diagrams you draw up of how you think the system ought to look are just an exercise in pretty draftsmanship. They aren't actually in any sort of contention to form the blueprint of how anything in the real world will ever work. You gave up on effectiveness and settled for purely aesthetic interests when you decided to leave the industry in charge of health care financing. They will decide how the medical care non-system will continue to malfunction in this country, to include how it will be changed by whatever "reform" they allow through this year in order to further entrench their interests. The results will not be pretty.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what this has to do with Occam's razor.
Something will pass. Because the Dems won't be able to run in 2010 on not doing anything. It's reform or die, at this point. All these protests have done is kill any hope of bipartisanship. Because let's be honest, these protesters don't stand for a single substantive idea, and it's not like the Dems can incorporate "ZOMG!! NO SOCIALISM!!11!!" into a health care package. The worst case scenario is, we get a watered-down bill that doesn't include a public option, and the Dems revisit the issue in two years, after the economy has recovered and they have retained control of the Congress.
If representatives don't like being yelled at, I'm sure that the White House, Pelosi, et al, can manage plenty of yelling behind closed doors. And with the amount of Botox Pelosi has had in her face (and I say this as one of her constituents in SF), she'd be a very scary person to have yelling at you. Certainly scarier than some fat old white dude like in those town halls.
I didn't even attempt to read whatever nonsense Bart DePalma posted. Unfortunately, I read of most of NU'69's ramblings, and apparently, this guy's been eating Rudy's retard sandwiches.
As for healthcare reform, AAB makes a valid point. But Obama and his "advisers" better wake the fuck up and ditch this whole idea of reaching out to morons like Chuck Grassley. He's making Max Baucus look like a complete tit.
Not that Baucus needs any assistance in that department.
@ Tommy: I think the premise is something like: Democrats get screamed at, hate being screamed at, will do whatever it takes to not get screamed at (i.e., not passing a healthcare bill). Thus, the simplest interpretation of events leads one to conclude that healthcare reform is not likely to happen.
I think some premises are off though:
First, no offense, but liberals -- smart as many are -- are some of the most pessimistic people EVER (especially when under fire)! lol I wouldn't be making predictions after being surrounded by the waves of pessimism; it distorts one's objectivity.
Second, the assumption is that Democrats will be cowered by these protests. But, that disregards the fact that many Democrats think these protests are staged; indeed, there is evidence that many people showing up at their meetings aren't even their constituents. Thus, it's difficult to assess how they are actually viewing these protests. They could very well be just as motivated to press reform.
Third, this disregards the price of failure. Remember these are Democrats, and after a bitter primary that largely revolved around healthcare, Democrats aren't going to go quietly into the night if Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and a Democratic president can't get a respectable bill passed.
Fourth, it's difficult to apply Occam's razor to human behavior. Humans don't always follow what's believed to be be the simplest path/explanation.
I could go on, but hopefully, I've sufficiently made the point. There are too many variables to even begin to know how things are going to play out in the Fall.
Also, I think passage of the bill would have been close anyway.
By the way, with regard to the polling, Gallup and Fox News polling (i.e., approve/disapprove) on healthcare opinions are largely unchanged since their previous polls. So, I'm not sure that these protests are having any substantial influence on opinion.
"after seeing the how Democrats turned and ran today on the end-of-life counseling provision"
cheer up Nate....Obama just pulled Palin's fangs on the death panels by doing that.
Savy counter move for When Facebookers Attack.
It is gonna get uglier....the GOP is fighting for its life and that aint pretty. Kristol is pretty sure that if anythin' gets passed it will be enough better to doom the conservatives to 40 years in the wilderness.
Obama just has to pass a small healthcare reform...like insurance reform.... and the Teabagger Posse will be headed down the extinction trail.
When applied to a social situation, Occam's razor states that the simpler explanation is usually the more accurate one. I believe that what Nate is saying is that Politicians are not particularly complex people, and that unless a politician feels morally tied to a particular issue, he (or she) will try to read the views of his/her constituency and vote their way.
A constituency that includes a bunch of people yelling at a town hall meeting will persuade that politician that opposition is real, especially when combined with the letters, faxes and emails that politician receives on the subject. Those things count much more than polling data -- they show commitment and money that will go to oppose that politician should he/she choose to oppose them.
Most of us here know that some 70% of the population cannot spell health care, much less differentiate between competing plans, so a politician will try to judge how the remaining 30% feel. And passion on the issue, even if it's ginned up by conservative commentators, counts more than valid-but-dispassionate arguments.
This isn't how most of us use Occam's Razor. I had always understood Occam's Razor as a method of choosing among competing theories, suggesting that the theory that requires the least number of suppositions is more likely to be correct.
The problem with your use of it here as a reduction to "most Congressman are pussies, therefore they will chicken out" is that it attempts to simplify a highly dynamic set of facts. As a professional advocate, I agree with the underlying hypothesis (i.e., Congresscritters are pussies). But their basic pussiness merely makes them more manipulable. With Phrma, SEIU, and other major campaign donors backing healthcare reform (provided it meets certain parameters), the basic pussiness of Congresscritters will cause them to remain in play. A good rule of thumb is that the lobbyist in your office is worth a good ten creaming loonies back home -- especially when the loonies are not necessarily from your district and the lobbyists are prepared to write checks.
oops
wrong linkage...that link was for High Scool Never Ends in Wasilla.
When Facebookers Attack
Obama is being far too passive in this debate. He should go out and give a "major speech" like his Cairo one, or his race one and make the facts clear to the american people. While i am certain that eventually we will get a health reform bill, I am becoming more and more wary that Obama will give in and the final bill will include a co-op leaving millions uninsured. He has to step up his game and ensure that we do not compromise the lives of other Americans because of right wing spin.
And on the note of passivity, Nate when will we get our August Senate Rankings? A lot has changed since last month. And what of that Rasmussen poll showing Specter losing badly to Toomey?
Nate…
Who in the world defined Occam’s Razor for you? It is based on an observation made in the Middle Ages by William of Ockham, who postulated that, in terms of scientific questions, the correct answer is always the simplest one that accounts for all the terms. Thus the idea of a “razor”, which is useful in paring away certain hypotheses (in any given inquiry) without having to examine them in detail. (Go here, if you don’t believe me.)
There is no way you can apply “Occam’s Razor” here.
Need an editor? I work cheap.
Concern troll plumage for August, 2009: Anyone who begins a post "The public option is dead. Democrats should..." Knowing is half the battle!
Count me as an optimist on health reform. One month of intensely personal and angry attacks and the best the protestors can do is get a fairly meaningless end of life counseling provision out of a bill that has not even passed a committee? With an ad campaign ramping up and the President sharpening his message, I think the Dems have weathered the worst and will be able to get this done in the fall. Tonight's NBC Nightly News report on the traveling health care clinic that stopped in LA was eye opening and is a sign that the MSM is starting to take the health care isssue seriosuly.
most - if not all - of those same 'smart people' @ netroots did not have BHO in their POTUS predictions 2 years ago...
same goes for overwhelming DEM majorities in both houses of congress...
HealthCare Reform = CHANGE we can believe in...
the ads will start running in heavy rotation around Labor Day when people start paying attention & it really begins to matter
Pharma alone is putting something like 150 million behind the push to PASS reform - they are putting their money on the winning side & THAT is what is really pissing off the GOOPERS & trolls imho
AARP will bring the seniors along or whip them into passivity - think MEDICARE & SSA
self-interest will prevail = something will be legislated [unfortunately not 'Medicare for all' which is the rational solution...
even the majority of MDs & hospitals support universal single payer in their own best interests
You folks are being a bit to melodramatic. AARP is out with new ads as of today attacking the misinformation out there. PhARMA is going to begin soon in this fight apart from their Harry and Louise ads. Apart from fixed news, the major news outlets and major networks are hitting back with fact check segments. The truth will prevail with a little patience.
It's going to be frickin' exciting if you're into this kinda stuff like myself.
Sure, the town halls seem intense now but I'm already sensing it toning down. Remember what a big deal it was when Daschle found out all his problems with taxes. It felt like Obama's smooth transition had come to a screeching halt. Now, nobody even thinks about it. Americans have the attention span of a goldfish.
I think people are underestimating what the Wyden bill succeeded in doing, which is getting the support of over 5+ Republicans and a number of bluedog Senator as noted in the op-ed in the WaPO. In all honesty, it is very close to what Obama campaigned on, which is offering to Americans the same options members of Congress have.
Health care is pretty much a done deal. This is all theatrics going on right now. Just hang in there, keep up the fight and take a deep breath and a periodic drop of whiskey to ease the nerves and it'll be all over soon..well at least 2 1/2 months or so from now.
One thing is to keep in mind, this can't go through reconciliation because of the Byrd Rule which could be used to strip out parts that people might want but wouldn't have direct impact on the deficit so could easily be stripped out.
cheers.
Americans Sour on The Quitter
A new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds that just 39% have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, down seven points from a poll conducted in May, and it's also nine points lower than the 48% who now say they now view Palin unfavorably.
"A 39 percent favorable rating makes it that much tougher for Palin to become president should she decide to run in 2012. Her favorable rating is almost identical to the numbers that former vice president Dan Quayle got just after leaving office in 1993," says Keating Holland.
Quayle formally declared himself a presidential candidate in 1994 but withdrew from the race in 1995.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/08/12/americans_sour_on_palin.html
Remember, that's not job approval, she's unemployed. And when she did have a job, her job approval was in the low fifties...in ALASKA.
Why hasn't Raspublican polled the Quitter's national favorability lately? Is it because he's afraid his slanted polling will be the shark jump of all shark jumps, or is it because his polling would pretty much be in line with every other poll conducted recently that shows the Quitter almost as popular as Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle. After months of John Ziegler-esque push polling, I reckon Scotty owes his christian fundie FReeptard readers a new poll.
How about this from the FOX Propaganda Nutwork. Even for them this is pretty shameless...
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/report-fox-health-coverage/
And people wonder why they get more viewers than MSNBC and CNN. Maybe it's because progressives, even if a majority of them bothered to tune in regularly to MSNBC or CNN, would still be split between the two networks. FOX, I'm sure everyone here would agree, has the entire conservative nutbase watching on a regular basis.
I think there is something that people seem to be forgetting - every politician of any stripe has spent a lot of time listening to crazy people scream at them. It seems obnoxious and shocking to us but this sort of thing happens all the time. Just Youtube "crazy city council".
I suspect a lot of these congressmen will see these people for the ideologically-driven Republicans that they are.
Indeed, I don't think the people at town halls will scare many Democrats at all into voting against the health bill. What I DO think it will do is scare REPUBLICANS into voting against the health bill. Any moderate Republican can see the writing on the wall with this stuff - if they vote against the health care bill, they might as well vote against themselves.
I am one of the 47 million people in the US without insurance. Im a college graduate...that just started my own business. I would like to have insurance. Someday I will buy it myself. (I'm 28)
I am a college graduate that just started his own business. I'm 27. And I have never had the incredible irresponsibility to not have medical insurance. Go to www.ehealthinsurance.com, suck it up, and get some. That's absolutely ridiculous - you are openly refusing to pay any medical bills which you might incur, at least the ones you can't pay for out of your own pocket.
To everyone arguing about health care reform....answer me this. Tell me one good reason why you think the govt should be involved?!!
They would make jackasses like you who run up the premiums on my insurance get the health insurance they can afford!
You see, people, THIS is exactly why I don't even get how the 41 million uninsured people are going to be so expensive to cover. Uninsured people have enough money for insurance, otherwise they'd be on Medicaid. The majority of uninsured people, at least in my admittedly anecdotal experience, are young people like our friend Kyle here who believe that they are indestructible, so why pay for health care?
And the irony is that Kyle's insurance would be inexpensive and profitable for the insurance companies. Simply getting people like Kyle to pay for health insurance is a step in the right direction.
Kyle
you sir are an idiot...
IF you have no insurance then you are putting all of US at risk should you get into a catastrophic accident or illness befalls you...
or even a terrorist attack maims you..
besides SSA & medicare are BOTH very successful in what they do - ask any senior if they would consider trading them for 'health accounts' or other options - HELL NO !!!
those government programs are proven successes & now are 'entitlements' - but why should only seniors be 'entitled' to basic health care w/o sitting in ERs ???
the US is the only 'civilized' country that discriminates so openly against their own people for open access to basic health care services
now if you develop any sort of 'pre-existing condition' in the USA like many do, then you would be shit out of luck trying to get decent insurance on your own - EVER
you better HOPE you never get a cancer or hyper-tension or even Lyme disease [which insurers like BC now call 'pre-existing condition' to rule out future medical coverage for many folks including myself]
and there is no public option to bypass the PROFIT takers in private insurance companies since the non-profits were allowed to switch thanks to the 'free-market' GOOPers that screamed that the private market is always better
IT IS NOT BETTER to leave it to capitalism to provide for basic needs such as health care
someday YOU will learn that yourself the HARD way...
Persuter - sadly, I agree with your complete...and I am willing to bet that people such as Kyle "find" the money somehow to pay the 70-120 bucks a month for a cell phone (with data package of course, because you *have* to have it)...and probably have cable at home, and internet...we all make choices.
PorridgeGun…
These made me laugh out loud—
“Raspublican” and “FOX Propaganda Nutwork”. I don’t know if they’ve been around before, but they are right on target.
I agree with all those who say “wait and see”. Barack Obama knows exactly when to launch the counterattack. The townhall screamers will run out of steam before too long, and then the backlash will set in.
Too bad we can’t return tar-and-feathering to our arsenal of punishments. If we did, this jackal would be my first nominee. This stupid shit, who calls himself a senator, went on record yesterday endorsing the idea that health care reform as proposed by the Democrats would have, as part of its cost-cutting apparatus, plots to get rid of grandmas.
I say we set up a test “Death Panel”, just to see whether it would be of any use, and I propose senator Grassley be its first interviewee.
outiot: An open gay person who's not very bright.
DCM in FL said...
most - if not all - of those same 'smart people' @ netroots did not have BHO in their POTUS predictions 2 years ago...
same goes for overwhelming DEM majorities in both houses of congress...
HealthCare Reform = CHANGE we can believe in...
the ads will start running in heavy rotation around Labor Day when people start paying attention & it really begins to matter
Pharma alone is putting something like 150 million behind the push to PASS reform - they are putting their money on the winning side & THAT is what is really pissing off the GOOPERS & trolls imho
AARP will bring the seniors along or whip them into passivity - think MEDICARE & SSA
self-interest will prevail = something will be legislated [unfortunately not 'Medicare for all' which is the rational solution...
even the majority of MDs & hospitals support universal single payer in their own best interests
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanx for a positive, rational post amid all the negativity! So good and optimistic it had to be posted again. :)
Regarding the doom and gloom from the persistent trolls, one should hearken back to the naysayers of last year ie Hillary and her supporters saying Obama is not electable, Hillary and Obama will never work together and she will work against his election as will Bill Clinton. The "Bradley Effect" will save the party of No! once again, the PUMA's will doom the Obama campaign, etc. etc.
hmm, how did all that negativity work out for 'ya, Reps?
again, underestimate Obama at one's own peril!
take care
Isn't it fun to go back in history and smile as Obama won frickin' NC and IN, yea the last Dem to win those states was LBJ, who signed and was responsible for the Civil Rights Bill of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65. Coincidentally, Obama was born in 1961, I digress.
Love it when a plan comes together and yes Virginia, the '60s wasn't all bad news! ;)
did I mention underestimate Obama at one's own peril!
Small correction, Obama won IN and VA, the first Dem to do that since LBJ, but hey he also won NC, FL, OH, CO, NM, NV :)))
hmm, think I'll go watch clips of election nite again and the gloomy faces on faux news lol. A little bit of Heaven!
SHILOH
perhaps a good comp of BHO - LBJ...
according to the post over at Political Wire this evening:
'Obama Willing to Stake Presidency on Health Care Reform'
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) claims that President Obama told him "he's willing to be a one-term president if that's what it takes to get health care and energy reform," reports Radio Iowa.
===================================
There WILL be some sort of major health care reform passed & BHO is willing to stake his entire POTUS on signing it this year... that is 'CHANGE' & he promised it was comin'
I would not put money down against it, even if I think the DEMS will over-compromise - something significant is better than nuttin' at this moment
DCM in FL…
They can compromise the hell out of the healthcare bill, but if there’s no public option then I think Obama will veto it.
Without the public option we’re stuck in the same old mess.
That’s why Obama issued his warning about a week ago to senate Republicans, that they had until September 15 to get on board, otherwise all efforts at “compromise” will cease. There are a few GOOPer politicians who still equate “compromise” with “doing it our way”, but they are finding no one on the other side willing to fall into their trap.
Wow, look, a 538 thread that hasn't devolved into complete partisan hackery by now. What a coincidence that PeteKent, Mule Rider and Mike in Md. haven't stopped by yet...
Although, PorridgeGun's Palin spamming isn't much of a step up.
As for AAB, while I don't necessarily see Sotomayor getting confirmed as a huge "win" (since it was never, ever actually in doubt), I wish Obama would play the same strategy used on the F-22 scuttling on his bigger issues. He held the line despite an initial setback and didn't back down, even though he faced some heat from both sides of the aisle. But where was that strength in passing that abortion of a credit card bill, for example?
It is kind of sad that despite the Dems huge majorities in both chambers that their biggest wins are the Americorps/volunteer program expansion bill and a decidedly-less-than optimal stimulus package (cash for clunkers included) as of right now. But I suppose what's past is merely prologue to the health care tussle.
It does make you wonder though if we'll look back and decide that Obama should have had better legislative prioritization coming into office. I can't figure out how he's planning on retooling financial regulations anymore, let alone where disparate bills like EFCA come back into play (if ever again this term).
Yea DCM, as I mentioned previously, LBJ's political IQ was second only to FDR and he knew the civil rights bills would give the South to the Reps for several generation, maybe forever.
After JFK's assassination and LBJ's landslide it was the exact moment in the time/warp continuum for civil rights legislation and LBJ grasped the challenge.
As Obama must do now to get the job done. Obama has a keen grasp of history and nobody remembers fence sitters. As Adm. Halsey said to Adm. Nimitz before the Battle of Midway, When you are in command, command! Truman left office in the low 20s job approval after firing that horse's ass! Gen. MacArthur and his decisions re: the Korean War, etc. but know is rated the 5th greatest president by historians.
Obama has to grab the bull by the horns and get the job done, by hook or by crook, twist arms, use the bull pulpit, and yes stake his presidency of health care reform whether he gets re-elected should not even enter into the equation.
Go high or stay at home, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, no balls, no blue chips ... ok, it's late and I'm out of clichés lol
Obama and the Dems just need to do the right thing and lobbyists be damned!
If anybody seriously thinks Obama will risk his second term, they're nuts. Why? The grass is greener on the other side rule.
Even if he gets stymied on an issue, cap & trade let's say, all he has to do is think that he can take a second run at it with a better economy and all the momentum from the reelection. A second term is a second wind and all.
Pragmatus:
Can you say more about this "no more compromise" warning from Obama? I've not heard anything about it.
I don't want to get depressed about this...all along I've thought the media has made such a big deal of this and that it was truly a small minorty of non obama voters...and the rest of we thoughful people would easily win out...I can afford my healthcare, and yet I would gladly do whatever my part is to help any one in
the country have coverage...it's better for all of us...This is all so sad.
Letter said...
If anybody seriously thinks Obama will risk his second term, they're nuts. Why? The grass is greener on the other side rule.
Even if he gets stymied on an issue, cap & trade let's say, all he has to do is think that he can take a second run at it with a better economy and all the momentum from the reelection. A second term is a second wind and all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's now or never for Obama imo and he's already knee deep in all the mud, so either there is a bill or the Dems suffer the consequences of having the #s necessary to legislate and not being able to pass rational legislation.
After 2010, 2012 the Dems may have far less Dems in congress, which would make a redo a non-starter.
And the Dems can't use Reconciliation because if they go it alone it restricts spending on any bill as to how it will be funded and within budget. Don't know all the why's and wherefore's, but the way Lawrence O'Donnell explained it the other day, if reconciliation is used there is only (5) years to pay for any legislation as regards to federal budget, whereas if you can defeat a filibuster, you have (10) years to pay for a health care bill.
It's now or never for Obama, this is his baby and he succeeds or fails on whether the job gets done so he might as well go for broke! He knows this which is why he made the comment re: re-election.
Obama knows the reality of the situation.
Nancy Pelosi's skills as a vote-whipper are way underrated.
You say that as if it's a good thing.
Obama screwed this healthcare overhaul up.
I believe he should have presented specific requirements (public option, no tax on benifits etc) if not an bill draft.
he should have gone for the 51 senators, relying on Reid and Durbin to whip for cloture only.
to fix the fundamental screw ups he needs to do the following:
1) gather Rahm Emanuel, Reid, Pelosi, Axerold, Sebelius, Baucus, Conrad, Dean, Barnie Frank, and a liberal senator to revamp the strategy. It's important that the media see this as a restart
2) He needs to outline what is necessary for his signature, and what is absolutely not acceptable. This will give SOMETHING to debate about until house-senate conferencing. To a degree, this will make the shouting at townhalls seem too reactionary.
3) hold some townhalls in states with swing senators. Im talking IN, ND, MS, MA,
4) Whip for cloture votes like hell. and allow Senators to vote as they please for passage (there should be moderate whipping to gurantee 51 votes)
5) Make sure the House bill has a public option to satisfy the Tri-Caucus members. this should be pretty easy
6) Identify a point-man in the Senate that has enough clout to make sure the bill the senate passes and sends to conference has a public option, even if it's watered down. Durbin might be best for this if he can backtrack from the sunday round on CNN last week. Anyone but Durbin might be too much of a slap in the face to Reid.
^^ This step is critical but not essential. If this succeeds, then a public option is guaranteed. If the senate passes a co-op, a public option can still be pushed through the senate assuming it stays in conference.
7) Always have someone of high-profile competing with republican press conferences. This needs to happen to change the media momentum.
8). Address the nation via prime-time broadcast from the WH or address Congress. The former may be the most effective if done quick enough
9). Get the DNC to get some polling, Asses the effects of the shouting-townhalls. If support has weakened, pull a Reagan and "hang a latern on your problem". If support remains high (especially in named states from above), leak some copies to Senators and news networks
10) Start getting some ads up
^^ many things to do within the next month, but he really messed this process up, so it's necessary - in my opinion
beowulf said...
I am a very representative sample of the [Democratic] base and I will not be voting for my representatives again.
And in which state do you live in where you have more than one representative to the US House of Representatives? Or are you talking about some states, where you will find districts with multiple state legislature delegates with a single state senator, such as Maryland (each district has one state senator and three delegates).
I'm not sure if you are a concern troll, or just don't know what you're discussing. Either way, you aren't paying attention to the political situation, or not paying attention to what you are writing, or both, and thus tend to come across as a fool.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
P.S., Sorry, 'letter', but I'm here and commenting now. And you don't remember that (since passage of the 22nd Amendment) as soon as a President is reelected, he (or hopefully soon - she) is automatically a lame duck? No third term allowed, remember?
seanfoots said...
It's important that the media see this as a restart
And that won't cause the 'deathers' to think that their strategy worked, and they'll go even more far out with a 'restart'?
seanfoots said...
swing senators. Im talking IN, ND, MS, MA,
I presume you're talking about Bayh in Indiana and Conrad and Dorgan in North Dakota.
Mississippi? Which of Cochran or Wicker is the swing Senator?
Massachusetts? Which of Kennedy or Kerry is the swing Senator?
As to identifying a point man, yes that's important, but you apparently don't know enough about how Congress works to realize that the Senate Majority Leader appoints the Majority Party Senators to the Conference committee; the Senate Minority Leader appoints the Minority Party Senators to the Conference committee; the House Speaker appoints Majority Party Representatives to the Conference Committee; and the House Minority Leader appoints Minority Party Representatives to the Conference Committee.
The President has absolutely NO say in who is on, or who is not on, the Conference Committee.
As to your other points - you don't think that 'Axerold' [sic] has not spent literally days on the telephone with various Reps and Senators? You don't know that 'Axerold' [sic] has been in meetings at the White House with various members of Congress, with and without President Obama present? You don't know that Emanuel, Axlerod and Sebelius have all spent hour upon hour on Captital Hill discussing issues with the Democratic Leadership AND various other members of Congress?
Do you realize that many people, especially those in Congress, felt that the Clinton Health program was defeated was because a bill was sent by the White House to the Congress, with instructions to pass it as written, and no amendments would be accepted? President Obama told Congress what he wanted in the bill, and is letting Congress work out the details. You don't think that once the House passes a bill, and the Senate passes a bill, that the White House will in one way or another, but usually in private, tell the Democratic members of the Conference Committee what the White House demands in the bill coming from the Conference Committee, what it can live with, and what will bring out the veto pen? If you don't think that, you don't know how the legislative process works.
Looks to me that you don't know much about the legislative process, AND you haven't been paying much attention to the news.
Oh, and an address to a joint session of Congress has much, much more force than an Oval Office address. Faux News can always find an excuse to not carry an Oval Office address (when it's a Democratic President), but would find it extremely difficult to not carry an address to a Joint Session. Problem is, since Congress is returning on September 8, that would be too late for an address to a Joint Session to be able to sway public opinion.
So again I say, it looks to me that you don't know much about the legislative process, AND you haven't been paying much attention to the news.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
Mike in Md said...
Sorry, 'letter', but I'm here and commenting now.
As long as the right-wing nuts aren't here, that isn't so much a problem. But you'd have to admit you fall into their game every single time they try to shitstorm this site. You have a tendency to get caught up in 30-50 post screaming matches that drown out all else, and for what? So that Mule Rider might someday see the light?
And you don't remember that (since passage of the 22nd Amendment) as soon as a President is reelected, he (or hopefully soon - she) is automatically a lame duck? No third term allowed, remember?
Yeah...because that was totally what I was saying. Well done. Do you believe the economy will be improved in 2012 and 2013? Almost certainly. Do you believe the Republicans have anybody even resembling a competent general election candidate ready to go to stop Obama's reelection? I would hope not. So he's going to have his political capital all back up, assuming no unforeseen scandals until then, which my gut tells me he'd like to spend on social domestic issues in his second term. Unless he has to go back and finish off his supposed "first term agenda" that got left behind the health care and stimulus/bailout legislation that has dominated this year and the conversation going into the midterms. That's why he'd be fool to go all in on the first term; he's guaranteed to look fresher upon reelection than he will in March 2010 or July of next year, etc. The only thing that is non-negotiable is getting health care reform passed, the other stuff can rightfully wait.
Mississippi? Which of Cochran or Wicker is the swing Senator?
Massachusetts? Which of Kennedy or Kerry is the swing Senator?
He's obviously talking about Missouri and Maine and got the postal codes wrong...
I would like to know is why the only Town Hall meetings generally being reported are from states and districts which are heavily Republican.
Don't people in Seattle or Boston show up at these things or is it that without a freak show, they are no worth reporting. Other than the New Hampshire event, I haven't seen anyone who is not against health care even through in the local paper, letters have been running about 8 or 10 to 1 for reform.
Obama ran on this issue so it should be support from those who voted for him, unless they just liked him better than McCain.
A thought occurred to me the other day. One of the reasons some of these crazies are so crazy is because they lost. So why not give them a win. Maybe enough of them will calm down to allow a rational conversation about healthcare? Maybe that's what is happening here.
I am confident that a health care reform bill, with a public option will pass. As I keep saying, I think it's too important, for the Democratic Party, for it not to happen. Taking on the end of life counselling provision is not a big thing really and if it means the crazies calm down a bit, then why not?
markymark,
On the Living Will provision (in the bills in which it is included) is for Medicare to pay for the discussion, unlike today, where, if there are any bills from the doctor for the discussion, are not paid for by the government.
So I agree - drop the provision, and don't hide the fact that the CBO claims that it will save $2.8 billion by doing so. Just don't get them stirred up bat shit crazy again by publicizing the fact that the original bill (passed in 1990 under GHW Bush) still encourages people to create a Living Will. They can't be still THAT angry that Bush broke his 'No new taxes' 'pledge', can they?
Oh, and if they do get stirred up bat shit crazy again, do a BIG TIME advertising campaign that Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) was an original co-sponsor of the Living Will law back in 1990. That might calm a few of them down, especially in Georgia.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
When ever anyone mentions the George H W Bush presidency it makes me realise how far the GOP has travelled in less than 20 years. I mean in Papa Bush's time, it was still the Republican Party, but at least it was reasonably sane. Now it just seems completely stir crazy, totally dominated by religious thinking, completely unable to hear anyone elses viewpoint, and unable to hear reason even.
When did the GOPs mental breakdown occur? Is it Gingrich that did this to the party? Is it something that was already in the works? Was it an allergic reaction to Clinton? Whatever its quite sad if you ask me, as someone who wants and sees value in debate and compromise in politics.
I don't see the need for doom and gloom. The stalling of the Finance Commitee might even turn out to be something positive à la "We tried everything to get the Republicans on board..."
The Senate Commitee bill will be relatively conservative. Most Republicans don't want any deal at all, fine, the "deadline" of bipartisanship passes (Sept, 15th). The Senate Commitee creates a bill with a co-op system. The bill will be reconciled with the HELP commitee bill - it might turn out to be relatively conservative - that's ok, too..... The bill then has to be reconciled with the House bill in the conference commitee. It might be October by then. Now remember that there is the deadline that starts the reconciliation process (Oct, 15th). So the White House can negotiate from a position of strength and the very final bill might turn out to be something completely different from the bills before - it WILL be more liberal than the Senate commitee bill.
Remember, everything that is happening now is just setting up the front lines for that conference commitee - this is where the bill gets made. The Finance commitee, representing the position of the finance/insurance industry, somewhat has to be conservative - you can't demand from these senators to be against their constituents - and the finance industry, after all, is part of this democracy.
But they aren't the only part... there's the pharma industry and the medical personnel and their unions. The final bill will be a compromise between all those interests. All these nutjobs, birthers, deathersm screamers, and republicans out-of-elected-office (Palin, Gingrich, Steele) are tools of the finance industry. The finance industry has to rely on the Republicans, they depend on each other.
You can't defeat the interests of the overbloated finance industry in a few weeks. It will take decades. Obama's job is to change the trajectory of America, not to walk that road until the end. Even Reagan didn't accomplish all he wanted to do, it took Gingrich and Bush II to get to a point where the idea of a corporatist, proto-fascist state began to take shape.
markymark:
"completely unable to hear anyone elses viewpoint, and unable to hear reason even."
Are you talking about the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Biden- party?
Why is the left so concerned about Republicans? The Reps have NO power whatsoever. Look at the comments on this thread. Just angry bashing of Republicans. Porridge Gun is still just infatuated with Sarah Palin.
Move on Porridge Gun. Move on.
If the Dems want this bill passed, maybe they should look in the mirror and take a little responsibility rather than attacking the party with no power.
It seems like the Dems were out of power for so long, they don't know what to do now that they have it. A little protesting of big government national healthcare and the left is having a complete meltdown.
It's fun to watch.
Yes, congressmen don't like taking risks or being unpopular. And they also don't like the prospect of losing elections. But wouldn't it be nice one time to have an elected official do something that's right instead of what politically expedient? Considering that the health care bill would actually help people, even those who are protesting against it, wouldn't it be nice to pass the bill just to be able to say "I told you so."
I mean, it's "health care." How can you be against that?
John:
It's not about healthcare. It's about insurance for healthcare and most Americans are happy with their health insurance and don't want the Federal Gov't involved in it.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Grog, I am not the Democratic Party. However I do think the Democratic Party in the last 20 years has been A LOT better than the GOP at listening to varying voices and differing opinions, be that moderating its position on gun ownership or abortion, or having a variety of positions represented within the party on the Iraq War. I think actually its current problems on healthcare come from listening to such a broad varotey of opinions and melding them together into a policy. (A process that we are half way through).
I think the Republican Party has become far far more of a homogenous party in the last 16 years. Moderate voices are slowly being chased out of the party, (Jeffords, Spector to name just 2 literally chased out of the party). I think that is very dangerous to the party, and I think its one reason that they are floundering at the moment. (And yes the GOP IS floundering.)
Where are the reasonable voices in the GOP coming forward and trying to compromise with the Democratic Party and saying stuff like 'We know the public option is important to you, I can help you with that if you put such and such a measure in the bill' for instance?
I think its fair enough to be a little obsessed with Sarah Palin, because who else is there in the GOP at the moment? What is John Boehner or Mitch McConnell up to?
But its not even that that worries me the most. Its a party that represents a very small clique of ideas at the moment, and doesn't show much in the way of trying to open that up. None of the candidates for the parties preseidential nomination dared to offer a really pro choice position in the Primaries, even such looming moderates as Giuliani or Romney. Those primary campaigns told you as much as you need to know about the Republican Party at the moment. Everyone tripping over themselves to look right wing, everyone trying to look appeal to the narrowest possible definition of what a Republican is. Huckabee junked because he had dared to raise taxes for instance. It isn't so much the party as it is the party of no compromise. Honestly I find it quite sad. I find it sad that Colin Powell or Chris Buckley felt the need to distance themselves from the party.
But hey if the GOP is happy swimming off rightwards to a position that it can't win elections from then I guess thats fair enough.
GROG, I wonder if what Americans are happy with is there healthcare, and what they are worried about is there health insurance? I mean I find the polling on the health issue very confusing and often quite contradictory, so how can anyone really claim to know that everyone wants?
And being happy with your own healthcare/insurance doesn't mean that you don't want the system reformed. Being happy doesn't meant that you can't see a moral imperative for instance to find a way to guarantee everyone health insurance, for example.
At what cost though, markymark? Medicare shouldn't be an example of well run gov't healthcare. It's a disaster. We need things like tort reform and health savings accounts. There should be more emphasis on catastrophic healthcare and less on minor ailments.
When my sink gets clogged up I don't file a claim on my homeowners insurance. I pay to get it fixed. It should be the same when I go to the Dr. for the sniffles. This would create competition between doctors where it does not exist now.
These are real solutions whic would drastically reduce healthcare cost. The whole system needs revamped, but following a medicare model is not the answer. Obama's big lie is that by insuring 40 million more people we will reduce healthcare costs.
Obama is marking his presidency by trying to rush bills through Congress before anyone has time to read or to understand them. I argued this in Feb. with the stimulus bill. How has that bill turned out? Thank God we have a little more time on this bill.
The key part that is intentionally being left out is that 36% of all Americans are currently on government run plans.. and a government run plan (Medicare) has the highest approval rating of all types of insurance.
There was a townhall in my city on Tuesday. I took a large sign that said 'Abolish Medicare!' and stood with the teabaggers.
It was absolutely hilarious.
It is about healthcare. Insurance is financing healthcare or, as the case may be, not financing healthcare. My oldest daughter jumped through hoops to get healthcare, now pays too much for it and is afraid to use it because she'll still have to pay for the care as well as the insurance. My middle daughter is a recent college graduate whose current job provides no benefits including health insurance therefore she has no healthcare lest she pay the going rate which is more than insurance companies or medicare pay.
So, yes, it's about healthcare. And we are the hostages of the insurance companies. Healthcare reform will loosen the noose the insurance companies have around our necks so we can all enjoy the benefits of the healthcare system.
I can't understand why the country can't afford to provide healthcare to its citizens but the citizens can? In fact, many citizens can't. Like my daughters above, for example. They both work...very hard, too.
I think Sarah Palin is interesting.
In a way, she has killed the GOP. There are two types of people in the wide-wide world...elites and non-elites, and two basic tribal affiliations, conservative and liberal. Probably there is some genetic component. The american electorate segregates into thirds, basically...conservatives, independents and liberals, with half of the independents tending liberal and half tending elite.
Traditionally the conservative leadership has posed itself as representing the non-elites, the commoners. This is a good strategy, because there are a lot more non-elites than elites. But America is a democratic meritocracy, so their leadership had to be a stealth elite pretending to be a commoner in order to win national elections.
Now Sarah Palin comes along and she is truly non-elite. What is more, she starts a movement to drive all the elites out of the GOP. But she is unelectable in a meritocracy.
So right now 6% of scientists are republicans, and 65% of people with post-grad degrees are democratic.....what this means is academe is painted blue, because teaching research scientists and people with post-grad degrees make up 99% of uni professors. So where do young conservative replacement reps with college degrees come from?
They don't.
Add the pressure of the demographic timer on the non-hispanic cauc majority running out....and we are seeing conservative panic.
So the frenzy on the conservative side is tactical.
Healthcare reform isn't Obama's waterloo.....it is theirs.
half of the independents tending liberal and half tending conservative.
The current lack of elites in the GOP is tending to have a distillation effect on the base.....elites diluted the crazy and were able to articulate conservative memes and strategies. But without elites the only people that can...communicate with the base are demagogues like Palin, and right-wing populist idealogues like Rush, Malkin, and Levin.
The giant elephant in the room no one wants to talk about, and that the MSM (Bless their corporate little hearts) is the fact that without Insurance, the average American can't compete. I'll give you an example that I'm sure most with insurance have been through. I am now paying the same I paid 8 years ago for what was a small co pay plan that now has a 2000 dollar deductible first 9basically no basic care possible). Well, I went to my primary care (which was useless since in 2 visits and tests, he couldn't find anything but a need to schedule more expensive stuff I decided not to pay for anymore). But between the testing center and his office, they messed up my coverage details. So fo the blood work, they sent me a bill for 398 dollars and asked for my insurance. So I sent my insurance in with no payment and they revised the bill down to 118. Now, this is with no coverage from my insurance, but the fact that my insurance company has a deal (negotiated rate) with them. So basically, just to get the honor of not getting raked over the coals, I need insurance, even if they aren't paying for anything. it's a sick system when you can't even decide to go it alone because you can't get a competitive rate from the doctors, because they have a rigged game with the insurance companies...How is that a FREE MARKET to begin with.
rputnam said...
I would like to know is why the only Town Hall meetings generally being reported are from states and districts which are heavily Republican.
Because the only Congress critters in play and the balance of power are Dems representing Red or Purple States and Red Districts picked up over the past two years. The Dem left are all for socialized health insurance and the GOP is almost completely united against. The press is also not covering the town hall meetings my GOP representative is having in my deep red district for the same reason that they are not covering the Dem town halls in deep blue Boston or Seattle - there is no news there.
GROG, at whatever cost would be my answer to be honest. I think Health Savings Accounts are fine in some ways, but thinking that Doctors can act like a market is a joke. I think HSAs probably work quite well for wealthy people who can regularly pay in and save up a good amount. BUT I don't think they are perfect. What happens for instance if you get cancer before you have enough saved to pay for treatment, as an example. If your rich enough already, thats fine, but if you are relying on HSAs to pay for treatment, I am not sure they offer good coverage.
Why a government run option, well two reasons from my point of view. One is that it guarantees everyone has access to coverage. The second is that it keeps the market place for healthcare honest. I think one of the biggest adverts against a completely unfettered free market is the current state of American health care insurance and costs. A completely unregulated, unchecked market puts the power outrageously in the hands of one side of the consumer/producer equation. Right now consumers have very little power in the healthcare market place. Insurers can charge whatever they want, they can offer not very much service, and what can the consumer do? Not much. I don't think HSAs end that problem either, because it just loads more pressure on doctors and hospitals, who after all have enough competitive pressure on them from the drugs companies already. I think tipping the current balance away from insurance companies, by offering a competively priced, accesible and available option, (ie the government run option) will force the insurance companies to be more consumer friendly, whilst offering an opportunity for those without coverage to get into the system.
John, I know the economy is in the tank right now, but it sounds like your daughter has good qualifications. Why didn't she go work for a company that offers health insurance?
I do agree we need reform. Young people like your daughter should pay very minimal premiums because she's in an age group that doesn't use health insurance very much. She should set up an aggressive HSA that she can grow so there will be money there for healthcare when she really needs it.
GROG the problem with health insurance premiums is that when you are most likely to use insurance is when you are least able to pay, usually, whilst the groups with most 'disposable' income are the ones that are least likely to use the system. Its entirely the opposite of car insurance in that way.
What your suggesting is, essentially that the smallest children, and oldest people, should have the highest premiums. So a new family, with ever increasing overheads, and a retired family, with no real way to increase their incomings would be left with high insurance premiums. I think you would have a hard time selling that politically.
Alex S. is right, and the more I think about it, the more I think that this situation might actually end up being a big win for Obama. Because as I said, something is going to pass, and the country is going to get several months to digest it, and the economy will have recovered by November 2010, and all the conservative side is doing right now is reinforcing itself as the voice of knee-jerk hysteria. They're betting the house that health care reform, as with economic recovery, will collapse, and independents will see all this outraged posturing as justified and effective. But the Dems still control the bottom line, and they're not going to finish the 111th without passing anything, and a nice celebratory bill-signing ceremony will prove how marginal these protesters are, and the partisan nature of the bill will underscore the extent to which the GOP is controlled by its fringe elements. David Broder is correct. The right is playing with fire here.
And Obama was absolutely right about "rushing the bills." Every day that you wait gives the anti-reform crowd time to mobilize and spread misinformation. And let's not be cute about the intentions of these people. They don't want to participate in a good faith effort to reform our system. They want to preserve the status quo, and they will oppose ANY efforts to change it. By taking this stance, in my opinion, they have effectively removed themselves from the debate, and the Dems should now scrap all efforts at bipartisanship. Reform or die, as I said above.
Personality types. I recall a couple of old studies that showed that whereas politicians are high on sociability they tended to be lower on power hunger. In contrast, businessmen were low on sociability and higher on power hunger.
Politicians generally have to be likeable to be move up the electoral ladder -- there's a kind of selection effect that way. Businessmen tend to be more demanding of order and want to be in charge of things.
Of course these are only general tendencies at best.
But I think Nate's instinct here is correct, that a lot of politicians when faced with a bunch of angry nitwits -- especially if they're in their district -- are going to shy away from confrontation. Especially if they see well-funded opponent nitwits running for their office down the road.
It is easy to see that there are many many many Americans that fear death so much that they can't even talk about it - that's what Hospice is for - end of life communication and support. How ironic that those who fear death claim to be religious. Hmmmmm
John:
You have identified the ONE THING that health insurance gets you - the right to be charged only what the insurance company is charged for the services.
My doctor charges 150 dollars for a visit; but my insurance UCR is $35 for the visit. I have a high deductible. When I see my doctor, I get the benefit of the $35 charge (even though I pay $470 a month for such benefit).
Not only is this an antitrust violation by the doctor/insurer, but it makes little sense for the doctor. For the privilege of being on an insurance company provider list, my doctor has to wait 3 to 6 months for my ins co to process the claim, only to be told that I am insured, but this falls into my deductible. The doctor has to bill me and 1 to 2 months later, he gets my payment.
But if I were to go to the doctor as an uninsured patient with CASH IN HAND, my doctor would charge me $150 (not $35, not $100, but $150). This is unfair and insane.
Welcome to America.
I would have never guessed at the beginning of this that the Obamas could screw this up worse than Hillarycare, but they have.
The lessons they took from the previous debacle were not the right ones -- they thought that by changing process, they could jam it through, but they took no lessons on substance.
By continuing down the wholly partisan path with elements of plan that are incompatible to necessary voting blocks, Slim has left town. It's sand-pounding time now.
There is danger of not even getting the needed reforms that can help improve access, competition and value. Maybe Obama will take a cue from Bill Clinton acceeding to a legacy of bi-partisan reforms rather than the current tombstone fodder of wanting to make the elderly shovel ready.
markymark said...
Where are the reasonable voices in the GOP coming forward and trying to compromise with the Democratic Party and saying stuff like 'We know the public option is important to you, I can help you with that if you put such and such a measure in the bill' for instance?
You folks really are missing the political calculus here.
This is still a Republic where voters have the final say on most issues that are not made by the courts or the bureaucracy.
Single payer government socialized health insurance has never mustered majority support.
The conservative wing of this center right country intensely opposes socialism of any kind.
Why then would a GOP Congress critter whose constituents are saying - "Not no, But Hell NO! - want to "compromise" by agreeing to the road to single payer?
For the same reasons, you Dems are deluding yourselves when you dismiss opposition to Obamacare to some small cadre of "crazies" and cowardly Dem Congress critters.
The general concept of health care reform under the President's spin sold until Congress started issuing actual Obamacare legislation putting the lie to Mr. Obama's spin. From that point on, popular support for Obamacare slid until only the left rump of the electorate still supports it. The townhalls are simply reinforcing the polling and reminding the Dem Congress critters in Red districts of the intensity of their conservative constituents' opposition to Obamacare in case they had forgotten while working in the leftist confines of the Dem caucus.
Once again, it was a very clever electoral strategy to obtain a Congressional majority in a center right country by running center right Dems in Red districts. However, that still leaves a Congress which is or at least campaigned as center-right, even if the swing vote now has a little (d) after their name rather than a little (r). This fact of life presents rather obvious governing problems the the minority left Dem leadership attempting to enact the most leftist agenda since the 60s and 70s.
I am not a "concern troll." I hope your agenda completely fails for the good of the country. However, I am puzzled by the incredible arrogance of a President and a Dem leadership who cannot temper their political appetites when the votes simply are not there and settle for incremental victories. So much the better for conservatives and, from my point of view, the country.
BartdeTalkingpoint,
Did Obama write all five pieces of legislation? I don't understand why you keep calling it Obama's bill.
He doesn't have one. Congress is writing it. Even if he signs it, it's still not Obama's bill.
Seriously, having to correct you over and over is becoming tiresome. I understand you are virtually incapable of straying from your talking points but at least give it a chance.
You are starting to sound like Sarah Palin.
Seriously Bart, here's what you sound like.
Obamacare socialism isn't about Freedom, it's about killing my child. It's all about jobs. Obama is a job killer and he needs to learn into reigning in spending, because that's what the hard working American's, with their God given talents love and that is what they love about this country.
You just mash up 50 talking points all in one post and walk away smug as if you've made some sort of significant contribution.
For anyone that missed it, HERE is a pretty decent article on the rights misplaced anger.
Matoko Kusanagi said...
I think Sarah Palin is interesting.
In a way, she has killed the GOP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matoko, I agree w/most everything you said in your back to back posts re: the dwindling Rep party.
but, but, but, you give sarah "I was for the bridge to nowhere, before I was against it ~ I was for death panels, before I was against them" palin wayyy too much credit.
The party of No! void of any rational leadership! is now led by conservative radio McCarthyists, demagogues, flat out liars, radical flame throwers limbaugh, beck, hannity, coultergeist, malkin, dobbs, savage, levin, hewitt, prager, medved, gallagher, bennett, sekulow, boortz, ingraham, liddy, morgan etc.
who give daily marching orders to their sheep: gingrich, palin, sanford, ensign, perry, boehner, cantor, shelby, vitter, bachman, blackburn, schmidt, sessions, mccain, hatch, brownback, mcconnell, chambliss, coburn, cornyn, inhofe, grassley, demint etc.
out of this group the only one to ever have an original thought was/is gingrich and even he is talking the faux hysteria that is "death panels" ... newt, my how the mighty have fallen.
the list of Rep sheep who voted against Sotomayor:
Republicans Opposing Sotomayor (31 of 40)
• Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
• Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
• Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa)
• Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)
• Sen. John Cornyn (Texas)
• Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
• Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)
• Sen. Robert Bennett (Utah)
• Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.)
• Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.)
• Sen. Jim Bunning (Ky.)
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.)
• Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
• Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.)
• Sen. Mike Crapo (Idaho)
• Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
• Sen. John Ensign (Nev.)
• Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.)
• Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.)
• Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
• Sen. Mike Johanns (Neb.)
• Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
• Sen. James Risch (Idaho)
• Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.)
• Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.)
• Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
• Sen. David Vitter (La.)
• Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.)
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
What were these fools thinking or as Bill Walton would say, are they even capable of thinking! Grassley and Hatch I know for sure had never voted against any SC justice.
Yes Virginia, this is your new and improved party of Lincoln, 150 years of tradition unhampered by progress! who are also bought and paid for by your local lobbyist.
Abe, Teddy, Ike and Ronnie are rolling over in their graves!
g'day
The teabag nuts are screaming about supposed 'rationing' of care (although the private insurance companies do the same thing today when they decide what treatments to cover or not). The blue dogs are screaming about controlling costs.
Guess what - can't have unlimited payouts and control costs. Got to get their acts together on this one.
@ rputnam
"Don't people in Seattle or Boston show up at these things or is it that without a freak show, they are no worth reporting."
In Boston, neither Kennedy nor Kerry have held these meetings, so there is nothing to cover. Kennedy's absence I'm sure is due largely to his health and the passing of his sister. Kerry's because he felt a trip to the Cape was a better use of his time (which I would argue that he's probably correct since MA is such a blue state, very low likelihood of a lot of protesters).
Obama got a lot of coverage (obviously) with his NH town hall. Though the protesters were largely a non-story (except for a guy who was arrested for having a firearm at the demonstration), what did come out of it were questions of whether or not Obama pre-selected an audience member and her question to answer. This charge was levelled largely by conservative groups, but was reported on in the Globe. Whether or not it's true, the circumstances certainly didn't help President Obama, and has been a topic of discussions around Boston for much of the week. The link is as follows:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/08/13/malden_girl_accused_of_being_white_house_plant/
Gee, what a bunch of Republicans there are here commenting! Jeez, folks, people are way too ready to surrender to the GOP. I guess a lot of folks are following the weakling Dems' lead on this, but not most people out there, luckily! Damn, if things were up to these short-sighted people we'd never reform anything!
Another John came on so I changed to John S.
Grog, you hit one point. But with so many new grads and no one really hiring for the "good jobs" it's just hard. I may be biased but any company would be lucky to have my daughter work for them. But there are a lot of qualified others out there as well. So, you take a waitress job or dog walking or flipping burgers to bide your time. In the meantime, employers are finding ways to cut costs so even when all of our daughters get good jobs they won't have the same benefits we had. Those of us who have benefits have seen them erode; costs go up and coverage goes down. And if I happen to work for a good company and my neighbor works for a not so good company then he pays more for the same service.
So why don't we just put everyone on the same plan as the government employees. Give us the same options and let us choose. After all, they're citizens just like us. The insurance companies are still in the game, they make money, we save money. How is that bad?
To vote against reform because some are "yelling at you" justifiably brands you as a COWARD. Sack up and do what you know is best for the country, not what won't hurt you politically for a change.
http://democratictribune.com
This effort to disassociate Obama from the health care legislation is transparently laughable. Whether or not he actually wrote the legislation is only insubstantive trivia.
He outlined what he wanted and has made endless comments defending what congress has produced in response to his desires. He has never spoken against anything in any of the legislation. If he pleads ignorance of the specifics, it's a failure of leadership, not an escape hatch.
I think this whole meme of America being a 'Center right country' is a bit of a nonsense to be honest. For a start the term is a bit redundant. There is no left in American politics, and never has been, certainly not in a European concept, which is how Americans are using 'center right' here. Left refers to regulation and state control, even FDRs New Deal was not about either of those things really. From that point of view one could consider the Democratic Party the 'center right' party, and the Republican Party a far right party.
Some would consider American a conservative country. As a historian, to me that is nonsense, America is a liberal democracy, heck it was the first liberal democracy. It devolves power to the state, and the state is the final arbiter of that power, through legislation, executive and judiciary.
I would describe the battle in American politics and culture as being between 'progressive liberals' and 'conservative' or 'classical liberals'. Conservative/classical liberals believe in individual freedom with minimum state interference. progressive liberals see a role for the state, as a guarantor if you like. Most issues in American life and politics fit this albeit slightly clumsy divide.
My point is that America is no more center right than it was in the 30s when it was elelcting a reforming, progressive government. I think it is at best a very clumsy term, at worst entirely meaningless.
Since there appears from several comments that some people may be confused at Nate's use of the Occam's Razor reference, here's my interpretation:
Congressmen who are on the fence about supporting health care reform(mostly the Blue Dogs), faced with these angry citizens at town hall meetings will have to decide the following:
1) Are these angry citizens sincerely upset at health care reform proposals? (The simple theory) or
2) Are these angry citizens just part of a vast right-wing conspiracy that have been organizing to stage protests in order to defeat any and all health care reform proposals offered by the Democratic-led Congress? (The more complex theory).
Given these two competing theories, Occam's Razor suggests it is best to go with the simpler theory. As such, Nate posits that fence-sitting Congressmen will view these protests as sincere, rather than staged, and are likely to vote against a bill.
I guess my point is that there are issues were America is far closer to the Democratic Party view, and issues were it is far closer to the Republican Party view. In my opinion, most Americans probably are a lot closer to the Democratic Party view on healthcare, than the Republican party view (Which appears to be little or no change). One of the reasons to elect a Democratic consensus in Washington was to get reform of Healthcare done. A small minority is protesting that.
I think this is an article worth circulating to anyone interested in the healthcare debate, a good myth busting account
http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981/page/1
Shiloh...the thing is that the GOP base has been so colonized by the teabagger demographic that the only way to communicate with them anymore is by demagoguery.....so when Obama excised the end-of-life section he pulled Palin's fangs on that.
The base can only actually hear/understand Rush, Beck, Levin, Malkin, Palin anymore.
David Frum, John Schwenkler, Conor Friedersdorf are speaking a language they can't understand.......the GOP has lost the translator layer(modertes) that could parse David Frum.
Palin’s Power
Nate's pessimism is well-placed. In many ways we have Sarah Palin to thank. And the folks who relentlessly oppose her and who have made her a star.
The forces aligned against Palin who are so dedicated to destroying her have in the process created their own worst nightmare. She is now the second largest figure on the political stage, junior only to the Messiah himself.
Who would have thought that this inarticulate, stupid woman could become such an oracle that all she need do is post a blurb on Facebook and thereby define the debate, eclipsing even the President’s messaging.
“Death Panel”
That’s all it took!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Matoko said...
Shiloh...the thing is that the GOP base has been so colonized by the teabagger demographic that the only way to communicate with them anymore is by demagoguery.....so when Obama excised the end-of-life section he pulled Palin's fangs on that.
The base can only actually hear/understand Rush, Beck, Levin, Malkin, Palin anymore.
David Frum, John Schwenkler, Conor Friedersdorf are speaking a language they can't understand.......the GOP has lost the translator layer(modertes) that could parse David Frum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, if one looks up palin in the dictionary, they will see demagogue, teabagger, liar, clueless etc. and it is fascinating even after she has made a total frickin' fool of herself every which way to Sunday, that if she ran against Obama today, she would still get 40% of the vote.
Again, what are these people thinking or are they even capable of thinking, obviously not as this is how Reps have won previous presidential elections by knowing the American electorate ain't that bright!
And I had to look up Frum, who I just now discovered became an American in 2007, knowing that one of the few sane Rep pundits in the past wasn't an American, but a Canadian.
Agreed, the Reps have lost any sense of rationality as the media minutia continues to be fascinated by all things palin. This is how low they have sunk when a recent quitter still leads this group of sheep!
And I wouldn't bet against her in 2012. The extreme, bible belt, not very bright, evangelical conservatives are the fools who vote in the primaries, so ms lipstick on a pig is well positioned to take the helm of their sinking ship!
Run, sarah, run! ;)
p.s. Frum always reminded me of William F. Buckley, Jr. and I say that as a compliment, obviously his type is no longer welcome in the Rep party.
If it does or does not happen Washington has only itself to blame. These people wanted a vote before they had a bill. With their track record how do you justify voting for something they can't even explain
a "big" leadership/regrouping moment by Obama in early September.
Isn't this what a conference committee is all about???
By the way, I'm coming back here to post. You all have calmed down tremendously. With the exception of PeteKent, of course. ;-)
markymark said...
I think this whole meme of America being a 'Center right country' is a bit of a nonsense to be honest. For a start the term is a bit redundant. There is no left in American politics, and never has been, certainly not in a European concept, which is how Americans are using 'center right' here. Left refers to regulation and state control...
:::chuckle:::
Precisely what do you think the quasi nationalization of the banks, the actual nationalization of the auto industry, cap and tax and Obamacare if not "regulation and state control?"
From that point of view one could consider the Democratic Party the 'center right' party, and the Republican Party a far right party.
Perhaps, from an EU socialist POV. However, this is not the EU. Compared to the FDR liberal era preceding Reagan, this is not a center right country rather than a center left nation.
I would describe the battle in American politics and culture as being between 'progressive liberals' and 'conservative' or 'classical liberals'. Conservative/classical liberals believe in individual freedom with minimum state interference. progressive liberals see a role for the state, as a guarantor if you like.
Your analysis here is outstanding. Not many outside of libertarian circles see this.
Modern FDR liberalism and Reagan conservatism are really hybrids.
Our Republic started as a majority classical liberal democracy resembling modern libertarianism with a smaller classically conservative wing.
However, with the advent of industrialism and socialism, the modern FDR left abandoned classical liberalism as applied to economics and turned to the government to promote the popular good. However, the left generally stayed classically liberal when it applies to personal behavior laws. This ideology was dominant from 1933 through 1980.
Reagan changed conservatism in a similar manner. The right adopted classical liberalism in economics, but retained mush of its instinct to regulate personal behavior to maintain traditional social standards. This ideology has been dominant since 1981.
The advent of Obama's socialism is not a realignment as much as the electorate being mislead during the campaign and panicked by a market crash in September 2008. Obama and the Blue Dogs campaigned on tax cuts, a net spending cut and winning the war in Afghanistan. This is the now classic Reagan campaign template which realigned the country as center right. Unfortunately, Obama has instead implemented a nationalization program and massive Peronist level spending and borrowing.
You know, the more I think about it; and I've heard this tentatively put forth on the internets and the TV box, the more I think that this has less to do with health care reform than it does fear of a black planet. Remember a few weeks back when the polls showed that 75% of Americans thought that health care (read, insurance) needed reforming? I wonder if this would be happening if it were being done by a white guy. Obviously a white Democrat since no Republican would dare bite the insurance hand that feeds them.
I look at these protesters and critics and (with the exception of Malkin whose ethnicity I'm not sure about) most of these folks are middle aged or senior crackers. Likely they are all the people who voted for McCain. They might be afraid of the govt. mucking around with health care but they're really afraid of the n*gg*r [sic] in the White House. They're the birthers. They're sore losers who have devolved into throwing tantrums to defeat Obama. If they can't beat him in an election they will make damn sure to castrate him politically. Rising to the cattle call of Limbaugh for the president to fail. And PeteKent is probably right (ugh, almost vomited there). If this fails, history will likely record that the final nail in the coffin of health insurance reform will have been uttered by a vacuous, vapid, pyrrhic beauty pageant idol ex-governor of Alaska.
I'd shout back at these folks but that seems stupid. They're wrong but I just don't know how to push back against them. I am going to write as many congressional people as I can and tell them not to back down because this has to pass WITH the public option or it was a pointless endeavour and the health insurance industry wins. So fuck bi-partisanship. Get this done. The crybabies will get over it.
markymark,
Michael Barone posted an interesting article on American ideology/party affiliation and why the Democratic leadership is having trouble passing health care reform. (See here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/13/when_liberal_leaders_confront_a_centrist_nation_97873.html)
He doesn't site where he gets his data, but Barone indicates that 2008 exit polls show that 39% of voters identified as Democrats, while 32% identified as Republicans when asked about party affiliation (I assume the remainder either identified as Independent or some other party, such as Libertarian or the Green party). However, 34% described themselves as conservatives, while only 22% described themselves as liberal when asked about ideology. He goes on to argue that the Democratic leadership (i.e., the President, Congressional leadership and Committee Chairs) "have strong, long-held convictions that are well on the left of the American political spectrum." While you may not agree with him, I think his argument has some merit.
Also, I believe your dichotomy between "progressive liberals" and "conservatives"/"Classical liberals" doesn't do justice to the wide range of political viewpoints. I believe a more "grid-like" positioning, like the dated one shown here http://civilities.net/OnTheIssues, is a more nuanced and accurate description of political perspectives. It basically positions people based on their views on economic autonomy and social autonomy. While it may be flawed (Are there really only two variables--economic and social?), it is better than just a straight left/right distinction.
Cuts in Medicare…
The cuts being proposed in Medicare won’t affect the people covered or the amount or quality of care they receive, except to increase both. President Obama is merely slashing the subsidies given to private insurers to run the program, which they have made a mess of. He is simply cutting the waste out of the system.
I have been on both HMO Medicare and straight Medicare, and there is no earthly reason for private-insurance HMO Medicare to exist. It is nothing but a money-pit that denies care and restricts patients to a very tiny subset of doctors that they can see, each of which requires a cumbersome round of referrals, authorizations, and stalling tactics by the insurers to get anything done.
So the “concern troll” posting of Bart De Palma about how outraged seniors are going to be over cuts in Medicare is sheer, unadulterated bullshit. It’s the private insurance companies that are being cut out of the loop, because they used the opportunity to do nothing but line their own pockets.
More than 80% of Medicare recipients are on straight Medicare anyway. Seniors aren’t dumb—they recognize a ripoff when they see it.
Bart De Palma, I sure hope you’re getting paid for your shilling.
Davy said...
I look at these protesters and critics and (with the exception of Malkin whose ethnicity I'm not sure about)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Malkin is a Romulan ;)
And yes, it's all about having an African/American family living in the White House, a house that was built by slaves.
Fear, stupidity, misinformation, demagogic flame throwers stoking the astro turf, town hall, low IQ protesters.
Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life on this planet ...
Richard…
Citing Michael Barone (of the über-con American Enterprise Institute) in regards to advice for Democrats is like asking Satan to give guidance to Saint Peter. Do you really think he has a rational, objective approach to politics?
Your contribution above meets the classic definition of a “concern troll” post, where you are pushing a conservative agenda while cloaking it in “concern” over the fate of the Democrats’ ideas about reforming health care.
Come out from under your rock. If your philosophy is so great, why not espouse it openly, instead of pretending to be something you are not? If the type of conservatism espoused by Michael Barone is so wonderful, why do you feel the need to sugarcoat it?
Funny, but I never find liberals or progressives having to hide their philosophy to make it palatable.
And, hey, if they want to dump the end-of-life counseling 'death camps' that's fine. My family had that conversation when my father was diagnosed with an incurable pulmonary disorder and I'm glad we did. It made his passing a lot less stressful. He was fortunate in that he was a state employee and had good insurance.
So sure: abortion and end of life counseling are off the table if that's what it takes to get health insurance reform passed.
@ shiloh
"Malkin is a Romulan ;)"
You so crack me up. I'm going to quote you on this one in the future.
wv: farruche. Farrakhan and LaRouche hybrid supporters
Davy said:
"I wonder if this would be happening if it were being done by a white guy."
Where were you in 1994 when Bill Clinton tried and failed at health care reform? I don't remember the protesters against health care reform being called racists then. Why now?
Seriously, whether you are for or against the health care reform, please don't bring race into it. Are there some people who are racists and against whatever President Obama is for, simply because he is part African-American? Sure. But, just like calling protesters against the war a few years ago "unpatriotic" was inappropriate, suggesting protesters against health care reform are "racists" is inappropriate. It is always more ethical to focus your debate and argumentation on the issues and ideas, than the individuals who hold and espouse those ideas.
The Dems are stupid if they let all of this noise coming from the far right deter them from passing meaningful healthcare reform legislation.
That's all it is; noise. Ultimately, they will be judged on their success in passing the reform that was promised, and assuming they do that, how effective it is at fixing the problems with the system as it exists today. If legislation is passed, and if it works as intended, the Dems will go into 2010 in a strong position. The GOP will be weakened for having opposed it so vehemently.
So any Congressperson who has a D next to their name should focus on getting legislation passed, and making sure that said legislation will be effective. Failure to pass legislation would be a disaster. Passing watered-down, ineffective legislation would also be a disaster. If the Dems who currently hold office cannot see past the short term pain that these protesters are causing them, then they do not deserver to hold onto their seats. If they represent a district that is so far to the right that effective healthcare reform is not seen as a positive thing by the majority of people in the district, then they are probably doomed anyway.
Why is it funny to make fun of Malkin's racial identity?
Oh, because she is a conservative. I forgot!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Richard, I shopuld perhaps have talked about 'progressive liberalism' and 'conservative liberalism' rather than liberals, because as BDP points out one can be a progressive liberal in many issues and ways and still be a conservative liberal in others. It is a simplistic dichotomy, but mnost of the time in American politics the debate is about the level of state action/intervention, rather than the style of it. You can be economically a conserative liberal, as most republicans would be, whilst being a progressive liberal in some other areas very easily. That being said its not a dichotomy it is more of a continuum.
Anyhoo my point is that right/left descriptions of America politics are exceedingly clumsy and really don't do the complexities of American politics any justice. Its how come say in the Progressive Era, many decent progressives were Republicans, many were Democrats. Its how the Democratic Party could hold together a complex coalition of Northern Liberals and Southern 'Conservatives'. This feeds into my larger point of the day, which is basically that the GOP has become a much much narrower party than most succesful American political parties, there actually seems very little debate within the current GOP, and I think thats dangerous for the Party and the nation.
PeteKent…
You’ve overdone your Twitter tag line so much that when I glance at it all I see is—
“petekent – twit”
Pragmatus,
Apparently, unlike you I have an open mind when looking at issues. I don't automatically disagree with something just because it comes from someone I don't agree with often. Rather than making ad-hominem attacks, like most commenters here, you'd be better respected if you debated what Michael Barone said, rather than simply dismissing anything he has to say.
Of course Barone is strongly conservative, just like Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein are strongly liberal, but I read all of them. As someone who considers himself a practical libertarian, I sometimes agree with liberals and conservative commentators and sometimes disagree with them as well. Again, my focus is usually upon the issues and ideas, rather the individuals who support and espouse those ideas. And, even if I disagree with someone a good majority of the time, I have the common decency to refrain from calling them names and can respect why they hold a certain perspective.
(For the record Malkin's parents were Phillipino immigrants)
The latest Marist polling of registered voters (which is at least better than polling adult non voters, but not as good as likely voters):
As the debate over health care reform rages on in Congress and in the public realm, President Barack Obama needs to do more to convince the American electorate that health care reform is the right course of action. 45% of registered U.S. voters say they disapprove of how the president is handling health care while 43% approve.
Not surprisingly, opinion is fractured along party lines with 74% of Democrats approving of how the president is dealing with the issue and 76% of Republicans disapproving of President Obama’s methods. Independents align with the GOP on this matter. A majority of Independents — 52% — are unhappy with how Mr. Obama is addressing the health care situation in the United States.
The key here is that Indis are part of the backlash against Obamacare. Dems in center-right districts are well aware of these numbers.
Incidentally there is a good reason that Obama is no socialist, as much as the right might like to call him such. Socialism suggests a concerted program of nationalisation, not just a few small [well ok maybe not small] attempts at nationalisation.
Even the great reforming Labour Government that ruled Britain at the conclusion of WW2 would probably only get as far as 'Social Democratic' in my view.
@PK
"Why is it funny to make fun of Malkin's racial identity?"
Once again, schooled by the troll. You are correct. It is improper for me to engage in ethnic stereotypes. But irrespective of her ethnicity (which I still don't know), I think the Romulan comment had more to do with the fact that I find her politics alien. And...it was kinda funny.
@ Richard
"Where were you in 1994 when Bill Clinton tried and failed at health care reform? I don't remember the protesters against health care reform being called racists then. Why now?"
Well, I lived in Nashville at the time, a big hub of the health insurance industry. And it was Hillary who led the charge for reform then. That would have fallen under the term 'sexist'. So, again I ask, What if it had been a white guy? In retrospect, the failure of health care reform in 1994 had a lot to do with Hilary's unpopularity, a little to do with Bill's unpopularity, and a great deal to do with it being off most of America's radar. This was the about the time when the HMO thing was coming of age. People hadn't had enough time to see that the industry was playing us for suckers.
Well, it takes us a while, but I think we know when we're being played. So 'why now' you ask? Because a black man (not a woman) is championing the movement. So yeah, I'm laying down the race issue on this. You probably need to be a little introspective about it.
Pragmatus said...
PeteKent…
You’ve overdone your Twitter tag line so much that when I glance at it all I see is—
“petekent – twit”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I apologize to all the twits out there!
Good thing I only made peace w/Mule, PK and I have no such agreement. ;)
take care
Pollster.com has a great chart showing National Party Identification. Although Dem identification is a tad lower, look how the Repub identification has tanked and Indies has shot up.
My guess its because of all the lunatics that are showing up making death threats and bringing picture of Obama as Hitler. I mean, if I were a Repub, I would be completely embarrassed to be associated with those loonies.
That chart might explain why opposition to Obama from indies is on the rise. There are quite a few more conservatives that are opposed to some of his plans but want nothing to do with the bozos that are mouthing off like a bunch kids trying to get attention.
BDP, I think you are taking a large leap of faith if you think that people oppsing Obama's handling of the healthcare reform necesarily want no change. In fact the self same Maris Poll asked how much change was needed and 65% of Americans say the current health care scheme needs major changes. Only 6% say no change at all, 29% say minor changes.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us090803/Health%20Care%20Release/Current%20Health%20Care%20System%20Changes.htm
Interesting the ONLY group where a majority where not saying major changes are needed is Republicans. In every other group 60% or more are saying major changes are needed.
An interesting factor from the cross tabs the question on Obama's handling of all of this, men approve of Obama's handling 47-45, women disapprove 40-43. (the age crosstab is interesting as well!)
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us090803/Health%20Care%20Release/Obama%20Handling%20Health%20Care.htm
Quick bottom line on all of the polling I have seen on the healthcare stuff, is that it is a very complex picture. If I were a representative, it certainly would not tell me how to vote.
Richard…
Gee, thanks for the analysis of my mind. But no thanks. Really.
If you cite a blinders-on conservative to furnish advice for where the Democrats have gone wrong and where they need to go from here, you’re not really merely exposing another point of view, are you?
Your citation of Barone is of a piece with all the conservatrolls here who comb through hundreds of polls then post the one with results that (in their interpretation) spells disaster for the president.
I’ll leave you to your “common decency”. Please don’t forget to take it with you when you leave.
markymark,
It is getting harder and harder for me to identify with any political party these days, especially the two major ones. I had worked for a fairly moderate Republican Senator from PA who's family owned a ketchup company and I am currently registered as a Democrat (I live in Maryland--if you want your vote to count, you have to register as a Democrat). I am a government employee, and I have great respect for those individuals who work in the public service, but I also believe there are a lot of things that the government either should not be doing at all, should being doing better, or should at least be doing differently.
Maybe I'm unique, but I believe a simple dichotomy between "those who want to expand government" v. "those who want to contract government" just doesn't fit into my conception of government.
Lobbyists own this country. I thought Obama would stop them but they are just too powerful.
I say vote no on healthcare and tell voters who derailed it.
Either a decent health bill or vote no. Vote every one out!!!
markymark said...
Incidentally there is a good reason that Obama is no socialist, as much as the right might like to call him such. Socialism suggests a concerted program of nationalisation, not just a few small [well ok maybe not small] attempts at nationalisation.
Socialism is not nearly so truncated.
Socialism is the government directing the economy for the purpose of redistributing wealth to groups favored by the government.
A government can do this by directly owning the means of production, but the government tends to get blamed for the resulting economic failure. See Communism and now Government Motors.
Alternatively, the government can do the same thing through regulation while leaving the means of production nominally owned by the private sector. See the TARP banks.
Finally, the government can do this by legally and financially subsidizing an unprofitable but favored means of production to give it a comparative advantage over a disfavored means of production. See the Porkulus provisions to subsidize green projects, Obamacare's public option and Cap and Tax's affect on the entire economy.
This kind of socialist industrial policy is distinguished from laws and regulations prohibiting acts that harm the citizenry. See the FDA. Cap and Tax is not standard regulation to protect the citizenry from harm because there is no science that CO2 emissions have a statistically valid causation with temperatures. See the past decade's exponential increase in CO2 emissions while temperatures have substantially cooled across the globe.
markymark said...
BDP, I think you are taking a large leap of faith if you think that people oppsing Obama's handling of the healthcare reform necesarily want no change.
I make no such assumption. Americans are usually big fans of generic change, but are not big fans of socialism. Thus, I do not find it strange at all that the polled voters want unspecified change in health care, but oppose Obamacare.
BDP, the point is that socialism is a program, not just one or two policies cobbled together.
(Also in its purist sense socialism leads to a state run monopoly. It can't be technically a socialist policy without the monopoly!) (Though actually socialism is a poorly defined ideology, so you could claim that simply doing something good for the country, like say running schools, was socialism, this is a confusion that the GOP has used to its advantage over many years).
BDP there have also been polls recently that show support for a public option.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357
as an example.
Pragmatus,
I wasn't offering up the Barone article as advice, especially not for Democrats, just pointing out an article that highlights why the Democratic leadership is probably a bit to the "left" of the mainstream citizen in the US and why the Democrats are having a problem with health care reform. You can ignore it if you want, but ignoring it won't make it any less real.
Personally, I want to see health care reform. I have always said that here. I just don't think the Democratic proposals from the House are very good bills. I am, however, hopeful that the Senate Finance Committee will come up with a sound bill.
Finally, I enjoy this site, I think Nate writes a lot of interesting articles and there are some commentators here who are truly thoughtful. Unfortunately, there are some, on all sides, who are ignorant. If you want to trade insults with them, by all means go ahead. I have no idea what you gain by it, but, hey, have a blast. But if you want to have a thoughtful conversation/debate, stick to the ideas and issues.
markymark:
What is the essential difference between the government directing the automobile industry to build favored but unprofitable battery powered cars by owning the company, by regulation or by paying them to do so?
The government direction of the economy to redistribute income to favored projects is identical in all three cases.
Does anybody else remember when insurance held doctors hostage? When we could only go to physicians who were in 'the program'? When drug makers ruled the pharmacies? Has anyone noticed that two thirds of advertisers on the evening news are pharmaceutical companies? All you have to do is make up a fuzzy feel good name for your drug (celebrex, boniva, cymbalta, etc. who sits around and thinks this stuff up?). I digress.
Seconded.
Kush said...
(slightly off topic)
Welcome to Pittsburgh! Glad you're enjoying yourself. If you need suggestions of good spots to eat, drink, soak in local culture etc. feel free to email. It's the least I can do for all the great articles you've written and keeping me sane during the incredibly tense election.
-Ryan (ryankushner@mac.com)
August 13, 2009 8:28 PM
For the uninformed, Advance Care Directives are covered under Medicare now based on legislation passed in 2003 and 2008. In 2003 it was added for terminal patients and last year it was amended to cover paymentas part of initial visits with health care providers for new Medicare patients. The provision in HR3200 that has everyone up in arms, "death panels", simply provides for payment for followups every 5 years. What is REALLY sad, is that NOONE is saying that. Democrats are running away from a non-issue , and Republicans who supported it in 2003 and 2008 are , of course, lying low.
wv - medridin, noise created by health care reform legislation
Markymark at 117 may have a point.
Obama's model is much closer to the Fascism practiced in Germany under the Nazis. It involves the close linkage and cooperation between business and government, but stops short of outright ownership of the means of production.
There are other parallels to Nazi Germany. The latest one involves Rahm Emmanuel's brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel who has written chillingly on the need to deny basic healthcare services to the "unproductive", singling out those with dementia as an example. This modern day Mengele is one of Obama’s healthcare advisors.
How shocking that such a beast would be guiding our President.
Death Panels indeed!
I read it on Facebook!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Richard…
I guess there’s no upper limit to your sanctimoniousness…
:o)
You said—“I wasn't offering up the Barone article as advice, especially not for Democrats, just pointing out an article that highlights why the Democratic leadership is probably a bit to the "left" of the mainstream citizen in the US and why the Democrats are having a problem with health care reform.” (bold mine)
The article doesn’t highlight anything about the Democrats, or where they are in terms of the public, or if they are having a “problem”—it’s a very conservative pundit’s opinions about the Democrats, written in a rather flagrant attempt to sway public opinion. You give the impression that you just can’t get your mind around the difference between facts and conjecture when it comes to reading folks like Barone. Or, more likely, you know exactly what the difference is. A “concern troll” is very astute on this difference, and is careful to label “opinion” as “fact”, exactly as you do, in hopes of convincing the more dim-witted amongst the readership that you’re relating gospel rather than speculation.
The above are ideas. I’ll bet you are going to think they’re insults; your education in the finer points of anything is not my concern. Doesn’t make you a very good debater though.
Davy,
STFU, Stalinist!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Republicans who supported it in 2003 and 2008 are , of course, lying low.
Well, the Republican who SPONSORED it... Sen. Isakson.. made an initial attempt at sanity by calling ex-Gov Palin 'nuts' for lying about the subject.
But a quick call from the leader of the Republican party at Limbaugh HQ set him straight, and within a day he was in line with the rest of the GOP.
PeteTwit…
Your equating Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, a Jew, with Nazi Germany is a new low in self-serving trash thinking even for you.
You are a perfect representative of what the GOP has sunk to.
Finally (as if!), do you all just shake your heads wondering how this thing is coming up such a crapper? Wasn't it all supposed to be so easy for the Messiah?
How dare the people intervene!
LOL
Obama claims to everyone on board -- doctors, nurses, the AARP, drug comapnies, big hospitals. He just forgot about the citizens of our great nation!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Pragmatus:
Who cares if Ezekiel Emmanuel is a Jew? Are Jews immune from criticism now - - even when they ape the Nazis???
He seems to have learned little empathy from the historic suffering of his people and now seeks to replicate what the Nazis did. Remember the first to be gassed there were the retarded.
petekent01 (on twitter)
PeteKent said:
"Obama's model is much closer to the Fascism practiced in Germany under the Nazis. It involves the close linkage and cooperation between business and government, but stops short of outright ownership of the means of production.
There are other parallels to Nazi Germany. The latest one involves Rahm Emmanuel's brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel who has written chillingly on the need to deny basic healthcare services to the "unproductive", singling out those with dementia as an example. This modern day Mengele is one of Obama’s healthcare advisors."
Well that's the end of my trying to give you a modicum of credibility. Not to cry Godwin's law or anything but, you're just an asshole. A waste of DNA.
BDP this is from the original Clause IV of the British Labour Party, its the closest I can get to a pithy definition of socialism
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'
So what is the difference you ask? Whether or not is socialism would be one thing. And redistribution of wealth can happen outside of socialism. You seem to be suggesting for instance that any form of taxation, certainly any progressive form of taxation, is socialism.
PeteCan't said
"Davy,
STFU, Stalinist!"
I rest my case.
PeteTwit…
Every vulgar opinion you express is like money in the bank for Democrats.
What independent, or young voter, is going to read your vomitus and think—“That sounds really thoughtful. I think I’ll become a Republican.”
Keep it up. Soon you’ll have your own AM radio talk show.
I am shocked at Democrates unpreparedness with dealing with town hallers. It's the exact same game as was played against Clintons.
markymark said...
So what is the difference you ask? Whether or not is socialism would be one thing. And redistribution of wealth can happen outside of socialism. You seem to be suggesting for instance that any form of taxation, certainly any progressive form of taxation, is socialism.
Socialism is the government direction of the economy to redistribute wealth to favored groups. You need both elements to have socialism.
I agree with you that the government can redistribute wealth outside socialism. Progressive taxation is not socialism because the government is not directing the economy to redistribute the wealth.
This however is a red herring argument. You cannot provide me with an essential difference between the government directing the automobile industry to build favored but unprofitable battery powered cars by owning the company, by regulation or by paying them to do so. Thus, I would contend that all of these are forms of socialism, not just the first where the government owns the means of production.
PK, I was thinking of linking to the two articles Ezekiel Emanuel actually wrote concerning allocation of medical resources. Frankly, I am not going to because I don't think you are going to be able to understand either. If you can, you'll have enough intelligence to go find them yourselves. Please quote from them anything, anything AT ALL that deserves comparison to the Euthanasia program as instituted by the Nazis. If you can't do so, please, in the name of decency, stop making that accusation.
BDP, then you don't understand what the word socialism actually means in that case. OWNERSHIP is a key part of socialism.
If a government says to Ford, say, we are making a law that says you must make an electrically powered car, no redistribution of wealth happens. If the government pays Ford to make a car that is electrically powered, then Ford take the profits, that is not redistributive either. (in fact in that case the car company has made a profit).
FredZ said...
I am shocked at Democrates unpreparedness with dealing with town hallers.
Oh, they adapted very quickly.
The Dems first reaction was to send in SEIU purple shirts to take up the seats and intimidate the Tea Party demonstrators. However, beating up non-violent demonstrators was a public relations disaster and the Dems quickly backed off.
The current techniques to avoid accountability to their constituents is to cancel all public meetings and instead pick their audiences over the telephone or internet for "virtual town meetings."
However, the crowds of protestors outside their offices remain and the votes these folks will cast in 2010 will not be virtual.
However, the crowds of protestors outside their offices remain and the votes these folks will cast in 2010 will not be virtual.
Baghdad, were they casting virtual votes in 2006 and 2008?
The vast majority of America wants a universal single-payer system. Unfortunately, we're not going to get that this time around.
Second best is something like a public option, which will help to rein in the excesses of the for-profit criminals who have been rationing our health care (i.e. the insurance industry robber barons). Again, huge majorities want a public option if we can't get single-payer universal.
Some public support slipped when it became obvious we weren't getting single-payer universal. Some is slipping now with the Whignut Rebuplicant meme that a public option is in trouble. That's why support appears to be slipping - some portion of the American public is becoming afraid that real change is getting less likely.
It's interesting that the polls ask if you oppose or favor "what's being proposed" - but don't ask any more if you like universal single-payer, or if you want a public option - or if you want to maintain the status quo. I wonder why?
I'm convinced we'll get a public option, or something very close to it - a strong "exchange" or something similar that will put some teeth into controlling the insurance criminals. And it will be a BIG step in the right direction. We'll be fiddling with it for a long time - as we should be, refining and improving as we go along.
The political costs to the Dems are too high to not pass some real reforms. It'll happen.
And as for the attempt at bipartisanship - the Dems have clearly been honestly trying to engage the Republicants, bending over backwards to include any reasonable suggestions and to compromise to address Republicant concerns. For their part, the Republicants are going to do what they can to extort changes, and then vote against it anyway. Reform will pass - without a single Republicant vote, despite the heroic effots of the Dems to include them. Which will, of course, only serve to make the Republicants look even more stoopid and obstructionist (if that's possible).
Americans are smart enough to remember that the Dems did all they could to make the bill bipartisan, and the Party of No! still did all they could to prevent fixes to our broken health care system. 2010 will see Dem majorities in both houses increased, and 2011 will see most of the Republicant extortion removed from our new health care system.
The Republicants are writing this script themselves - marginalizing themselves more every day with absurd talking points and bellows of rage.
So I welcome the town-hall rioters. They're making my above scenario all the more certain.
Davy,
Stick Godwin's law up yer you kno wat!
It was probalby invested by a crypto-Nazi like Obama himself.
Why don't you try defending the perversity of Obama's euthanasia squads.
First up on Google: "Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry."
Death Panels!
markymark said...
BDP, then you don't understand what the word socialism actually means in that case. OWNERSHIP is a key part of socialism.
Why? Government ownership of the means of production is a means to achieve the end of directing the economy to redistribute wealth, not an end in itself.
If a government says to Ford, say, we are making a law that says you must make an electrically powered car, no redistribution of wealth happens.
Sure It does. Without this socialism, Ford will spend its assets as it pleases to build cars that you and I want for a profit. With this socialism, the government is redistributing Fords assets to build unprofitable cars that the government favors. Both Ford's assets and lost opportunity to make a profit have been redistributed by government direction of the economy.
If the government pays Ford to make a car that is electrically powered, then Ford take the profits, that is not redistributive either.
Sure it is. Without socialism, we can spend our money to buy the cars of our choice at Ford. With this socialism, our money is being taxed and redistributed to build cars that the government wants and we will be then forced to buy government cars we do not want for the cost of the purchase price and the subsidy. Both my tax money and my lost economic opportunity to buy the car of my choice has been redistributed through government direction of the economy.
Heh, First I owned Mule Rider, now I've gotten PeteKent all lathered up. I love this country.
markymark wont link to those articles of Dr. Ezekiel Mengele Emmanuel because they are so chilling and are the thoughts of an abominable mind that is now advising the President.
This is of course the talk on the right. The left could care less out those who would neglect and euthanize the "unproductive". Those are the very sorts of objectives that they have been trying to accomplish for years.
markymark won’t link to those articles of Dr. Ezekiel Mengele Emmanuel because they are so chilling and are the thoughts of an abominable mind that is now advising the President.
This is of course the talk on the right. The left could care less out those who would neglect and euthanize the "unproductive". Those are the very sorts of objectives that they have been trying to accomplish for years.
The principal evinced in Dr. Emmanuel's writings is precisely that of the Nazi's: to shed society of the unproductive, the mischlinge.
Beg God for forgiveness for supporting such things and turning a blind eye to such evil!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Honestly - why should we take seriously any claim of "socialism"? Anyone reduced to using that sort of label as an attack clearly has no rational points to make, and is hoping only to generate an unthinking fear-response. Anyone who invokes such fear-words has already lost the argument - and they know it.
"Death panels" - why even listen to this nonsense? The end-of-life discussion benefit was first proposed by a Republican, and was supported by both Palin and Grassley until the current debate. It's another attempt at fear-mongering, pure and simple, and should be laughed at, nothing more.
Really, these are the same people who say "No gummint healthcare! And don't you touch my Medicare!" Do we really expect rationality from these people?
They're coming to taky away, PeteKent, they're coming to take you away! Ho ho, hee hee, Ha ha!
Davy,
I don't think I have noticed you before.
You are an ant.
I will take no further notice of you!
petekent01 (on twitter)
*watch as PK avoids quoting from Dr Emanuel's pieces*
Their is NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, NIL in the bill PK that says anything AT ALL about Euthanasia. I will repeat what I said earlier, unless you can link to anything at all that says Dr Emanuel believes in state administered euthanasia, or anything in any of the bills (rather than quoted from a 1/2 term governor) that says anything about euthanasia, FOR THE SAKE OF DECENCY please stop comparing the Bill to Nazi Germany.
Sorry gang, I know I shouldn't get baited by trolls but sometimes...it's just so irresistible.
Whether the reaction is rational or not, it is real.
Death Panels -- its the New healthcare reform.
Boy has Obam blown this baby!
And y'all thought Mrs. Clinton effed it up!
What's next? Cap and Trade? The Green Revolution is over before it started. It died on the moutnain of Obama's lack of credibility and in ability to communicate!
petekent01 (on twitter)
WV: aptypest -- ain't me!
Chill out. After bill gets thru Congress, Obama's role will change:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-06/take-a-chill-pill
@markymark
FOR THE SAKE OF DECENCY please stop comparing the Bill to Nazi Germany.
I disagree with you here, marky. Such comparisons clearly tag the speakers as having lost all contact with sanity and rationality. This makes it more likely that health care reform will pass.
Why?
Because the Dems in Congress see that the opposition is revealed as nothing more than Whignuts who aren't going to vote for them in the next election anyway. There is no political downside to ignoring the Whignuts, and voting for something that is going to actually improve our Nation - and that the vast majority of Americans want any.
So, let them rant. Encourage them to rant!
Whignuts, unite! Call us all Hitlerian socialists! You reduce yourselves to irrelevancy thereby.
PeteKent said,
"I don't think I have noticed you before."
I've been posting here since early 2008 but I usually ignore your cut and paste blather. And I have just recently reaffirmed why.
DEATHCAMPS! DEATHSQUADS! DEAR GOD, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
You are such a tiny man in a tiny world. I'm done with you once again unless you post something juicy that deserves to be pounced upon, douchebag.
"OMG, I was in favor of health care reform until I learned there were going to be socialist Nazi death camps as part of it!"
Really, does anyone believe there is a single person in the country who feels this way?
No - the deathers and the socialist-screamers oppose health care reform because the Democrats are proposing it. No other reason. They are using these fear-memes as a tool, an excuse to shout loud. And they're not convincing anyone who hadn't already made up their minds that, "uh, uh, black president with funny name, must be bad. Gummint bad, uh-huh uh-huh."
You can't argue with insane fears, and the insane were against this reform anyway, so it isn't a real issue.
Pragmatus:
Barone cites: "Of the 21 top leadership members and chairmen, five come from districts carried by John McCain, but the average vote in the other 16 districts was 71 percent to 27 percent for Obama." Fact, not opinion.
"Of the 19 lawmakers who are in the GOP's House leadership or who are ranking committee members, four come from districts carried by Obama. The average vote in the other 15 districts was a less-than-landslide 57 percent to 41 percent for McCain. Only three of those districts voted more than 60 percent for McCain." Again, fact, not opinion.
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking," Barack Obama said on a campaign stop in Virginia on Aug. 6. "I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." Another fact.
Ok, obviously Barone is writing an article that is intended to sway public opinion, but that doesn't mean it is totally devoid of any useful information. I wouldn't expect anyone that is very liberal to agree with his conclusion that the Democratic leadership is to the left of mainstream America, but any reasonable person would concede that they are more liberal than most Americans (I'm not even implying that this is necessarily a bad thing, since I am probably more liberal than most Americans on social issues and I think that is a good thing) and this might be the reason they are having problems with the health care proposals they have offered (probably not the only reason, but probably a major reason).
I didn't come on here calling individuals names (FYI, when someone calls someone else a "troll" it is an insult--I understand the difference). I didn't come here espousing conservative ideology, especially since I'm not a conservative. I referred the article to one person here and if anyone else wanted to look at it, so be it. I would hope that after a careful reading of the article people can take away whatever they wished. Finally, I don't try influencing the dimwits, they are beyond influence. A good debater attempts to influence rational, open minds.
At this point, although the debate and spin continue, this bill is essentially dead from an emotional and mandate perspective, even if some version gets passed. Whether it ultimately proves to be of any benefit to society, or a detriment, will take years, if not decades, to appreciate.
This bill, and virtually anything that might be done to improve our healthcare system, involves too much complexity with which we are emotionally motivated to deal.
There's been too much arguing about the details. People can not describe in 2 or 3 sentences the conceptual parameters of the effort and what it is supposed to accomplish. Unfortunately, people can describe how they feel about it in 1 or 2 words, and that's not good.
If either side of the debate has to work this hard arguing about something which theoretically should improve the lives of the masses of people, there's a big problem.
Even more so than how something is done, people are interested in results, not the details. And once again, as is frequently the case with much of human processing, the facts don't really matter. How people view the world, what they value, and what they want, matters.
And there is nothing collaborative in nature about that. Factor in the strong individualistic American DNA, and this effort is emotionally toast.
FredZ said...
I am shocked at Democrates unpreparedness with dealing with town hallers. It's the exact same game as was played against Clintons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whereas it is true Obama and the Dems could have framed the debate better and not let the "bat shit crazy" haters get a foothold w/these astro turf faux outrage town halls.
There are a couple differences. 1992/1994 there was no 24/7 fixed noise McCartyism, demagogue, misinformation, totally in the tank for the party of No! network, as faux news started Oct. 1996.
And back in 1992 the Dems and Reps really disliked each other, whereas now they really, really hate each other, and it's much easier for conservatives to rouse up the static w/Obama as president ie
I want my country back! boo frickin' hoo!
I want my country back! boo frickin' hoo!
I want my country back! boo frickin' hoo!
Bigots like limbaugh, hannity, malkin, coultergeist, morgan, beck, dobbs, crowley, ingraham, savage, levin, hewitt, gallagher, etc. have the ability to transform their silent minority, into faux, racist outrage, bat shit crazy extremists for all the world to see on 24/7 cable news minutia.
Again, one wonders how this is helping to expand the party of No's! tent, I digress.
Anyway, the reality is the cable news 24/7 and conservative talk show hosts ad nauseam side show is now the story ie the protesters aren't really the story, it's their sponsors limbaugh, hannity, beck, dobbs, savage et al.
News is not the story anymore, it's personalities who are the story ie billo, olbermann, tweety, blitzer, cooper, hannity, scarborough, et al
They're celebrities all trying to sell their damn books and be noticed and very little truthful, reliable information gets thru the minutia.
yea, the Obama is gonna kill your Grandma w/a provision put in the health care bill by a Rep senator from GA rumor started by betsy mccaughey a member of the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corporation and former Rep politician.
It's the same old game w/the Rep, stop health care at any cost lobbyists, only it's harder to hide nowadays than in 1992 and harder to hide the truth!
As I've been watching Obama at his town hall in MT for the past half hour and typing this reply. Obama is still personally popular and knows how to use the bully pulpit to his advantage.
Underestimate Obama at one's own peril!
g'day
DEATH PANEL.
The potency of the locution comes from its basis in the people’s fear of government intrusion in their lives, their mistrust and disrespect for government power, and from the people’s wisdom who have collectively been able to figure out that something nefarious and untoward is going on here.
First if you read the House bill it is littered with the creation of dozens of Committees and, yes, Panels to regulate healthcare and its consumption.
Many have pointed out that the intent is to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if certain conditions are worth treating aggressively, if lives are worth prolonging or saving.
We are all aware of how much harping there is on "end life care” the barrage of high estimates of the total spend on treating the elderly as a percent of the whole. (like saying 90% is spent in the last 3 mos, etc, etc.). It's like folks are just shouting, "SHUT UP AND DIE, ALREADY, OLD BITCHES!"
Obama himself contributes to the fear among the people, especially the elderly by suggesting at townhalls that we ought to consider whether granny should get a pacemaker or a pain pill. Despite betraying a shocking ignorance of medical conditions and their treatment, Obama seems to want to put himself and his government smack in the middle of people’s life and death decisions.
Death Panels, pure and simple. Leave it to that idiot, caribou Barbie from Alaska to turn the debate on its ear and derail ObamaCare with an entry on her Facebook page. What fools you all are!
petekent01 (on twitter)
WVL nomedis -- what you get under ObamaCare!
"...(3) perhaps going to require a "big" leadership/regrouping moment by Obama in early September." (4) in 10 years be supported by the very same Medicare-dependent idjits who are now trying to kill it.
To be clear: I am a polemicist.
That's a fancy word for troll!
We know that there is a lot of exaggeration going on here, but at the root of the euthanasia meme is fear and distrust of government and that is what will kill this plan.
The people don’t trust government. And Obama has done nothing to make them comfortable -- in fact he has scared them all the more.
Stupid cops!
Tonsil-ripping out doctors!
I was supported by the AARP before they came out against me!
$1.4 TRILLION deficit and we are not even done with the fiscal year!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Inspector Clouseau said...
At this point, although the debate and spin continue, this bill is essentially dead from an emotional and mandate perspective, even if some version gets passed. Whether it ultimately proves to be of any benefit to society, or a detriment, will take years, if not decades, to appreciate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh ye of little faith! ;) "we" have not yet begun to fight!
Underestimate Obama at one's own peril!
PK, my only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country! And that of course is your life. I will gladly give your life for my country!
take care, blessings
Nicely put, Inspector Clouseau!
ObamaCare: Done in by Caribou Barbie's facebook entry!
What a hoot!
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!
petekent01 (on twitter)
FOLLOW THE MONEY. lambaugh makes 40 million per year, the republicans make 10s of millions, the insurance companies make billions. By keeping a group of republicans tanked up with anger and hatred, these gamers have a group ready to do their bidding while giving the group nothing. Whether you like Obama or not, at least he is making an honest effort to help someone. I guarantee you that the folks filled with anger and hate from the republican party will get nothing from palin, lambaugh or the party.
shrinkers said...
Honestly - why should we take seriously any claim of "socialism"? Anyone reduced to using that sort of label as an attack clearly has no rational points to make, and is hoping only to generate an unthinking fear-response. Anyone who invokes such fear-words has already lost the argument - and they know it.
Is socialism the ideology whose name shall not be spoken?
The EU left proudly self identifies as socialist and is not afraid to admit that their socialism is, well, socialism.
Only in America do socialists run from the term. Why is that?
What Marky Mark does not want u to read (I am quoting Sarah Palin):
"Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
Cite to Dr. Mengele Emanuel--http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
There's more from this Neo-Nazi. Again quoting Governor Palin: "Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” "
And the cite-- http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
Nice stuff from a Presidential advisor on healthcare!
And you wonder why the people fear DEATH PANELS?
petekent01 (on twitter)
@BDP
"Only in America do socialists run from the term. Why is that?"
Hey you McCarthyists turned that word into a bad word. There are plenty of social programs that you probably enjoy (or will enjoy) the benefits of.
Hmmmm August 2008- Typical PK post- McCain will win
August 2009- Typical PK post=
Palin has brought down healthcare reform.
Ah well better luck in 2010 PK.
As I have said plenty of times healthcare reform is toooo important for Democrats to not get something passed.
In many places in the world, there are people who proudly declare themselves to be fascists. Even some in America. So, Bart, you won't mind if I call you a fascist, right?
Heh, First I owned Mule Rider, now I've gotten PeteKent all lathered up. I love this country.
Hah! Witty shit-talking with a quick pat of one's own back in front of a few other anonymous, bored, and likely unemployed commenter's hardly qualifies as "owning" anybody.
There are plenty of social programs that you probably enjoy (or will enjoy) the benefits of.
Hah again! This is the oldest canard and strawman in the whole argument over social programs. Most conservatives aren't against "social programs" in the broadest sense and are very much in favor of a social "safety net."
The rub lies in the misuse and mismanagement of these programs to where they've been stretched waaaaaaay beyond their original intent and serve more as a "social crutch" for people to lean on and use and abuse.
PK, for start, if you had bothered to read Dr Emanuel's work, you would see he is talking about treatments where resources are scarce, like organ transplants as an example. Not ALL medical treatment. I think most people would agree that their is questionable medical benefit in giving a 80 year old person suffering from demetia an organ transplant, when there is a 30 year old who needs a transplant as well.
I love my socialist police department.
The socialist fire department is pretty darn good, too.
Even socialist public education is better than the alternative - no education for maybe 80% of the people.
Our socialist military does a damn fine job, if you ask me.
Socialist medicare and medicaid and social security have worked out pretty well - ask the people who use them.
Socialist public parks are nice.
Socialist interstate highways really rock.
Socials food inspectors are - literally - lifesavers.
It's amusing that far-right Whignuts made "socialism" into an insult and a cussword, and then have the gall to ask why someone wouldn't want that label. Maybe for the same reason they don't like being called "hypocrites" and "spewers of hate".
Post a Comment