A prominent pollster wrote me yesterday with the sentiment that "the battle for public opinion [on health care] is over", adding that he thought that the Democrats had come up short. We'll consider that statement in a moment -- but first, let's take a look at where the health care numbers stand after Barack Obama's speech last week. Did the President, in fact, receive a boost in support?
The short answer is probably yes, for now, although not a terribly large one, and not without some ambiguity. Here, we've looked at all polls that were conducted after the speech, and compare them against the most recent poll that each pollster had conducted before the speech. We see an average increase of about 2-3 points for the Democrats' health care plan itself, and more like 4-5 points for Obama's handling of health care. (We also list polls for that have been conducted since the President's speech but for which no recent comparison is available -- like the poll that the terrific Ann Selzer is now conducting for Bloomberg -- but place them "below the line" so that a more apples-to-applies comparison is available.)
Caveats abound. Obama's speech was not the only thing impacting public opinion on health care over this period, and both the "before" and "after" polls were conducted at slightly different intervals. Rasmussen, for instance, found a fairly sharp bounce -- 7 or 8 points -- in support for the President's plan which then suddenly dissipated, to the point where they now have the proposal being slightly less popular than it had been originally. The degree of movement was unusual for Rasmussen polls, which are generally quite stable. I'm not convinced, I guess, that the contours of public sentiment on health care are really quite that steep -- bounces often fade, but their half-life is usually measured in weeks, not days. I think there's some random noise in their data, in other words. We'll know more, naturally, after more pollsters weigh in on health care over the next couple of weeks. See Charles Franklin for more detail on the current trendlines.
For now, though, the battle for public opinion on health care appears to have been more fought to a draw than lost. The average poll on the health care plan since the President's speech shows 45.7 percent in favor, and 47.4 percent opposed. The average poll on Obama's handling of health care shows 47.5 percent in favor, and 46.3 percent opposed. That's about as close to a tie as it gets. And that may be a psychologically important distinction for many members of Congress. There's certainly not any tailwind of public support behind health care reform -- that was squandered many months ago. But it's not clear that they're running into a headwind either -- particularly since many of these polls also revealed shifts in the strength of health care sentiments, with the number of voters strongly opposed decreasing, and the number strongly in favor increasing, although the former almost certainly remains greater than the latter.
I agree with the pollster, however, that the numbers are liable to be fairly stubborn from this point forward. Both sides have really fired all their bullets here. Obama gave his big speech. The Democrats have also probably outmaneuvered the Republicans on maintaining the appearance of bipartisanship -- although to what ultimate end, I don't know. On the other hand, the public remains confused and skeptical over the details of health care reform, in ways that it is probably too late to reverse. The Republicans have played the socialism card, the death panels card, the deficits card, and pretty much everything else in their arsenal. The town halls, mercifully for Democrats, are over. Perhaps Republicans can come up with one or two more effective attack lines. Perhaps Obama can counter back with some high-exposure television appearances (like he'll be doing this Sunday) and perhaps -- perhaps -- a fairly low-key address from the Oval Office in a few weeks, when the health care bills are on the verge of being voted on by the Congress. I do think the Democrats have learned something (learned it the hard way and at great cost) about how not to market health care reform.
But I don't see the numbers shifting much. They are what they are -- and the ball is in Congress's court. And the Democrats there might be wise to think more about how popular the health care plan might be after it passes -- in 2010, 2012, 2016, 2020 -- than where it stands right now. How they resolve their remaining differences over health care -- in particular, the level of subsidies provided to middle-income families -- could matter a great deal there.
9.18.2009
Is Public Opinion on Health Care Locked In?
by Nate Silver @ 1:49 PM...see also bounces, health care
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

164 comments
It's funny how, in the media (and here), the public option is "dead", and yet senators such as Jay Rockefeller, who appeared on Charlie Rose last night, indicated it is anything but dead, in fact it has support enough to pass.
In fact, here’s the interview with Jay Rockefeller last night on Charlie Rose, one of the best interviews I have seen in a very long time. Watch and be dazzled
I think Nate is correct that the poll Democrats need to worry about is how people feel after these reforms. Remember that in the polls that have been taken, most people support the policies in the proposals, when explained to them. I think this bodes well for this being popular after it has passed. If I were the Democrats I would make sure everyone knows how solid the GOPs opposition is.
I do worry that public opinion against the Public option will ward off some congress types from voting for it, but then I don't think its the biggest part of the deal.
The last point in this post is perhaps the most important - and maybe some good news the chances of passing legislation that affects people's healthcare in positive ways.
If Dems want to keep their majority (and individual seats), they need to deliver a bill that has tangible benefits that as many people as possible feel and do so quickly. A bill like the current Baucus plan won't cut it and in fact would be detrimental to many. So there are incentives to make it substantially better.
Of course, Senators like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu may think that the capital infusion brought forth by their support of big insurance and pharma will be more valuable and lead to passage of a piece of trash or no bill at all.
Do we have much data on how Medicare was polling in the spring of 1965 versus the reaction/public opinion in 1966, 1968, 1972 etc.?
This is easy -
Is the insured middle-class losses anything with Obamacare, either through increased taxes or lessor care or disruption of their current policies and plans, then an epic bloodbath of 1994 proportions next year.
If Obamacare is a weak, tepid, watered down reform package with popular, even bi-partisan elements, then the Democrats and Obama could gain from sensible and non-risky efforts.
I still think Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. are going to go All In and try to get everthing they can. Result? A legislative trainwreck the likes of which has never been seen in this country.
Paul Krugman seems to be signaling the end of the debate.
ttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
I have a question: If Ted Kennedy's replacement takes a seat before the final vote, what would that do to the chance of overcoming a filibuster and getting to a straight up or down vote on the public option?
Anyone know?
There is a problem with this. The definition of the HC Bill is ambiguous. If you ask me, I would be against it since I would assume you meant the Senate Finance disaster.
The only way to get real answers is if you ask clear questions about details and make sure people know what the detail is. "Public Option" is not well understood by many voters as Nate has made clear. So, you need to clarify what it is and then ask.
Sorry - broken link.
Try this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
re: Valpey
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/07/health_care_reform_circa_1965.html
Remember folks, Walker’s wife Missy (Naptime Missy) works for Humana health “insurers” in Houston, so what you’re hearing from him is straight insurance company BS.
liberal-defender-of-freedom…
Your Facebook link merely goes to some guy named Michael Ellis. What does that have to do with Olympia Snowe?
let me try this again...
Snowe for Democrat!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=166532444687
About time.
The public option polls better than the "President's Healthcare Proposal" because lefties like me want single payer. Do we want our congress folk to vote for a step in the right direction? Hell yes! Do we "support the president's health care proposal? Hell no!
Or how about a question on a poll that said: would you rather pay a thousand dollars in taxes or five thousand dollars in healthcare premiums for the same service? I bet that would show where America really is on the health insurance issue.
The public option polls better than the "President's Healthcare Proposal" because lefties like me want single payer. Do we want our congress folk to vote for a step in the right direction? Hell yes! Do we "support the president's health care proposal? Hell no!
@Ghost:
Most people in America, when polled, say they do not want a single payer healthcare system. Yet here you are saying that this bill is a step toward a single payer healthcare system; a backdoor or trojan horse in less generous terms.
The American people realize this. This is why there is so much opposition to the bill.
wv: urmighte - Obama, urmighte arrogant to think you can keep the House of Representatives in 2010 after you've passed such a bill.
Just admit the public option is dead like your brethren have:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/admit-it--a-robust-public_b_287702.html
Let's move on to something more important like how we can accelerate employment. We can revisit health-care when deficits are under control.
Nate:
1) Are you weighting the different polls for accuracy as you did for the presidential horse race polling last year? For example, who the hell is YouGov and what is their track record of accuracy in American elections?
2) You are comparing apples and kumquats. Rasmussen measures likely voters. Most of the rest here are adults. Is anyone doing registered voters? Polling of non voting adults is only interesting if you do not care what your voters think. The increasingly endangered Blue Dogs who are necessary for any majority enacting Obamacare might be a tad more interested in what their voters think.
3) The apart from what appears to be an outlier result last Saturday that affected the weekend rolling polls, the Rasmussen polling never showed a post speech bump and instead has shown a downward slope among likely voters.
@Scott: have you even READ the blog you're commenting on? When pollsters are clear about what a public option is, the public always supports it. Please read this post and you'll see the evidence: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/how-to-poll-on-public-option.html
@Ghost: I'm with you. If the pollster had called me and asked if I approved of Obama's handling of the issue, I would have said "no" because he was backing away from a public option, and to me it's absolutely mandatory for meaningful reform.
Bart DePalma said...
~~~~~~~~~~~
BDP, did one double check the accuracy of your talking pts. before you posted.
A day w/out Bart's Rep talking pts. is like a day w/out sunshine! :)
take care
Walker's (in this case) not talking about what is good or bad, right or wrong. He's suggesting what might happen depending on what bill (if any) gets passed. So the only reasonable rejoinder is something along the lines of "no, if the Democrats get what they want, it will help them in 2010".
I agree. I believe Health Care badly needs reforming. If Obamacare passes (sorry, I just spent 5 minutes trying to come up with some other label) and ANYBODY perceives ANY negative change to their health care (whether actually related or not), the democrats are doomed. If the republicans took over, they'd be in a position to make changes that they couldn't make now.
On the other hand, dropping the public option, passing tort reform, limiting recision, requiring the uninsured that can afford it to get insurance, subsidizing those that can't and allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would be passable and Obama could claim victory. Since quite a few Republicans would join in, he could position himself as the Bi-partisan president. This would leave Democrats in charge for the forseeable future so that they could keep working the problem.
Personally, I'm torn. The latter option is better but not enough reform for me and leaving democrats in charge wouldn't get me what I want. The first option would be a train wreck which might put the Republicans back in charge (I know that didn't work out the way I wanted it last time, but what other option do I have?).
Since my ideal outcome would be Obama as president for 8 years with a Republican controlled congress (Clinton redux), I think I have to go with the first option.
If I were a Democrat and someone that eventually wanted a single payer plan, I'd hope for the latter.
"And the Democrats there might be wise to think more about how popular the health care plan might be after it passes -- in 2010, 2012, 2016, 2020 -- than where it stands right now."
Here Nate hits the nail smack on the head! The Dems have to pass a good bill, not just any bill, and any weakening done to placate a token Republican or a few Blue Dogs will damage the future of the entire Democratic Party.
In particular - a Baucus-like bill that mandates individuals buying insurance, but denies them access to a strong public option is political suicide.
That has to be the new "contract with America": you force us to buy something, then you must let us buy what we need and want, not just what the for-profit insurers choose to sell us.
Pragmatus said...
It's funny how, in the media (and here), the public option is "dead", and yet senators such as Jay Rockefeller, who appeared on Charlie Rose last night, indicated it is anything but dead, in fact it has support enough to pass.
Fascinating. Did he name the 60 or even 50 votes?
The Washington Post-ABC poll had support for Health Care Reform with the Public Option at 55% and support for Health Care Reform without the Public Option at 50%. Of course the Post ran the story as the Public Option has no support and that it would be better to leave it out of the bill based on the fact that the amount of people who strongly opposed the Public Option dropped by a few points to 42%.
Could still some of the confusing poll numbers arise from the fact that there are some on the left who are very dissatisified with Senate Finance Bill? I have to admit that as a progressive if a pollster had called me before the President's speech I would have answered "No" to the question do I support the Health Care Reform Bill. It would not accurately reflect my support of Health Care Reform.
In fact it makes me wonder what is going on. Last summer polls showed support for Health Care Reform at 70%. Where did that support go and why? Better yet has anyone bothered to ask in a poll what Health Care Reform means to them? If people don't like this HCR Bill then what exactly is it they want/envision in Health Care Reform? I think that's the missing piece of the equation.
BDP, the devil is in the details ;) much like cheney/bush's Iraq war ...
take care
btw, Rasmussen has McDonnell beating Deeds 48/46, but, but, but Research2000 has McDonnell winning 50/43.
What's up w/that!
Bart, don't tell me Rasmussen is going soft on your beloved Reps lol
I did a similar review of polls today on my Health Care Polls blog:
http://healthcarepolls.blogspot.com/
I also broke down the trends by Party ID.
I think some insightful comments have been made here.
One reason "current proposals" and "Obama's handling" are both losing popularity is that things look as if they're getting watered down. What we really need - and the public knows this - is a universal single-payer system. The "public option" is a compromise, and not nearly as good. The public knows that, too, so the direction this thing is going is losing popularity.
Add to that the Republicant talking points that "the public option is dead" - then wow, yes, that'll kill the popularity both of "current proposals" and of "Obama's handling". If we can't even get the second-best compromise, then hell yeah, we disapprove.
That doesn't mean we won't take what we can get, however. And if nothing happens at all, the Republicants are absolutely dead in 2010.
Come to think of it, they're pretty dead anyway. The Party of No has turned itself into a joke, popular only with an ever-shrinking and increasingly geographically-limited cadre of Whignuts. The public knows they've been opposing real reform, and telling the most outrageous lies to do it, and we won't quickly forget.
The Dems do need to look forward to 2010, 2012, 2016, and beyond, and grow some spine. A serious public option would give them yet another landslide in 2010. Universal single-payer would have given them overwhelming control of Congress and the White House for a generation. But once people start seeing real change, the Republicants are going to really suffer.
It's simple.
The American people want good coverage, that they can afford, that won't drop them when they really get sick. As is enjoyed in all other rich nations. Incidentally, by definition, such a plan would have to be acceptable to the medical profession as well.
Of course, not everyone wants that. There are a small number of sociopathic rich who oppose it because they don't personally need it and don't want to share anything with anybody.
And there are lot of people who would personally benefit to a huge degree, but oppose it out of some mix of ideological brainwash, ethnic bigotry, historical resentment of states that didn't belong to the CSA, or whatever. A lot but still a very out-numbered minority.
If you offer them a "reform" like that, a vast majority will support it.
If you offer something weaker, there will be a natural fear that things could end up even worse.
The majority seem to wisely support a reform that includes even a partial public option.
A surprising number are willing to take a chance on reform that doesn't even include that.
But if people want beef and you serve them mystery meat, you can't expect unbridled enthusiasm.
The problem here is the Republicans, so the Democrats would be far better off to finally abandon the craven habit of seeking "bipartisanship".
What the public wants is courtesy and collegiality. They don't want people yelling "You lie" at each other. They also don't want the Republicans to have a one way veto on all legislation, no matter how few of them are in power.
The media constantly preaches that bipartisanship, meaning that the Republicans make the rules whether in or out of power, is sacred. But it isn't. Courtesy, yes. Bipartisanship, no.
Harold,
No bipartisanship means no consensus. You ram something through like this you will alienate half the country pretty much forever. There are much better ways of doing this than a giant public bureaucracy... if anyone is ideologically brainwashed it is the left.
bleepul said...
Harold,
No bipartisanship means no consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blee, it comes down to doing the right thing or the wrong thing re: we the people. It's basically that simple and bipartisanship is meaningless in that respect.
If the Dems "do the right thing" for the people, they'll be just fine in 2010, 2012, 2016 ...
take care
@Carey: "And the Democrats there might be wise to think more about how popular the health care plan might be after it passes -- in 2010, 2012, 2016, 2020 -- than where it stands right now."
That is what was said when Medicare was being proposed and pushed by the Dems. The Republicans were against it and the claims were that all who voted for it would lose their elections since it would be so unpopular.
@bleepul, "You ram something through like this you will alienate half the country pretty much forever."
Same thing - seems to me that older Republicans like Medicare, so your words of gloom are nonsense. The public hates change, but once it happens, they settle in. They may generally dislike or like something after it happens, but the hysteria goes away for the most part. Medicare is a very instructive example.
No bipartisanship means no consensus. You ram something through like this you will alienate half the country pretty much forever. There are much better ways of doing this than a giant public bureaucracy... if anyone is ideologically brainwashed it is the left.
There is somethig well short of a "giant public bureaucracy" sitting in the house right now. How's are the GOP Congress reacting to that? There's something somewhat similar that's had it's functional guts ripped out sitting in the Senate. How's the GOP Congress reaction to that going?
Those are rhetorical questions of course. You know just as well as I that they are publically pissing on it all like it was a urinal cake, right? Because they had no intention of voting for any insurance reform bill, ever.
It's not even the insurance industry political donation money that's already hit the table. It's about passive-aggressive obstruction with the back-up plan of huge chunks of future insurance industry political donations against Dem candidates that dare threaten the insurance industries fat.
At some point some degree of "jamming down throats" [in the Congress] is going to have to happen. And if it's something broadly betters the lot of for lots of people, forgiveness will happen. It's happened before. It'll happen again.
Interesting post.
I would not say that the numbers are frozen yet, as Nate said the "bounce" may still have a half-life of weeks, meaning that further erosion can occur.
This is really the only data we have to work with, but it really is not terribly relevant at the national level.
Why? How many national Congressmen are there. ZERO.
Keep in mind that there are 84 Democrat Congressmen who are from districts won by EITHER McCain or Bush (2004).
84.
Of those, 48 are from districts that were won by BOTH McCain and Bush.
48.
The Democrat majority hinges on roughly 40 seats.
40.
Also, you are looking at polls dominated by surveys of all ADULTS.
While that is useful, it is VOTERS that matter. This means that Rasmussen is likely closer to the national VOTER sentiment.
If Obama's proposal is negative 8-10% (Rasmussen:-13%) nationally among likely voters, what do you think it looks like in those 48 districts that BOTH McCain and Bush won?
It is pretty ugly.
...and here is the coup de grace.
This is an OFF-YEAR election.
1. Obama will not be on the ballot. So the minority turnout will be depressed.
2. OLD PEOPLE vote in droves in off-year elections. They are highly opposed to the legislation by even the most favorable measures. About 25% will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage, which has more benefits than regular Medicare. They will be pissed.
3. People with STRONG OPINIONS vote in off-year elections. Currently about 40-45% of voters are strongly opposed, while only 25% or so strongly favor it. This is a gap of 20-25 points...nationally.
What will it look like in those 84 districts that either Bush or McCain won?
UGLY.
4. This is not the only controversial piece of legislation. We have another year of this. Look what is on tap...
- Cap and Trade (a net loser)
- Immigration reform (the new fourth rail)
- Employee Free Choice (union support is in the dumper)
Which is on top of...
- The Stimulus (still a net liability)
- Budget with $9 Trillion in Budget Deficits
- Auto Bailouts
- Continuation of TARP
- Caving to Russia on missile defense
- Jobless Recovery
All it takes is one of those to tick you off to get you to the voting box.
Given that most will fail, you will get the double backlash. The right will punish you for trying. The left will punish you for failing.
Don't forget that we have more of Charlie Rangel, Murtha and others to come.
...and Pelosi will keep talking.
Race-baiting and over-the-top demagoguery will sour independents on everything.
No matter who is causing it, the perception that the country is coming apart will hurt whoever is in power. Period.
Obama's agenda is beginning to look like the Bataan Death March for Blue Dog and Moderate Democrats.
Dwight,
I disagree with your points and assumptions. If anything in congress were truly great (or even good) centrists like me would see it and the Republicans would cave fast. They aren't because the center still disapproves and doesn't want anything to pass ... our government is functioning exactly like it should. It should be almost IMPOSSIBLE to pass things that way only the really good things that everyone agrees on get done. Iraq war is a perfect example. It got rammed down or throat and here you all are still bitter about it. You think healthcare debate will go away if something gets passed? It will only get worse and that's just bad for our country.
Currently the debate is deaf leading blind. The left is saying we need healthcare reform and the right is saying no more spending, smaller government. It's like fighting with your wife ... she doesn't even RECOGNIZE what your point is. "Jamming" does nothing because the other side isn't being heard and this whole stupid mess will play out for a generation.
Drop the whole thing and let's get healthcare reform when everyone (or a larger majority) can agree. A 50-50 split or even 60-40 split is just asking for trouble in the long run.
@MidPointMan
All your negative talk, and worst case and/or very dubious assumptions about Dems in purple areas, and yet 5 simple words put it all into perspective.
"It is the economy, stupid."
It's over a year to go till the 2010 elections and the economy is on track to rebound handily by then, likely having months of positive job growth under it's belt. If on the off chance it doesn't, not much of what you said matters anyway.
@markymark said...
I think Nate is correct that the poll Democrats need to worry about is how people feel after these reforms.
------
Marky -
You are correct, but here is the problem.
1. Those who get hurt by this legislation will get hurt immediately.
2. Those who might be helped will see nothing for 4-5 years.
The new taxes kick in immediately. This includes the proposed surcharges on high-end plans which will hit the unions hard.
I am not sure that provision will survive, but then you replace it with some other tax on someone else (soda, etc.).
Medicare Advantage gets cut right away. That is about 20 million elderly people who will lose their extra benefits next year. They will be mad, and they will be voting.
Obama says he wants to provide some sort of stopgap coverage to people, but this will not happen. It is a HUGE budget buster.
It is in none of the bills and is not about to be.
So, almost nobody will see any benefit for 4 years. Costs will continue to spiral (since nothing changed).
To offset the angry mobs, you need a group of equally thrilled people who now get health insurance for $300 a month instead of $500.
This will not have happened yet.
...and somehow I think when it does they will not feel that much wealthier for spending $300 more a month on something that they did not have to buy in the past, even if there is now a stealth $200 subsidy. They will not really see it.
They will still feel $300 poorer, especially if they are young and underutilize the insurance, which will be most of them.
I cannot remember anyone who feels wealthier after making an insurance premium payment, not matter how small or large.
Only those with major claims might, and there just are not many of those.
So...for 4 years it is ALL PAIN and NO GAIN.
Then it is SUBSIDIZED PAIN for LITTLE GAIN.
I do not see how any of this is good news, yet the Democrats desperately want to commit political suicide.
If anything in congress were truly great (or even good) centrists like me would see it and the Republicans would cave fast.
The stimus bill was decent. The Republicans were still screaming about their dead, and completely inappropriate tax cuts. Not a single House GOP voted for it.
Now that isn't to say you can't or shouldn't work with Olympia and/or Snowe. Indeed it appears that the Whitehouse has been trying to do just that.
But this won't happen without pushing. Real hard.
Drop the whole thing and let's get healthcare reform when everyone (or a larger majority) can agree. A 50-50 split or even 60-40 split is just asking for trouble in the long run.
Drop a core election platform plank, just because somebody's feeling might get hurt? Holy crap. For better or worse the US seems to thrive on running over each other. Some degree it actually seems expected. *shrug*
@bleepul
Drop the whole thing and let's get healthcare reform when everyone (or a larger majority) can agree.
We already have widespread agreement on this. Polls show - what is it, around 70% of the public wants either a public option or universal single-payer. The question is no longer whether we should have meaningful reform. The question is what do we have to do to get the Party of No out of the way.
Dwight -
I agree with you that the economy can lift all boats.
A V shaped recovery will do wonders for Obama.
The only problem is that nobody believes that is going to happen, not even Obama.
His own forecasts say unemployment will be about what it is today in 12 months, after peaking over 10%.
If unemployment is at 9.7% in September 2010, which is the consensus forecast, then you will have a lot of problems.
Why would you call losing most of the 48 districts that MCCAIN AND BUSH both won a WORST CASE SCENARIO?
Obama did not even win those districts.
What about all of those districts that he barely did win? There are another 40 of those?
The electorate is different in the off years.
If Health Care reform, as constructed, passes with these numbers the Democrats will probably lose the House (assuming consensus economic forecasts).
This will galvanize too many voters with strong opinions. Anger matters a lot in off-year elections.
Look at 2006, and the economy was BOOMING in 2006.
Get it?
Look at 1994, unemployment was back at 5.8%.
The economy is not everything in off-year elections. It will help.
It did not help Clinton. Anger is what matters.
If the bill is at least partially bi-partisan, then you have a chance.
"The stimulus bill was decent" ... perhaps, and only if it doesn't lead to runaway inflation in the next 2-3 years. Jury is still out on that one I think.
Feeling's might get hurt? Get real. This is exactly why I stopped being a Democrat ... it's gone from respecting people's rights and intelligent discussion to "I know what's best for you".
Dow: (9820) carry on ...
bleepul said...
"The stimulus bill was decent" ... perhaps, and only if it doesn't lead to runaway inflation in the next 2-3 years. Jury is still out on that one I think.
There are plenty of controls to sate inflation that aren't part of that bill. They has actually been a fair amount of money supply inflationary pressure intentionally applied in addition to that bill. It won't be that bill that puts things over the top. It's a question of correct timing on pulling back reigns, as the amount of the bill itself is relatively well know factor, certainly compared to other pertanent factors.
Feeling's might get hurt? Get real. This is exactly why I stopped being a Democrat ... it's gone from respecting people's rights and intelligent discussion to "I know what's best for you".
I'm talking about the GOP. They aren't going to cave if they see something great. Something great would scare the shit out of them even more than something bad.
Dwight -
Why is it that you think that 20 million angry elderly voters who just lost their extra Medicare benefits does not matter.
20 million of anything matters...
Somehow your statement...
"not much of what you said matters anyway."
...leaves me wanting for more specifics.
20 million potentially angry voters...
A. with plenty of time on their hands
and
B. of which perhaps 9 million voted for Obama
...matter. They matter a lot.
They are only the beginning of the problem in 2010.
It is the 40% of likely voters that STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of Obama's performance that should worry you.
This is extremely high for a President in the first year of office.
Likely Voters with STRONG OPINIONS are almost guaranteed voters.
Why is it that you think that 20 million angry elderly voters who just lost their extra Medicare benefits does not matter.
The extra benefits that they are going to lose when they get dragged in front of the death panels?
MidPointMan said...
If Obama's proposal is negative 8-10% (Rasmussen:-13%) nationally among likely voters, what do you think it looks like in those 48 districts that BOTH McCain and Bush won?
You beat me to this excellent point.
The Rasmussen partisan weighting is described as follows:
37.7% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 29.6% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
Rasmussen cannot get to 56% opposition among likely voters by over counting GOP voters. A heavy majority of Indis and not a few Dems have to join the probably 80%+ GOP voters to get to 56% overall opposition.
Of this 56% bipartisan majority of likely voters in opposition to Obamacare, 40% are strongly opposed, nearly twice the percentage that strongly support Obamacare. The more fired up you are, the more likely you are to vote in an off year election.
That 56% percent is probably more like 70% in the 48 GOP and conservative Indi districts where McCain and the Blue Dogs won in 2008 and somewhere in between in the 36 additional districts where Bush won in 2004 and the Blue Dogs won in 2008.
Finally, the Rasmussen numbers have not plateaued. Things can get worse.
Do the math. Unless Pelosi can find around 50 of these Blue Dogs to commit electoral suicide, Obamacare does not pass.
shrinkers -
I am sorry, but if you believe that 70% of people are in favor or what Obama is describing to them on TV every other night, you are somehow not paying attention.
These pollsters must do one heckuva job designing questions.
Why can't Obama just steal their verbiage?
He gasses on and on and cannot break 50% support with any consistency.
Why is that?
What you are hearing in a survey is in the abstract, and you assume it will work exactly as described in the survey, you trust the assertion.
If the survey says...
"a government-run health plan that will compete with private insurers"
you assume that is just what it is, nothing more, nothing less. You take the credibility of the statement for granted.
Yet, when Obama says those same words people know that he is a politician.
They know he is spinning a little.
They know that it will probably cost a helluva lot of money.
They know that "competing" might mean "eliminating".
They know that "chip in" might mean "here come the tax hikes".
They are appropriately skeptical of any politician making promises of panacea reform that changes everything--except your plan.
He is not the harmless, honest verbiage of a survey. He is a pitchman.
He is selling, not telling.
A good portion of those 70% who might respond favorably to abstract language do not actually trust that this is Obama's true intention.
If everything Obama said was true, there would be no reason anyone would oppose it.
The problem is that his marketing pitch has some basic flaws of logic, and it is too late to fix them now.
Credibility is shot.
@bleepul you are very naive if you do not realize how partisan and polarize Congress is on any legislation that could confer advantage to one party or the other. There is no way to ever get Health Reform passed by your standards because the GOP will not do anything that they think helps the President. They do not care how many people die or suffer each year, they are focused on what they consider more important matters: their party's election chances, period.
Obama naively thought that by letting Congress come up with the bill that it would be bipartisan, but the GOP would see it as an Obama win if it comes out anything like what he wanted.
I will keep going back to Medicare and SCHP and the rest that Democrats pushed through in spite of the Republicans and these are popular and none of the gloom and doom happened.
I am a centrist and an independent, but like many of us, I realize that the private insurance industry has made a wreck of things. They have peed in their own drinking water for too long: it is time to take back control. I would rather it could be left 100% private, but the industry is more greedy than Wall Street in my view. It did not use to be this way - the founders of many of the health insurance companies were decent people with good goals, but the quarterly profiteers have taken over and they have destroyed the industry. I am surprised they were not securitizing mortgages while they were at it.
Why is it that you think that 20 million angry elderly voters who just lost their extra Medicare benefits does not matter.
Who are these 20 million people who lost their benefits, exactly? You said in your last post that 25% of Medicare Advantage was going to lose their benefits, and there are about 10 million people in MA. Don't you mean 2.5 million people, not 20?
He is not the harmless, honest verbiage of a survey.
lol... Way to utterly destroy your credibility. Verbiage in surveys wildly changes the answers regardless of the topic - to characterize verbiage as "harmless" simply belies your total ignorance on the subject.
They do not care how many people die or suffer each year ... yeah ok. Those evil republicans ... just like the those communist democrats will carve babies from innocent wombs. Enough please.
I think you are naive. You've been sold this concept that it's insurers that have wrecked everything for everyone. It's a simple concept, I get it. I understand it's enough to hang your hat on ... like death panels ... but it's such a red herring.
Look up Regina Herzlinger at Harvard. She's got the answer but no one talks about it. Sad really.
bleepul…
One of the GOP schemes is to never support anything that either the Democrats or the president proposes, then call a press conference and scream that the president isn’t being bipartisan like he promised.
That’s a GOP scam, and has nothing to do with bipartisanship.
MidPointMan…
Your logic sounds exactly like Pete Kent’s, who never put up a post that didn’t contain a dire prediction of how the Democrats were going to be destroyed. Are you two related, as in two pathological personalities in the same body?
Your mother should have taught you that just because you wish for something doesn’t mean it will come true.
Instead of investing so much energy formulating your contorted predictions of Democratic disaster, why not put some of that power to work in recruiting new members for the GOP? If your doomsday scenarios are going to work, not only do the Democrats have to fall but the GOP has to rise, yet poll after poll after poll shows the exact opposite. The GOP stands at roughly 18% approval among the public.
How is that 18% going to translate into anything other than complete humiliation?
BDPee…
Your saying that Rasmussen’s numbers have not plateaued is like saying your favorite gyspy soothsayer’s tea leaves have not plateaued.
Brian -
Agreed.
Democrats can keep 30-35 of those 48 highly vulnerable seats, and 30 of the 36 other moderately vulnerable seats.
Or they can have Health Care Reform rammed through without bipartisan support.
...and lose around 45-50 seats.
They cannot have both.
If they lose the House, they lose everything else they might want. The GOP will be happy to stalemate for 2 years with the Senate.
They will destroy Obama's budget in 2011.
Given that there will be no clear benefit from the legislation by 2012, Obama's legacy will be...
A stimulus, which is likely to be perceived as a moderate failure.
Right now, the consensus forecast is that unemployment in 2012 will be in the 7-8% range.
This will be higher than the peak of the 2001 recession.
Even that will not feel like a recovery.
A MidPointMan classic from a year ago this coming Sunday:
I almost peed my pants when I see what Nate is doing with Nevada.
Obama has not had a meaningful lead in ANY poll since July, and that was only +2, in a Rasmussen poll that now says +3 McCain.
Yet Obama is winning because of "the regression".
I do regressions for a living, and that must be one shitty model, because Nevada is a GOP state historically, and having been there recently, they do not blame Bush for the housing mess, and Reid is radioactive in the state. He makes 2008 Bush look like 2002 Bush.
All McCain has to do is run a few ads with Obama sitting next to Reid suggesting that Reid will get his way, and it is over!
They cannot wait to vote Reid out.
This site has become utter.... I hate to point it out.
Nate, Jesus, what are you thinking?
Making the model more sensitive my arse!
Obama won Nevada by 12.5%. Nate's final projection was that Obama would win by 4.8%. Credibility?
Dwight said...
The extra benefits that they are going to lose when they get dragged in front of the death panels?
-----------
No, their Medicare Advantage Plans.
Obama is cutting them. They are run by private insurers as an HMO.
The generally offer higher benefits that traditional Medicare.
They have growth from almost nothing to 25% of Medicare in 4-5 years.
In other words, people love them.
...and Obama is cutting them. This is a very big deal.
Pragmatus ....
I can't say that you are wrong. Obama's weak currently and they smell blood. I'm also on their side currently because I think the healthcare legislation is bad (so long as the public "option" is on the table). That being said, if Obama and the democrats proposed something that made sense and they still block it then I'd just as easily be against them. The blocking only works so long as they have support from the likes of me.
Look up Regina Herzlinger at Harvard. She's got the answer but no one talks about it. Sad really.
Allow me to quote Dr. Herzlinger's EXACT answer to the crucial question of controlling health-care costs.
"So, can we control health-care costs by slimming down this sector, without rationing care, and thus make health care available to all?
It cannot be that difficult. After all, we have achieved this kind of cure in other sectors of the economy..."
She has absolutely NO answer except to insist that somehow health care will magically come up with cheaper products for us if we make it more market-based! She literally ADMITS she has no idea except to insist that private industry works in some other cases so it must work in this case.
It is absolutely ludicrous, although it serves as a marvelous example of exactly how brain-dead the Republicans' "health-care plans" are. They insist that we should make giant changes and then admit the only reason they have to believe that it will work is pure capitalist ideology! DESPITE the fact that pure capitalist ideology has been as discredited as communism for a century now!
I'm sorry, but anyone who apparently hasn't read anything after The Wealth of Nations has no useful insight into our economy.
Look up Regina Herzlinger at Harvard. She's got the answer but no one talks about it. Sad really.
Look, I don't think it's as simple as rearranging insurance a bit and that's it. I really don't. I actually think there are a lot of areas.
But do you really expect to get people (including the insurance industry and of course dr. and don't forget pharma companies and the existing hospitals (that have been relatively quiet so far), oh and frankly yes tort could use a looking at...but holy crap, what a can of worms there) to sign off on a plan that makes as many changes and is as nuanced as Regina Herzlinger? You think you'll get anything approaching 50% muchless your bar of 60%?
This is a bigass ship with a buttload of captains grabbing at the wheel.
No, their Medicare Advantage Plans.
Obama is cutting them. They are run by private insurers as an HMO.
The generally offer higher benefits that traditional Medicare.
They have growth from almost nothing to 25% of Medicare in 4-5 years.
Obama is cutting the higher subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans versus Medicare plans. Right now the "advantage" in Medicare Advantage is simply that the United States pays a thousand dollars more per person enrolled.
And Medicare Advantage is about 20% of Medicare, it's got a little less than 10 million enrollees. You've said that 25% of them would lose their benefits. I ask you again, then - where are you getting this ridiculous 20 million figure?
It's not the nuances that she preaches (I've taken her class) ... it's the incentives. What incentive does a "public option" have to provide lower cost higher quality care? Goodwill? It's about restructuring and that is something that can be done step-by-step. Health savings accounts and flex spending and tax benefits ... it makes soooo much more sense in the long-run. Everyone keeps trumpeting medicare but if it's taught us anything is that a government run system (as beneficial as it might be) is UNSUSTAINABLE over the long-term. Only markets have staying power.
For the GOP to break out of its rut, it will have to replace these images that come to mind when anybody thinks of them—
Newt Gingrich
Mitch McConnell
John Boehner (crying over a picture of Anna Nicole Smith…why? Who knows…)
Rush Limbaugh
Michele Bachmann
Ann Coulter
This statement is hilarious:
"like the poll that the terrific Ann Selzer is now conducting for Bloomberg"
The same Ann Selzer whose final poll showed Obama winning Iowa by 17 points against McCain:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081101/NEWS09/81101014
Since Obama actually won by under ten points in Iowa, and finished with just over 54% of the vote, if we are giving Selzer's final Iowa poll the benefit of the doubt, then you would have to believe that every single undecided Iowa voter went to McCain.
So tell me, how is Ann Selzer so terrific when the actual margin of victory in the state she is supposed to be good at polling is almost half what her final poll predicted?
Anyone want to try refuting this point regarding Selzer's final poll in Iowa or are we all going to take Nate's word for it and ignore the evidence that Selzer final Iowa poll was embarrassing?
BTW Regina Herzlinger has a number of interesting ideas in the area of reorganizing the actual providing of health care. BUT she doesn't actually follow through with it. It's like this pie in the sky idea with no concrete way to get there (or get others to go there).
Further she does, if I'm not mistaken, acknowledge that the insurance system is fubar.
Ironically some of them are not unlike here in Canada. I go to my doctor. We figure out what (if anything) needs to get done. We do it there or I head off to another part of the system to get it done (or get more detailed advice). I don't talk to bean counters to get this OKed. It is effectively "between me and my doctor" (the dr more often than not being an indipendant business person, or working for a small dr firm) until really, really out there crap happens. Like Ripley's Believe It Or Not stuff.
Ioner -
That was BEFORE the financial crash took hold in the polling.
Nate had Obama up in a state where the polling did not support it.
Go look at Pollster.com on 9/18/08.
Do you see a 5 point Obama lead?
http://www.pollster.com/polls/nv/08-nv-pres-ge-mvo.php
Pollster.com had McCain ahead at this point.
If Nate wants to do forecasting, that is fine.
Polls are not supposed to be used for that they are a measure of the CURRENT state of the race.
Obama was not up by 5 points on 9/18/08 according to any poll.
I WAS CORRECT ABOUT REID, THOUGH!
HAHA!
You're wrong Dwight. Health savings accounts are a fantastic way to get there. Imagine that instead of throwing away your insurance premium every month that you got to save it. It would grow with you and it's preservation would be an enormous incentive to undertake preventative measures for your health. You'd have a way to pay for hospice in old age and freedom to choose how your dollars are spent. It would hold health care providers and drug makers more accountable because they would actually have to adjust to supply and demand.
We'd all have catastrophic insurance for things over say 10K a year but since that is much more rare the preimums would be far, far cheaper. It's the way to go but you never hear much about it.
What incentive does a "public option" have to provide lower cost higher quality care?
That goal is the definition of it's existance! And yes, that actually works. I've lived with it as my health care insurance provider (and for some of the health care providers themselves) for 4 decades, and yes it actually works. It works well.
bleepul…
Your GOP pals have “smelled blood” from even before the president was inaugurated.
Somewhere in the bowels of what passes for a war-room at GOP headquarters the decision was made to simply oppose everything that the Democrats or the president stand for, and then complain that they aren’t being bipartisan.
That’s why they quickly became known everywhere as the Party of NO—no ideas, no alternatives, no compromise, no willingness to work together. Just NO. Like a two-year-old on his way to get a haircut.
And you can drop the pretense of being a moderate. This statement of yours—“You’ve been sold this concept that it’s insurers that have wrecked everything for everyone.”—proves that you are right on board with the GOP agenda.
Yes, princess. The insurance companies have wrecked everything for everybody.
MidPointMan—
Nice try.
I do regressions for a living...
Gales of laughter
whatever prag ... you hide behind bluster which betrays a tiny intellect.
@bleepul, "It's not the nuances that she preaches (I've taken her class) ... it's the incentives. What incentive does a "public option" have to provide lower cost higher quality care? Goodwill?"
What? The public option will not be for-profit and so will simply set prices based on costs similar to Medicare. The rest of the industry will have competition as their incentive. They will try to drive the public option out of business, which would be great, because that would mean they are offering a better service than many do now.
Note that the public option will likely be far cheaper than Medicare. By nature, Medicare takes on the most expensive patients (the elderly and the infirm), whereas the public option will have a normal cross section.
Herzlinger will agree with me that the insurance industry has lost its way. That is the point.
Health savings accounts are a fantastic way to get there.
But they already exist! And they will continue to existing under either of the bills in congress.
So what would your plan be? That doesn't flip the insurance companies out, of course.
bleepul…
You know nothing about health savings accounts.
You said that putting that money away instead of wasting it on insurance premiums is a great idea, but not being covered by insurance of some kind means you will pay full price at a hospital or clinic or for an MRI or CAT scan or even to see a podiatrist. If you are ever called upon to draw from it your HSA will wither away faster than the public’s favorable views of the GOP.
HSAs only work in conjunction with health insurance that has contracts with local hospitals, doctors etc.
Now might be a good time for you to do a little reading and get your facts straight before you make any more embarrassing arguments.
MidPointMan…
Medicare Advantage (MA) is being deserted by folks on Medicare in droves. Why trade in simple health coverage for the endless bureaucratic headaches of an HMO? I know from personal experience. MA is nothing but the same old insurance company shit, and the government gets stuck paying twice as much as they do for people under straight Medicare.
Time to lose the dead weight. MA is dead weight.
PaulK,
Herzlinger would agree with you about the insurance industry but not the public option. It's pretty hard to drive a government run not-for-profit out of business even if there are "assurances" that it will be self-sustaining. If there were a way to ENSURE it's demise in the event it starts operating at a deficit I'd say sure go ahead and experiment. I think we both know how it would unfold in reality. You can hear the pundits already "You can't abandon people!"
Slippery slope.
What incentive does a "public option" have to provide lower cost higher quality care?
The fact that they are legislatively required to.
What incentive does a private insurance company have to provide that? They are legally required to follow the profit, not to provide lower cost or higher quality care.
The most profitable course for a private insurance company is pretty much what they've set themselves up to do - they fight tooth and nail to keep the healthy patients and do everything they can to dump the sick ones. An insurance company will not insure a person who they believe is an extremely high risk.
Indeed, I would note that the very law of supply and demand requires that private insurers, to get the maximum profit possible, NOT supply health insurance to everyone. Maximum profit does not occur when supply completely satisfies demand.
Thanks for the additional bluster Prag.
Of course HSA's have to work in concert with insurance. I never said they didn't. It's not like you would just switch today. The point you MISS is that over the long haul they can very effectively replace the day-to-day costs.
You strike me as a complete idiot by the way.
bleepul…
I would rather have a healthcare system run by elves and unicorns than what we have now.
Mind you, since I have Medicare I’m taken care of. I’d just like to see everyone else get the same fair shake.
You seem to be on a different page.
Persuter -
The latest data is that Medicare Advantage will have roughly 12 million enrollees by late 2010. When Medicare Advantage would get axed.
From Kaiser Family Foundation:
"In 2009, the majority of the 45 million people on Medicare are
in the FFS program, with 22 percent now enrolled in a private
Medicare Advantage plan. Since 2003, the number of
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in private plans has nearly
doubled from 5.3 million in 2003 to the current level of 10.2
million (as of March 2009)"
It is adding about 1 million enrollees a year.
This will put it at 25% of Medicare by the middle of next year.
There are 20 million 65+ voters.
They were 16% of the 132,000,000 votes.
They were 19% of the 81 million votes cast in 2006. Turnout was 37%
Given demographic shifts, they will be about 22% in 2010.
My guess is that we will see about 90 million votes if we get a 39% turnout, which is what it was in 1994.
You do the math.
It is 20 million off-term election voters.
Most of them angy.
The average margin of victory for Democrats in 2006 was...
13,000 votes per district.
In vulnerable districts it is closer to 5,000 votes.
50 seats * 5,000 votes = 250,000 votes.
20 million matters.
bleepul…
You sound very adult when you make childish remarks about the intellect of others.
Is it because you are feeling painted into a corner? Common sense would say to stop painting.
Pragmatus said...
John Boehner (crying over a picture of Anna Nicole Smith…why? Who knows…)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anna Nicole was Boehner's drinking buddy ;)
and loner, please keep posting those classic posts re: MPM and the other 538 clueless trolls as I was just a casual observer at 538 last year and being an "anti-intellectual" myself, always am eager to hear what intellectuals like MPM have to spew, past and present.
btw, history seems to be repeating itself as the Reps were discombobulated last year and yes Virginia ;) if anything, they are more discombobulated this year ...
happy trails
Presuter ...
You make one good point and two bad ones. There is a role for government certainly ... as referee not participant. I would whole-heartedly support changing the rules so that more groups must be covered. It changes the economics but not catastrophically.
Yeah that legislative requirement is fantastic. How'd Freddy and Fannie do? Yes, Medicare currently provides decent care ... but about those cost controls, hmmmm.
Private insurance will go out of business if it can't cover costs. Self-preservation seems a bit stronger than legislative mandates where you can always go ask for more money.
Prag,
How's this for childish: I'm smarter than you are.
This is what Medicare Advantage is all about. I know from personal experience.
Anybody that argues otherwise is either lying or deluded.
That’s why the government wants to get rid of it.
bleepul said...
Thanks for the additional bluster Prag.
You aren't exactly bluster-free yourself. :^)
Of course HSA's have to work in concert with insurance. I never said they didn't.
Ah, but there's the catch. You still need the insurance, the current insurance market being fubar.
It's not like you would just switch today.
Actually HSAs already exist, and under the current Bills drafted will continue to exist.
They can be part of the solution. They already are. Do you suggest forcing everyone to use an HSA style plan rather than another style plan of their choosing?
bleepul…
It’s pretty childish, but in keeping with the rest of your work on the subject.
If you were smarter than my cat you would answer some of the points that have been raised against your positions. Instead you simply grow angry, and your fallback position is schoolyard taunts.
bleepul said...
Prag,
How's this for childish: I'm smarter than you are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of Reps and intelligence, 77% of Oklahoma high school students could not name George Washington as the 1st U.S. president.
'nuf said!
Here is a @Pragmatus CLASSIC from a few minutes ago!
"Medicare Advantage (MA) is being deserted by folks on Medicare in droves."
@Pragmatus -
Respond to this:
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/2052-12.pdf
From Kaiser Family Foundation:
"In 2009, the majority of the 45 million people on Medicare are
in the FFS program, with 22 percent now enrolled in a private
Medicare Advantage plan. Since 2003, the number of
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in private plans has nearly
doubled from 5.3 million in 2003 to the current level of 10.2
million (as of March 2009)"
In the last year of full data (The 2009 data is only through March)
2007-2008 growth was from 8.7 Million to 10.1 million.
That is 1.4 million per year.
2007-2008: +1,400,000
2006-2007: +1,100,000
2005-2006: +1,500,000
2004-2005: + 600,000
LEAVING IN DROVES?
YOU ARE LYING!
LYING.
LYING.
LYING.
LYING.
YOU LIE!
hahahahahaha. That was funny.
Dwight,
Bluster ... that's why we come here is it not? I mean are we REALLY going to change anyone's mind in this forum?
You are absolutely right. I'm advocating basing any health reform on those principles. Forget this let's fix it once and for all mentality ... pipe dream. If you want to legislate choice then pass a law that requires employers to have that as one of the options. You'd have 1000 new companies overnight.
shiloh…
They were educated under the No Doofus Left Behind program…
prag,
I'm definitely smarter than your cat.
Which point in particular would you like me to defend?
MidPointMan said...
hahahahahaha. That was funny.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MPM , do intellectual Rep trolls, like yourself, always use hahahahahaha. That was funny. at the end of your talking pts?
just wonderin'
Pragmatus -
The profit margin on Medicare Advantage is 3%.
Anything above 3% has to be given back in additional benefits.
IT IS LAW.
95% of plans have lower costs than the Medicare benchmarks.
95%!
Democrats want to end it because it is TAKING OVER MEDICARE.
You cannot stand that the GOVERNMENT PLAN is losing every single year.
The market speaks.
3% profit margins are not greedy.
That is less than your local dollar store and about the same as Wal-Mart or BJs.
People vote with their feet.
Pragmatus -
I am waiting.
Still...
MidPointMan…
Asking Kaiser about how popular Medicare Advantage is is like asking Mitch McConnell how successful the president is.
Earth to MPM, Earth to MPM, this news flash just in—Kaiser is one of the providers of Medicare Advantage, and they are desperate to present the appearance that it is a success so that they can continue to rip the government off with it..
When you laugh like that, does your belly jiggle like Rush Limbaugh’s?
MidPointMan…
OK, I’ll link the article again. Read where it say how MA profits have soared way beyond predictions, and how the providers have denied service in order to achieve that, then come back and make your claim again. But you will need to back it up, otherwise it will have no more affect than any other mindless talking point.
Persuter -
"Obama is cutting the higher subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans versus Medicare plans. Right now the "advantage" in Medicare Advantage is simply that the United States pays a thousand dollars more per person enrolled."
This is just dead wrong.
It is true that MA plans reimburse doctors at 10-12% higher payments than traditional Medicare.
This is true.
However, there is a reason why they pay more...
THEY ARE BETTER DOCTORS!
MA plans pay doctors to treat a condition, not based on how many visits they can rack up.
So Medicare may pay 10% less per visit, but doctors just bill for more visits.
With MA plans, doctors have no incentive to rack up visits, they have an incentive to treat the condition in a single visit if possible.
That is why they get 10% more for treating the condition. THEY ARE BETTER DOCTORS.
The fact is that 95% of MA plans place bids UNDER Medicare cost benchmarks per subscriber.
Let me repeat.
95% have lower per subscriber TOTAL costs than Medicare benchmarks.
It is saving money and giving better care.
That is why it is growing so fast.
Pragmatus -
Kaiser Family Foundation offers no Medicare Advantage health plans.
You are a liar, liar pants on fire.
Show me one plan offered by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
ALSO, the original source of the data is NOT KAISER.
It is Mathematica Policy Research. Look at the graph.
Man, you are a HUGE liar now...
The fact is that 95% of MA plans place bids UNDER Medicare cost benchmarks per subscriber.
Is that before or after adjustments for patient age, and if so how is that done?
Pragmatus -
Profits may have soared beyond predictions...
BECAUSE SUBSCRIBERSHIP HAS SOARED BEYOND PREDICTIONS.
Wow!
The profit margin is set by law, genius.
Get a calculator.
3% profit is not a lot of money.
Oh, that is only the for-profit insurers.
HALF ARE NON-PROFIT.
Pragmatus -
Does Reuters lie too?
Medicare Advantage Membership Increased by One Million Between January and July 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS138163+14-Jan-2009+PRN20090114
Have a look.
Please explain yourself...
MidPointMan said...
You are a liar, liar pants on fire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies to MPM, who as it turns out, truly is an intellectual, who knew?
take care
Dwight -
The way it works is Medicare sets up different regions of the country.
They provide data about the population of Medicare subscribers in that area.
Medical costs vary a lot by region.
Then, they establish a benchmark cost level, which is roughly the average annual cost per traditional Medicare subscriber.
Private insurers are then allowed to bid on the right to offer plans in that area.
95% of them bid lower than the benchmarks.
So it is true that they pay doctors 10-12% more, they choose doctors that are efficient and treat conditions in fewer visits.
That is how they keep costs under the benchmarks.
They get to keep 3% profit, and then any additional savings has to be reimbursed to members in the form of reduced premiums or additional benefits.
Most plans add benefits so that they can attract new customers.
This plan actually saves money.
Dishonest people look at the extra 10-12% they pay doctors and say that is wasted.
Would you pay 10-12% more for a mechanic that you trust?
One that has proven to fix only what needs fixed and who does it right the very first time?
Of course. MA plans have incentives to do that.
So they do.
They do not skimp on care, how could they be growing so fast if they were?
Obama wants to kill it.
As much as he talks about getting away from fee-for-service plans and rewarding doctors for good care, not procedures and tests--he does not mean it.
He has a program that is very popular, and is doing exactly that.
...and he is killing it.
Once he finds out that it was actually saving money, he will have to find another $150 Billion to pay for subsidies.
Where is he going to get that?
Pragmatus?
I hear crickets...
You got no game?
Even Shiloh is typing some gibberish I cannot make out.
At least insult me or something.
Weak.
MPM,
I think we won
MidPointMan said...
At least insult me or something.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whereas it's almost too easy ...
take care
p.s. blee, yes indeed, you won as a frickin' comedian beat incumbent Coleman in MN!
happy trails
there's many Reps who are disingenuously smug and then there's the Rep trolls at 538 lol
not a republican shiloh ... never been one, never will be one. recovering democrat just trying to help others
bleepul said...
not a republican shiloh ... never been one, never will be one. recovering democrat just trying to help others
~~~~~~~~~
Obviously your recovery isn't going well lol but hopefully Obama's revamped health care system will pull you through! ;)
wishing you all the best!
Where have all the Reps gone, long time passing?
bleepul said...
Dwight,
Bluster ... that's why we come here is it not? I mean are we REALLY going to change anyone's mind in this forum?
If you can't that would either be lack of reason, a dearth of solid information, or an ill choosen position, on your part.
Seriously. Change my mind!
You are absolutely right. I'm advocating basing any health reform on those principles. Forget this let's fix it once and for all mentality ... pipe dream.
I certainly don't expect that.
If you want to legislate choice then pass a law that requires employers to have that as one of the options. You'd have 1000 new companies overnight.
See. Not a bad idea (at first blush). Not really a "change my mind" moment but good enough. ;)
Still that leaves the busted insurance market/system. Both the catastrophic (that the HSAs rely on) and the one that provide more inclusive coverage. You'll always need the later because my understanding (gathered from my own HSA option) is that funding an adequate HSA is not within of everyone (especially considering many people's finances vary quite a bit). Surely you wouldn't propose the government provide some level of matching funds for the HSA?
Also keep in mind that HSA aren't likely to ever likely to become the dominant choice. I don't think they are bad but they definitely appeal to a certain kind of personality.
-- -- --
So, then what?
HSA's have not been around that long ... the proper analogy is 401K's which are hugely successful. Allowing tax free contributions will be a big incentive. People will have to pay for health care no matter what ... it's our money that pays for insurance in the first place.
The poor will always need help but they aren't the long term cost-driver. It's the drugs and doctors fees and medical devices and huge fixed capital intensive hopitals and lack of preventative care. Fixing insurance does nothing.
We have to see health care for what it is ... a service that we consume. Until that happens, as long as there is some payer between the consumer, costs will continue to rise.
Start with the most prevalent and costly diseases ... diabetes and heart disease. Allow HSA's to pay for additional services such as preventative programs and wellness centers. People will adopt them faster than you think and insurance industry will have to provide new products to satisfy the changing market.
Gotta run.
MidPointMan…
Yet again you simply throw out statistics you have fabricated.
If Medicare Advantage enrolled one million new members, while Medicare gained 10 million, they’re losing market share, not gaining it.
I have been on Medicare Advantage, and they contract with the worst doctors and health groups because they can get them cheaper. Here in Los Angeles neither Cedars-Sinai nor UCLA Medical, two of the most highly respected healthcare providers in the country, contracts with any Medicare Advantage private insurer. Yet all doctors, clinics, hospitals etc in both systems contract with Medicare, and visiting none of them requires the authorizations and referrals and paperwork and other rigmarole and denial of service that Medicare Advantage is infamous for.
Go to Medicare.gov if you are interested in finding out what the percentage of seniors are on Medicare Advantage. (It’s 18% and falling.) Otherwise, you are just blabbing.
I think you’ve hit your peak with “liar, liar, pants on fire.” There’s just no way to communicate with someone in a sandbox.
Cats like to shit in sand, so be careful when you’re digging around with your pail and shovel…
:o) :o) :o)
Yeah that legislative requirement is fantastic. How'd Freddy and Fannie do?
:facepalm: Oh yes, because the private banks were fine. If only it weren't for that damned Freddie and Fannie, who failed because they were government-owned and certainly not because of a global meltdown of the financial market!
95% have lower per subscriber TOTAL costs than Medicare benchmarks.
Explain to us again how that makes 25% of 10 million people into 20 million people?
Fixing insurance does nothing.
Hogwash. Again, besides the people for whom HSAs aren't particularly feasible or desirable (and poor goes a lot higher than you'd think) HSAs still rely on the insurance.
Further, what HSAs are doing is trying to "fix" the insurance by trying to minimize exposure to it's clusterbang.
HSA are a form of self-insurance. Which is only viable for certain people and desirable to even fewer. For the vast majority of those currently uninsured they are a poor substitute.
The thing I fault the Administration on is repeating Clinton's Mistake.
For those of you who have read it, Clinton's Bill wasn't a bad bill. Much hay was made about its length-well, if you take into account the existing laws that it would have changed or done away with, it would have actually reduced the volume of health care laws on the books, so the length of the thing is not the mistake I'm talking about. I'm more pissed off at the way the Clintons handled the timing of it.
As any magician, musician, politician or physician knows, timing is everything. The insurance companies have themselves a nice little racket going, and they'll be fuckered before they let you spoil it for them-so if you let a massive delay take place between when you start the conversation and when you end it, you're doomed. Both Clinton and Obama announced they wanted a healthcare reform bill before the thing was written. Rather than use the element of surprise to their advantage, they left the insurance companies plenty of time to make bribes, spread paranoid rumours among vulnerable populations, race bait and do market research to find out what kind of ad would scare the bejeezus out of people best. Dumb mistake.
Personally, I would have ambushed the fuckers. Get the thing written before you start talking it up, show up on Congress' doorstep and surprise them with the completed bill and a good speech. then, use that network of supporters from the campaign to flood all 535 of the bastards with phone calls, emails and visits demanding its passage. Coordinate with Pelosi and Reid to get the committee votes done and over with in less than one month, and then the final vote within no more than a month and a half.
Clinton brought too many cooks in to spoil the soup when they drafted their bill. Obama let Congress write the thing with no input from the WH. Both approaches got bogged down as every interest group in the country inveighed on what they wanted in the bill, and idiots like Baucus let the GOP write the thing. End result? Stir-fried shit on a plate. Delivered behind schedule, giving the enemy too much time to react.
MPM wrote:
"What will it look like in those 84 districts that either Bush or McCain won?"
Didn't the Republicans say in 2006 that all politics is local and that Presidential approval numbers don't affect House and Senate races in midterms?
Either way, Republicans are not very happy with their elected officials.
From Gallup:
"Remarkably, an outright majority of Republicans today (58%) say they disapprove of the job the Republicans in Congress are doing."
Could it be that Obama's loss is not the Republicans' gain?
As you note, Obama will not be on the ballot in 2010. Republican incumbents will be, though, and the rank-and-file does not seem very pleased with them. The Republican primaries should be very interesting. It might be wise to wait and see who the actual candidates will be before making bold predictions.
Yeah that legislative requirement is fantastic. How'd Freddy and Fannie do?
Freddy and Fannie were far more at arms length than a normal government agency, they had shareholders to answer to. An entirely screwball situation, a for-profit company run by private investors but with the government to hold the bag.
Oh, and BTW....
HSA's have not been around that long ... the proper analogy is 401K's
Not really. Because the one thing about HSA is that you should be expecting to spend at least some of it each year. Easy all of it early on. Potentially more than it's contents unless you've got a decidedly lower deductible on the insurance backing it (or your policy carrier decides to passive-agressive screw you).
We have to see health care for what it is ... a service that we consume. Until that happens, as long as there is some payer between the consumer, costs will continue to rise.
Start with the most prevalent and costly diseases ... diabetes and heart disease. Allow HSA's to pay for additional services such as preventative programs and wellness centers. People will adopt them faster than you think and insurance industry will have to provide new products to satisfy the changing market.
Incidentally studies done comparing health care with and w/o user fees (AKA co-pays) it was found that total costs were actually less when you didn't charge the user fees. The mental barrier to seeking treatment drove up the costs later. It's funny what people will do to try save a buck, and by funny I mean it turns out people aren't that good at making preventative medicine calls.
So assuming that the patitent knows best when you put a fiscial barrier (however small) between them and seeking professional advice, well that's a pretty shaky assumption. Medicine is one of those high knowledge situations that don't work so well; You don't have well informed buyers.
shiloh said...
Anna Nicole was Boehner's drinking buddy
I thought they did pills together. Wasn't #43 his drinking buddy?
So nobody here is going to challenge Silver's point about Selzer?
Selzer's final Obama-McCain poll in Iowa was terrible. Obama won by a margin that was almaost half of the margin that Selzer projected.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081101/NEWS09/81101014
Are we to believe that every undecided Iowan voter went to McCain/Palin? If Nate is going to rag on ARG regularly, his favorite pollster's final Iowa poll (which is purportedly her state of expertise) was ARGish.
Sunspots:
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/sunspot-drought-to-test-global-warming-theory/1625039.aspx
But at least we have one big spot on the far side of the sun:
www.spaceweather.com
I don't understand why so many people keep saying its the republicans who aren't negotiating in good faith. There is nothing in any of the bills that they like.
Now, if the dems make a decent offer ... do I think they would play politics and reject it ... probably so. But I don't think that offer has been made.
What is wrong with trading universal health coverage and insurance regulations for tort reform and letting insurance companies compete across state lines?
What is wrong with trading universal health coverage and insurance regulations for tort reform and letting insurance companies compete across state lines?
You didn't watch the President's address on Sept 15th? Please don't tell me you did but didn't notice much because you were cheering Wilson. :p
BTW isn't the "across state lines" tied up in "states rights"? That the real barrier is down at the state level. I'm not sure about how much leverage the federal government has here via Commerce Clause. I don't think it works that way.
The main problem with having the government insure the uninsured is that there is no group of taxpayers - left or right - that wants to pay the bill.
On the right, no one wants their taxes raised yet again.
On the left, the unions do not want to pay for the Baucus tax on their Cadillac insurance nor do they think that the uninsured ought to pay for their own health insurance.
Medicare and Medicaid recipients on both ends of the spectrum do not want have their health insurance benefits cut to pay for this.
How again is Obamacare going to reach a majority?
@Statler
The thing I fault the Administration on is repeating Clinton's Mistake.
Agree in principle but I can't really fault Obama for trying it the way he did. For one thing, it was a lot less work and for a second thing, it got everybody talking about it. It also flushed out the blue dogs who were giving health insurance reform a lot of lip service and exposed the real motivs of the Party of NO.
I don't know if an ambush would've been possible or even feasible. Might've even had an opposite effect. But this bi-partisan bullshit needs to end. That was a nice olive branch and campaign promise nod but it's time for this ship to sail.
I'm more than a little alarmed at the Baucus plan. Is he an insurance industry guy? Cause it sure looks like it was written by one.
Nate was just quoted on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me!
In an essay for National Journal, liberal political analyst Ronald Brownstein notes the open rebellion of voters across the Rocky Mountain West, especially among Indis, arising from the stark difference between the center right campaigns of Obama and the Dems out here and the "incredibly aggressive (read Socialist) Democratic agenda:"
Common threads run through the Democrats' advances during this decade in the Mountain West, especially across the four southwestern states. One is the changing demography. Andrew Myers, a Democratic pollster who has worked for Project New West, says that "upscale college-educated voters and Hispanics," two groups that are growing across the region, played pivotal roles...And in a region with an enduring strain of frontier tolerance, Democrats appeared to benefit as well from Bush's tying the GOP to a Southern-accented, evangelical-inflected social conservatism.
Today, though, with Bush gone and Obama in the White House, warning lights are blinking for Democrats across the Mountain states. Five of the eight states ranked among the 10 where Obama's job-approval ratings were lowest when Gallup combined the results of its daily tracking surveys through June; at that point, the president's approval rating was lower in Colorado than in any other state he carried last year...
Mountain state Democrats benefited earlier in this decade from linking activist government to such kitchen-table concerns as schools and traffic, but Obama's agenda on everything from health care to climate change has ignited more ideologically charged debates about Washington's role and reach. And that has revived a grassroots anti-Washington constituency that was largely dormant during the Democratic advance.
That reawakening was noisily evident during a series of crowded town halls that Bennet held in small communities west of Denver one day in late August. Although many supporters of Obama's health care ideas also turned out, most of the people in the audiences that Bennet faced in Frisco and Bristol opposed them -- with a ferocity that supporters did not come close to matching. "This is nothing more than a grab of control over our lives, and we don't want it," one woman screamed at the senator in Bristol. Strategists in both parties think that the intensity audible last month -- "the guns of August" -- could foreshadow a surge of conservative turnout in the 2010 election.
Just as ominous for Democrats are signs that the independent voters who flocked to the party in 2006 and 2008 may be growing uneasy with the cost and sweep of Obama's plans. "I don't think there is any doubt that those unaffiliated voters who swung so heavily to Obama in 2008 ... are very concerned about the substance of his presidency," says Dick Wadhams, chairman of Colorado's Republican Party. Ciruli, the independent Denver pollster concurs, saying, "Those unaffiliated voters are now in a very ambivalent position and are trending at least somewhat against the president."...
It's not clear that Democrats can hold the region's swing voters and avoid an uprising from conservatives while attempting to implement their party's national priorities. Democrats, after all, also lost ground across these states during Clinton's presidency, and their gains since 2002 came as they were resisting Bush's ideas -- not spotlighting their own. "The Democratic image here was moderate when compared against an incredibly conservative image of George Bush," Ciruli says. "But are Democrats [seen as] moderates against the image of an incredibly aggressive Democratic agenda?"
Go read the entire article, which describes the various Rocky Mountain West Dems across the region who are now in serious electoral trouble in 2010.
@daniel
+++ What is wrong with trading universal health coverage and insurance regulations for tort reform and letting insurance companies compete across state lines? +++
The problem with it is that your suggestions would do nothing to reduce medical costs or improve medical care, nor to provide care for those who don't currently have insurance. These these are the goals we're trying to address, your suggestions aren't helpful.
"Tort reform" is code for "let's prevent people from suing companies when the companies knowingly cause damage to them." That does nothing to improve health care or lower costs. And don't go on about malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits - that argument is really just yet another reason to reform the insurance industry. "Tort reform" is unrelated to health care reform.
Allowing insurance to be bought across state lines simply insures that all insurance companies will relocate to the state with fewest regulations, which would allow them to deny more coverage and charge higher rates. We need to prevent the abuses insurance companies engage in, rather than encourage them all to change headquarters to the place where the worst abuses are legal.
And you want to drop "universal coverage" and "insurance regulation"? Those are the two things we actually need, the things we're trying to accomplish.
It may be significant that would suggestion amounted to, basically, "let's give up on what we have agreed to do, and instead do what we can to make matters worse - but to benefit the companies that have been screwing us."
Do you work for an insurance company>
Ok, the long answer disappeared into cyperspace while I went to get my summary links.
The nutshell of that dissertation is those of us who are health care workers and know what is going on, how we got here, what kind of people are getting what kind of care and how to sort through the statistics to find the correlations, are dumbstruck by the off topic, irrelevant arguments that the GOPers in particular are making. There are some thickheaded, blind and deaf Dems too.
Rachel Maddow did a phenomenal job following up on one set of statistics. Watch some government doesn't work GOPers put together the tragic results of non health care. Remember those numbers reflect adolescent girls, not all of them black by any means.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/rachel-maddow-nails-south_n_291337.html
Now factor in a statistic she left out. The highest rate of teen pregnancy is in states with the highest level of evangelical residents. The barefoot and pregnant dreamers in league with men who fear strong women.
In the approximately 24 hours since this was posted, 120 Americans have died specifically because they had no health care.
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
In my lifetime, including 35 years in health care, the government put 2 men and a flag on the moon in 8 years. Started Medicare and had it running well in under 10 years. Among other things.
In 60 years, the health insurance companies have taken us from a reasonably effective and priced health care system to something that is unspeakably inhumane. And we dither and dicker over the reformation, cost, political fallout.
We need a 9/11 response, not another Katrina fiasco.
I agree completely with Nate. The poll the Democrats need to be concerned with is 2 years, 4 years, 20 years from now. This healthcare bill will be hung around the Democratic parties neck for the next 20 years. It can either be a medal of honor or an anvil holding them down.
The Blue Dogs and others need to realize that once this bill passes. regardless of what the opinions of their uninformed constituents are now, they will be measured on the overall success of the bill. If costs continue to skyrocket, coverage is less than universal, or mandated private insurance becomes burdensome, it will be treated as a FAILURE. The Republicans will never let the public forget it.
The Democratic party needs to stop looking at the immediate polls and look to the future. The polls today measure uncertainly and fear....the future polls will measure success or failure.
Bart DePalma said...
In an essay blah, blah, blah
~~~~~~~~~~
No BDP, go tell all the conservative blogs, which you obviously agree totally suck! to read the whole article, eh.
Keep hope alive BDP. keep hope alive!
some folks seem to be confused about my post.
I was suggesting a deal: dems get universal coverage and insurance regulations ( companies can't deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions or drop them after they get sick). Republicans get tort reform and insurance across state lines.
A deal has to be made somehow ... at least with conservative dems. Right now, the deal seems to be to scale back the universal converage and insurance regulations. Even if you don't like tort reform and insurance across state lines ... isn't it much better to bargain with that?
I would also strongly defend tort reform on its own merits. I work at a medical college ... and it is all doctors talk about. The next time you have a doctors visit, ask him what his premium is. Tort reform is just about the only thing republicans are asking for that makes any sense.
As for allowing insurance across state lines
1) the government can issue minimum guidelines
2) this is a big deal for small states which don't have the population base to get a decent group rate.
Of course, the point about all insurance companies will move to the state with the fewest regulations is true. Credit card companies all operate out of a few states. And we need a few extra regulations to curb some of their abuses. But, I do appreciate having a large number of choices, and a consistent price for each state I have lived in. Auto insurance works more like health insurance does, and it is very annoying to have to change coverage whenever you move from state to state. The price also varies pretty substantially.
Honestly, I'm not sure that the selling insurance across state lines is a big deal ... there are pros and cons ... except that Republicans want it and I am perfectly willing to give it to them if it will allow me to expand coverage and get needed insurance regulations.
Oh, and I did read Obama's speech. What I read was
1) Lets implement the dem ideas
2) Lets start pilot programs for the republic ideas
sorry ... If I'm a republican (please don't call me that ... it is a dirty word)
I flush that offer down the toilet.
@daniel,
Yes, I did read your post wrong. Thank you for clarifying, and I apologize for my error.
Allowing insurance to be sold across state lines might not suck too bad if a) there are really really strong federal regulations, and / or b) there is a really really robust public option so the sellers of the most craptastic insurance go out of business almost immediately.
Tort reform is okay of there are no limits on jury awards, and if the right of a consumer to sue is not in any way infringed. (The deck is stacked in favor of big corporations enough as it is.) If we're talking about tort reform as it pertains specifically to health care, perhaps some strict (and federally-enforced) definition of what constitutes malpractice, so that legitimate suits can clearly go forward.
As for Obama's speech - there are already hundreds of Republican-proposed amendments in the existing bills, and Obama specifically mentioned a couple of them.
And as for "implement our policies, we'll start a pilot program for yours" - well, the Dems won. Overwhelmingly. Elections have consequences. And this is far more than Bush and the Republicants ever offered. And the Party of No has been spitting at the Dems ever since November, refusing to cooperate or negotiate in good faith on anything at all - so it's time to cut them loose.
>>And as for "implement our policies, >>we'll start a pilot program for >>yours" - well, the Dems won. >>Overwhelmingly. Elections have >>consequences.
and
>>And the Party of No has been >>spitting at the Dems ever since >>November, refusing to cooperate >>or negotiate in good faith on >>anything at all
aren't these two things mutually exclusive? Perhaps I have misunderstood ... but the first comment sounds to me like : to bad there isn't anything important to republicans in the bill we won the election .... and the second sounds like: why won't the damn republicans negotiate in good faith?
>>And this is far more than Bush >>and the Republicants ever offered
ummm, didn't Bush suck really really really really really really bad. I did more than Bush doesn't even remotely cut it. I am hoping for (and expecting) a lot better than that.
As for tort reform (in regards to health care) ... what do you think about using some form of binding arbitration. There are some nice selling points for hurt people. It is much faster (trials often take years!)... and you won't have to pay half what you get to a lawyer (1/3 what you get + expenses).
@daniel,
Yes the two comments are mutually exclusive, except for the historical context. That is, from the time of the election on, the Repubs been uncooperative, even though Obama and the Democratic majority have bent over backwards to offer bipartisan negotiations. Now, after months of it, and after increasingly violent rhetoric from the right wing, and after it's clear the Repubs' only strategy is to Just Say No, it's time to stop pretending they're going to ever negotiate in good faith.
Your suggestion on tort reform - to allow binding arbitration in some cases - is certainly a good idea worth exploring further. Like anything, it could be abused, so there would need to be strong safeguards. And the arbitrators would have have to be appointed from a federally-approved pool, rather than by the corporation being sued, as is the usual case today.
Davy,
I think an ambush would have been best. If you look at the recent behaviour of the Right-take, for example, the recent evisceration of ACORN - you will see that these people are not interested in a civil dialogue, any more than a serial killer is interested in hearing your thesis on why we all have a right to live in peaceful coexistence.
They're out to destroy people, not just win an election or an argument. They really want total annihilation, and they genuinely hate us. I don't mean that euphemistically, either. They're going after little people now, not just the big fish-look what they did to Planned Parenthood. These people aren't interested in participation in civil dialogue or the political process-they want blood. YOUR blood.
You can't reason with a sociopath. And I tell you, these corporatist thugs are just that-their single minded pursuit of money and power has so consumed them, they no longer hew to the conservativism of William F Buckley, Edmund Burke or Benjamin Disraeli. These people are thugs.
Now, I live in one of the most violent cities in America. We've held the title for Murder Capital of the World for a few years now-not that I'm proud of that or anything. Its just that living here, you see what real evil looks like on a day to day basis. And you can't reason with it when you come across it. You can get away from it or get it before it gets you, but there's no talking it down.
Same with the corporatist bastards. You'd have better luck with Ted Bundy, as far as negotiating your survival in a scrap with that lot.
You know that old clichè, politics ain't beanbag? I don't wish to scold you, my friend-especially since you are an ally-but grow up. The other side obviously does not fight fair-you can see what their idea of a fair fight is just by tuning into Faux News. The only kind of liberal they can stomach is Alan Colmes. Which is to say, if you're not a total jellyfish that's ready to roll over in an instant and admit defeat every single time, they're not interested in talking to you.
Davy, this is a bloodsport.
A quick addendum. Well, quick by my standards, anyway.
You mention that its a good thing that we got people talking about it. Unfortunately, this perspective lacks a sense of history. The truth is, people have have been talking about this for quite some time now. Universal healthcare was first proposed in Congress during the Taft administration a century ago. It first got significant Presidential attention under FDR, when he considered it as part of the Social Security Act. He decided against it, because even he didn't think he could get it past Congress-and he was the bravest President we've ever had, save maybe Lincoln. Truman made a serious run at it, later JFK and LBJ. To say, "we started people talking about it" is disingenuous. That conversation has been going on alot longer than you and I have been alive.
To say we restarted the conversation would be to imply that it had ever stooped. It hadn't.
So what can we say we reasonably accomplished with this whole circus? Nothing positive, I'll tell you that. Had you hit them hard and fast, without giving the insurance racket a chance to respond, we could have gotten the brass ring-universal single payer. Enough Democrats won talking that up during their election and re-election campaigns in 2008, the iron was already hot.
Davy, I think the real problem I have with most liberals is the way they handle the otherwise virtuous trait of trying to see all sides of an issue. Its good to do this, but you can't be so slow about it so as to let it paralyze you. Further, its is, as you have noted, a failing strategy to pursue bipartisanship on any level-temporarily, that bumped BHO's numbers in the pools, but that faded fast during the August Meltdown, didn't it? His numbers are now worse than ever, because he looks paralyzed. Its obviously now that he is so slow, so deliberative, and so dependent on bipartisanship-its like he's asking the GOP for permission. Well, the American people didn't vote for the GOP, did they? Obviously, they aren't interested in seeking the GOP's permission. Why are you/we?
This is a situation where quickness is better than slow deliberative debate. You can blow sunshine and roses up your ass about how good it is to engage in a dialogue, but you got mauled trying to dialogue with sociopaths.
And consider this for a second... when everything is a never-ending committee meeting, when we're always waitingf ro the right time before we act, when nothing ever seems to get done... how patient do you think the electorate will be in 2010? You have genuine power right now-a 60 (!) seat majority in the Senate. You will not have that many seats again come January 2011.You either get your hands out of your pockets and act now wile you still can, or I guarantee you, you will not be able to get anything through the Senate after you lose the 2010 elections. Which will happen if you continue to look weak, ineffective, powerless to act, incapable of changing anything, and dependent on your opponent. The electorate will endure much idiocy if you,re hard-they have no patience for softness
Statler, you have a very bad case of projection. Deranged.
Well, between the overabundance of media and politicians, we end up with a circus act. Like they say, opinions are like a-holes. Its not hard to find one. But in politics each person has and is an a-hole most of the time.
I do believe that if the media was gone completely, people would shine their true colors more favorable towards a sensible proposal like Obama's.
But their judgment is clouded and confused by all the rhetoric and lies being manufactured on a daily basis.
Instead of pointing fingers every two seconds, people should ban together and anhilate the media once and for good. That is the only way we'll ever see any real progress in the way people want to see it. The rich truly believe that this is their country and poor people do the dirty work for them, in other words, slavery. ANd some poor people believe it and accept it because they are lazy cowards, like most Kyians.
But I believe the world is exactly what I want it to be. It just takes effort and time to eliminate the obstacles. Dont count on getting too much help from a neighbor.
But still, instead of talking shit from behind a computer 1000 miles away from the next supporter, we all need to invest our time and money into getting together for the sake of creating a melting pot that forms a bigger voice. Those who can make changes wont listen to individuals. Thats been proven. And these message boards dont amount to crap in the end. They are only tools for construction.
So anyone can get on here and say yay or nay to a proposal and that doesnt mean anything. All political roads lead to one place. And that is the existence of anything and everything that either doesnt work, or doesnt need to exist at all. That goes for most government jobs.
Too much damn tolerance in this country.
Our President is hopping from one Sunday news program to the next giving each a gift of his inimitable wisdom:
To ABC's "This Week:"
President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don't would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. "I absolutely reject that notion," the president said...Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama told ABC's "This Week."
"I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier is part of the way that we're going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
This may be Obama's biggest whopper since his speeches describing how he is running GM only in the next sentence to deny he is running GM.
Yet despite so many weeks of speeches, town halls and interviews, Obama said he has found it difficult at times to make a complex topic clear and relevant.
"I've tried to keep it digestible," Obama said. "It's very hard for people to get their arms around it. And that's been a case where I have been humbled and I just keep on trying harder."
Priceless. Mr. President, the People understand your plan all too well. Most simply know that you are lying about it.
If Obama runs out of tax payer money to keep him out on the hustings giving multiple speeches a day, the RNC ought to think about picking up the bill. Obama is now Obamacare's worst enemy. Does anyone in his party have the nads to tell him to shut up?
BTW, Obama also claimed not to know much about ACORN's problems. Strange, given that Obama trained ACORN for years and paid them hundreds of thousands from his campaign cash to GOTV. I foresee ACORN following Jeremiah Wright under the Obama express bus.
BDP, nobody cares about ACORN, except you wingers.
Keep hope alive!
Statler,
You have me correctly pegged as an optimist. But I’m certainly not a pussy. And I’m cognizant of conservative motives and methodology. But bloodsport as a political outcome isn’t necessarily the most effective way of achieving consensus. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. You know the old saying, ‘catch more flies with honey than with vinegar’? Sorry if that’s a little too Ghandi but if we force stuff down the throats of our opponents then the message gets lost. We become just as offensive (and I would argue, as violent) as those on the other side who wish to do the same.
Don’t get me wrong; I love your scathing and blistering commentary when an ignorant troll shows up here. By the way, where the HELL have you been? I’ve been playing whack-a-troll for a couple of months now and on more than one occasion have called for back-up from you and all I get is silence. What gives? Did you know I’m supposed to actually meet Mule Rider in Memphis next year? That should be fun. That’s presuming he isn’t bluffing and actually lives in Memphis.
Funny you should mention Edmond Burke. I use a quote from him as one of my signatures on e-mail: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. Right on. But back to the subject at hand.
Let’s say the President had showed up with a ‘take it or leave it’ bill complete with public option, no pre-existing condition clause, etc. Republicans would have been rolling on the floor of the senate saying that the Obama administration is an autocracy that cares nothing about what the right thinks. We certainly can’t accuse him of not trying to live up to the promise of bipartisanship.
I’m hungry. Gonna go make coffee and a bagel. I’ll be back.
Way to go, Davy. I agree with you about BDP.
As for an organization that has misused federal funds - just say one word - Halliburton. Tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions.
Anyway, that's irrelevant to the topic of this thread - has opinion on helthcare reform stabilized? I think it has. 70% of doctors want a public option or a single-payer system. The general public agrees with them in roughly equal percentages. These numbers haven't changed much, and I don't expect them to.
Huge majorities want meaningful health care reform, and those majorities don't seem to be changing much.
It's going to happen this year.
BDP, Reps are now making' the same mistake Dems made in the past ie thinkin' small.
Last year, it was Pelosi this, Pelosi that when most voters didn't know who the hell Pelosi is. Heck, 77% of Oklahoma hs students didn't know Washington was the first president lol. You think Reps are gonna know who Pelosi is. Unfortunately for Reps there are now more informed voters than uninformed voters er Rep voters.
After cheney/bush the Rep meme of hate, fear, national security, national defense no longer applies.
The tables have turned.
Big picture Bart, big picture! Your ad nauseam minutia of irrelevance is only slightly amusing and wearing thin by the hour ...
take care
Shiloh/Shrinkers:
ACORN was an aside in my post, not the subject. This criminal organization living off of tax payer money only really concerns conservatives. That's OK. Just one more reason to go to the polls next year.
The subject of my post was Obamacare and Obama's lies about it. The stakes do not get much larger than your health and the 1/6 of the economy made up of health care. A voter would have to live in a cave not to know about Obama and his Obamacare.
Given that support for Obamacare is well below 50%, Obama has to be insane picking a fight with the plan's union supporters by coming out for Baucus' tax on high cost health insurance plans. No half intelligent union member is going to believe Obama when he blithely claims that his hard fought for cadillac health insurance is unnecessary and a tax on that insurance is not really a tax at all.
Obama has a spine of marshmallow so I expect that the sh!tstorm that will come from Big Labor over the next week will cause him to back down yet again. Maybe if Obama caves really nicely, Big Labor will say something nice about him like Putin just did.
This is like political NASCAR where you can kick back with a beer and watch the Obamacare car crash and spin out of control because the driver simply does not know how to drive.
BDP, again as your ad nauseam minutia of irrelevance marches on, one is now using ad hominems re: Obama as one talks about lies and of course, the Rep party of Limbo, Beck, palin, etc. is 100% lies as it was last year when Obama slam dunked the party of No!
but, but, but
Keep hope alive!
btw, who's gonna lead your Rep discombobulated sheep back to the promised land? Jindal, mittens, Huckabee, palin, Sanford, Perry, Ensign, Vitters, Bachmann, Blackburn, Gingrich, Joe Wilson ...
hmm
p.s. BDP, you really are a closet bigot, as spineless Obama has thrown Rev. Wright, Van Jones, Patterson, Kanye West, etc. under the bus.
Really, really bothers you that an African/American family is living in the White House for the next 3+ er 7+ years, eh.
Underestimate Obama at one's own peril!
Here's a question to consider -
I expect the Dems to pass a good health care bill, including a strong public option, without a single Republicant vote in either house, (maybe through reconciliation, maybe with a 60th vote from Kennedy's replacement from Mass). The voters, who overwhelmingly want heath care reform, will punish the Republicants next year by giving the Dems 1 to 3 more senate seats, and maybe another 15 - 20 seats in the house.
So the question is, faced with such continuing crushing political and electoral defeats, will the Republicants continue to simply oppose anything the Dems do for the remainder of Obama's two terms? Or will they begin to realize the self-destructive path they're on, and actually begin to negotiate some major legislation in good faith?
Or, faced with impending irrelevancy and with the public increasingly recognizing the idiocy of the Republicant policies - past and present - will they ratchet up the violence further? Will we begin to see the Whignuts committing greater numbers of violent acts, on top of the hateful rhetoric and blatant threats they have been doing?
In other words - will the self-induced ongoing marginalization of the Republicant right wing lead eventually to a moderation of their craziness, or an increase of it? Or some combination thereof - perhaps a more moderate "official" Republican party, but also a breakaway third party of Palin/Bachmann/Boehner/Cantor/Limbaugh/Beck secessionist nuts?
Shiloh:
Getting elected is not governing. Carter got elected.
Giving speeches is not governing. Kennedy gave better speeches.
Obama has not enacted any legislation of note during his entire brief political career. None, nada, zip. It is now becoming painfully apparent why. Obama simply does not have a clue how the legislative process works. Here is a primer Barack:
1) Submit a piece of legislation you want enacted. Not a vague one page bullet point outline, but rather an actual piece of legislation setting out how your plan will actually work. Obama keeps blathering about his plans but offers no actual legislation.
2) Get the hell off the television and start personally lobbying the Congress critters you will need to vote for your legislation. See LBJ or Reagan spending hundreds of hours on the phone jawboning Congress critters. In contrast, Obama has had one meeting with GOP leaders, maybe a handful of meetings with Dem leaders and no reported contact with individual backbenchers of either party. Apparently, Congress is supposed to be so in awe of The One that it will simply bow to his will. Welcome to the real world.
3) Set a line in the sand that you will veto bills generated by Congress that undermine your plan. Veto some less important bill beforehand to show Congress you are serious. Instead, Obama is allowing folks like Baucus to undermine his primary goal - the public option - and pick a fight with his labor union supporters with taxes on their heath insurance. Then Obama goes brain dead and actually joins Baucus.
Finally, playing the race card is the last refuge of liberal scoundrels who know they are losing the debate on the substance of an issue. Do you know what the letters F O mean?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Keep hope alive!
hmm, did I strike a nerve?
... and the truth shall set you free!
take care
A primer for you, BDP - Constitutionally, the President does not submit bills to Congress, except budgets. Congress creates bills, and sends them to the President. So you have the sequence backwards, and Obama is doing it properly - that is, suggest policies, and rely on Congress to craft legislation.
Simply because Bush/Cheney wanted to create an imperial presidency that dictates to Congress, that doesn't mean that's how the process in America is supposed to work.
"This is not the ACORN I knew."
-Obama
Our president is simply the most tedious, ponderous, monotonous, overexposed chief executive in our lifetimes.
Flounder is not just for dinner tonight.
Let's see...
Will Obama give another endless round of staged "town halls" this week or next pushing for health care "reform"?
Will the president give another so-called "historic" speech in front of the UN chock full of self-referential platitudes, straw men arguments, and false moral equivalencies?
Why yes...yes he will...
That's just what he does...
"
If the bill is at least partially bi-partisan, then you have a chance."
The Republicans haven't offered any kind of a plan of their own, whatsoever. So what is the point in starting over when there is no guarantee that they will do their part to try to make the bill "bi-partisan". It seems to me that when the Repubs say they want a bi-partisan bill, what they really mean is that the has to have everything they want for them to vote for it.
"Finally, playing the race card is the last refuge of liberal scoundrels who know they are losing the debate on the substance of an issue. Do you know what the letters F O mean?"
Who's playing the race card? It's FOX, Rush and other conservative outlets trying to make us all focus on ACORN and a white kid getting beat up by black kids on a school bus.
Kudos to you on "scoundrels" though. Haven't heard that word in awhile.
"Will Obama give another endless round of staged "town halls" this week or next pushing for health care "reform"?"
It's beyond ironic that you complain about Obama's town halls as staged, as opposed to the scream-fests that went on all through August.
When the president, yet again, for like the one hundredth time, restates his tired arguments for health care reform...deliverd in that ponderous, monotonous baritone...I can just feel my eyelids begin to droop.
Yes it is safe to admit it, the president is a complete bore.
"Ah...health care reform is critical...to bend downn the cost curve...ah...I mean, health insurance reform...ah...public option is vital...ah...actually it's just a small sliver of...ah...as I have stated...let me be clear...ah...health care reform...ah..."
Ghandi didn't live long enough to have to contend with the hard realities of rebuilding India after the occupiers left. Had he, I think he would have had to face the very difficult task of keeping the place from collapse.
The GOP has morphed away from Edmund Burke, into a quasi-religious cult that thinks that gods and money are the same thing, hates science and dehumanizes their opponents. The conserva-dems are the same thing, except that they have the additional membership of people that still resent losing a war 150 years ago and can't move on from there.
Why negotiate with that? If I say, "gay people are American citizens too" they say "God says kill the gays". If I say, "Atheists have a right to live without being harassed by religious folk", they claim all the founders were religious nutjobs too-and conveniently ignore the parts where the Founders claimed that chirstianity was bullshit. If I say, "Clean air and water are healthier than pollution" they say "god made us the masters of this world, and no matter how we abuse it, only god can kill it". If I say, "Working people have a right to a living wage, healthcare and a place to live" they reply, "god hates poor people, because poor people are just lazy, irresponsible and deserve it".
There's no reasoning with that. They're hard, too-not at all soft. You think you're negotiating with them, only they never give an inch, while demanding that you give a mile. That's not haggling, that's getting fleeced. And why should you haggle with them anyway? The Electorate approved the Democratic platform, not the Repugnant platform. They endorsed liberalism at the polls in November. You have a mandate. Why won't you act on that mandate?
Now, the electorate is pretty impatient right now-they hungry, scared about their futures, mostly approaching retirement age after having had their 401K's wiped out last fall. They're looking at their kids, and wondering if we're ever going to forgive them for screwing up the planet and sending our brothers and sisters off to die in 2 wars nobody wants to fight. And those like me are looking at graduation day nervously, wondering if we can even find a fast food job after having busted our asses for the past four years for a future that may never come. People want shit to get done, you promised them you'd fix the mistakes of the past 8 years to get elected-well, you're in now, and we all want you to get to work. Delaying things, dragging your feet, making excuses about how, "well, we have to be bipartisan" is bullshit. Stop dicking around and get to work.
@Statler
I can't argue with any of that.
In case you missed it the other night, Moyers through down the gauntlet to the President quite nicely, I think.
Haven't heard it yet, I'll see if I can download the podcast of it later.
I must say, I respect Bill Moyers alot. He does tend to wander off into religion a little too much for my tastes, and I wonder if the reason why he has not featured a single story about GLBT issues in the time I've been paying attention to him is because of his religion. I also wonder how much influence he has over Obama-he couldn't get LBJ to stop the war, and he worked for LBJ.
Somebody has to get in there and help the President get a little steel in his spine, help toughen him up a bit. He's a good man, and I trust him, I just wish he had a harder punch. I wonder sometimes if he isn't afraid to get hard on his opponents-America is still plagued with racist fears of the Angry Black Man coming to get revenge for 500 years of raw deals. I wonder if he isn't so conscious of that, and isn't so afraid of that ruining his Presidency from the moment he gets tough onward, that it has paralyzed him.
Unfortunately, his opponents are the agents of unreason-they either are incapable of or unwilling to engage in rational dialogue.
Statler, I agree completely. You say you're approaching graduation day - I'm one of the ones approaching retirement. I can find no fault with what you've said.
We have all just lived through 8 years of hell, the most corrupt and incompetent and destructive administration in American history. We now have an energetic and exciting new president, but also a Congress scared of its own shadow - and we have just lost one of the greatest statesmen the country has ever known.
We are facing unprecedented challenges, mostly created by Bush and his gang of crooks. Digging out of the hole the Republicants have put us in will take us a while. But we'll get there.
The next step is meaningful health care reform. We will get that done this year.
@Statler
RE: Moyers and GLBT. He is from the south and (as you pointed out) he did work for LBJ. GLBT issues are probably not on his radar and he probably grew up with a healthy dose of christian indoctrination. I didn't have much awareness of GLBT issues until I escaped to the PacNorWest and started accumulating friends in that community.
I've used the poker analogy previously. I think Obama is holding a good hand and will go all-in if necessary. I've met the man; campaigned hard for him in the Nevada primaries. I think he'll show his hand soon enough. One thing I know is that he is a calculating kind of person.
It is unfortunate that the conservative right can only unite behind the concept of resisting any change in the health care system. Not surprising, I suppose, since the game has been rigged for so long and it's hard to get the pig away from the trough when it's full of gruel. And you're right, the Dems are at some point have to unzip their pants and put their collective junk on the table.
Sorry people,
I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and ignore BDP, PK, and MR but I occasionally get suckered into responding to their tragic, pathetic, idiocracy. I deleted my vehement remarks so as to keep this dialogue valid.
Namaste
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment