There's a lot of confusing goings-on in PublicOptionLand today, which I'm not particularly going to try to unpack -- check out Ezra Klein for the most coherent attempt to summarize the situation. But one narrative I'm seeing pretty commonly is that the White House is willing to make too many sacrifices -- for instance, giving up on an opt-out public option in exchange for a trigger -- in order to secure Olympia Snowe's vote and be able to call the health care bill "bipartisan".
I don't doubt that the White House perceives real political value in having a health care bill that has at least one Republican on board. Whether the trade-offs they're willing to make are "worth it" or not, I don't know. Nor do I doubt that, from the very beginnings of the process, the policy wing of the White House has been somewhat neutered on the public option (to put it generously).
But I don't think this is the crux of the issue -- I don't think the White House's position is primarily dictated by a desire for 61 votes on a motion to proceed with the health care bill as opposed to exactly 60. Rather, I suspect they don't perceive exactly 60 votes -- meaning, something strictly along party lines -- as being in the cards.
From a policy standpoint, Olympia Snowe is arguably to the left of at least two or three Democratic senators -- Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Mary Landireu -- on health care. From a politics standpoint, she probably has more to lose than a Nelson or a Landrieu by opposing the bill, since health care reform is more popular in her state than in Nebraska or Louisiana.
Now, a motion to proceed is not a policy vote -- it's a procedural one. And there's certainly a case that Snowe, being a Republican, is intrinsically less easy to whip than a Nelson or a Bayh or a Landrieu on a process issue.
Nevertheless, all of this isn't happening in isolation. Snowe is meeting with Nelson and Bayh and Landrieu and Max Baucus. That group of a half-dozen or so Senators -- maybe throw Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln in here too -- is liable to vote as a block. It's probably not a completely impenetrable block -- Politico is breathlessly reporting that Landrieu and Lieberman, for instance, may have been won over -- but it seems like an uphill climb for Harry Reid to pick off all other members of the block but not Olympia Snowe. Bayh and Nelson, in particular, appear to be problems. By the way, it may be significant that both Bayh and Nelson are the potential holdouts. If Reid can get down to the point where there's exactly one Democratic opposing the bill, that Democrat will be under a tremendous amount of pressure since he can no longer deflect responsibility.
This is not to say that Reid should stop trying to whip votes. The situation is obviously very fluid, and given the reliance on anonymous sourcing in virtually all of the reporting on the issue, there's a lot that we don't know.
I'm just saying, however, that to castigate the White House for being willing to indefensible sacrifices to the altar of bipartianship is premature. They may not be worried about 61 versus 60 so much as 61 versus 58.
10.23.2009
60 v. 61?
@ 7:04 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
133 comments
The level-playing-field (Federal Program, Negotiated Rates) Public Option with an Opt-Out mechanism is exactly where we should be setting our sights.
A Federal Program paying Medicare +5% is problematic for a number of reasons especially in that the markets where the effects of Medicare cost shifting are strongest would be even further disadvantaged by this arrangement, possibly leading to unsustainable systemic breakdowns. (And yes, I recognize that the status quo is leading us toward unsustainable systemic breakdowns.)
Additionally, some markets may indeed see drastic unintended consequenses from a public option, and so the ability to opt-out without a federal shutdown could actually be beneficial (as well as an incentive for the public option to benefit every state). This is a bit counter-intuitive in that this scenario is actually only more likely in locations who are probably the most pro-public option philosophically; while the states who are most certain to depend on a viable public option are the most likely to oppose it on a referendum or a state legislature (ideologically at least).Be that as it may, such a public option really would have a large enough market share to be considered robust, and has a very interesting, very seldom discussed Actuarial advantage over just about any other private health insurance.
Namely, Private insurance plans can only expect to keep their members for a finite number of years. Most of these members are through employer groups whose employees turn over at a fairly consistent rate. This turnover rate means that investing in preventative care today can only pay off in ten or fifteen years if that member is still employed by that firm and insured by the same company. (Of course, often times members leave and come back to the same company - but not enough and as predictably as necessary).
But a public option has a high likelihood of keeping a member for a long time as many of these members will be in lines of work which will not be employment dependent, (some will come in and out of course) but most relavantly, everyone will end up in Medicare!!Because everyone ends up in Medicare, the public option can actually become incentivized by saving future Medicare money by investing in longer-term health and wellness prevention. This is an absolutely critical connect-the-dots exercise.
Having the public option negotiate rates and contracts seperate from Medicare will allow better innovation along these lines (although we should expect the public option to probably base its fee schedule off Medicare as it enters into contract negotiations.)
The other critical piece is that the Individual Mandate needs teeth. The insurance companies were dickheads when they came out with their reports a couple of weeks ago, but they were right on the point about how critical it is that an individual mandate be an actual mandate. Self-selection is just too obvious an insurance problem and with the lengths we are going to make insurance affordable and accessible to everyone, we need to make it unacceptable to choose to go uninsured.
(sorry for the repost)
Exactly right. So many articles seem to presume the Dems have an automatic 60. That is just not the case on almost any hard issue. Especially with Lieberman, with his pride in sniping from the sidelines. I also love it when articles imply that if Reid is "close to 60" that means it is only a matter of time before he converts one more to this or that public option. Also not the case!
Hi Max Baucus. I hate you. I WILL max out for any challenger anyone can scrounge up.
...any Dem challenger...and maybe a socially liberal Repub...
I thought a bunch of them were interested in the opt-out option, even Nelson.
Maybe the White House thinks that they can pry Olympia Snowe out of the insurance companies' cold, bony hands at the conference commitee. And the longer this whole thing takes, the more unpopular she becomes (because Republicans as well as left Democrats of Maine will be abandoning her). Also, the White House might be thinking that they'd rather not want to take a risk at this stage of the process. After all, the House will certainly get a relatively liberal bill (probably not the perfect public option, but something close to it). So, if the Senate ends up with a strong trigger and the House ends up with a semi-strong public option the conference committee could merge these bills to a semi-strong opt-out public option. I'm also thinking of Valpey's national level-playing-field version.
LDOF-
lots of talk, the White House might even have gone against the opt-out. We will likely never know the real story, the two things we do know? Snowe and Baucus are the key folks stopping the opt-out. A dem has no excuse for that position.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/sources-white-house-pushing-back-against-senate-public-option-opt-out-compromise.php?ref=fpb
It's time for progressives to face facts - Obama is against us on health care reform. Whether it's because he made a secret deal with the insurance companies to kill the public option (like his secret deal with big Pharma to prevent the government from negotiating for lower prices), or because he just simply doesn't give a shit and is taking the path of least resistance so he can sign a bill and declare victory (no matter how crappy the bill is), the result is the same. If Obama truly wanted a public option, he would be out there saying that any bill he signs must include it. All his "I support the public option, but..." crap does is give cover to the Congressional Dems who are bought and paid for by the insurance industry to kill it (and the so-called "trigger" is just another way to kill the public option; Snowe's trigger is specifically designed so that it will never activate).
Let me say this as clearly as I can. I didn't just vote for Obama last year. I gave him hundreds of dollars and worked my ass off to convince as many people as I could to vote for him. But if he signs a bill that forces people to buy health insurance without a public option, he will not get one dime of my money, one minute of my time, or even my vote in 2012. And you can bet your ass that there are a LOT of progressives out there who feel the same way I do.
This is crunch time for Obama. We delivered for him; if he doesn't deliver for us, there's going to be hell to pay.
I wouldn't want to be the lone Democrat that stepped into history's path on this one.
60 is only the threshold to stop a filibuster. if they can get the democrats to vote for cloture then they can vote however they want on the bill and only 50 votes plus biden are really needed to pass the bill. that means nelson, bayh, lincoln, pryor, bill nelson, landrieu, conrad and even 3 others could vote against the bill. the informal rule is that you owe your leadership the procedural vote which is to stop the filibuster in this case. they can vote their conscience on the actual bill, but the threshold for passing the actual bill is 50+1.
the prime example of this was the medicare prescription bill which only had 54 votes after the potential filibuster was defeated.
I'd love to see these health insurance negotionations actually taking place. Maybe put them on C Span or something. So, we actually knew where things stood, as opposed to listening to the spin coming out in press reports.
Didn't some politician or another suggest this?
*
Evan Bayh = Corrupt
Insurance industry paid his wife (conduit) $2,100,000.00 during the last three years.
http://snipurl.com/spfp5
They didn't pay Evan all the money for nothing. They bought his vote.
Burt-
If Obama truly wanted a public option, he would be out there saying that any bill he signs must include it.
==============================
I'm sure you're old enough to remember Clinton did that in 1993 and it failed. He went on tv, in front of a joint session on congress, and said he would veto any bill that didn't provide 100% universal coverage.
it didn't work. they didn't pass anything, even though clinton had 57 dems in the senate, including famed legislator Ted Kennedy.
Why repeat the same tactic?
Pat,
Yes, yes. It's all coming back now. The President campaigned on something like that while promising his presidency would be based on transparency.
He must of forgot about that.
Grog,
I do seem to remember something like that...
Where's that quote...Here it is...
"People say, 'Well, you have this great health care plan, but how are you going to pass it? You know, it failed in '93,'" Obama said on Aug. 21, 2008, at a town hall in Chester, Va. "And what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
I kinda want to see who's making the arguments on behalf of the drug companies and the insurance companies...
Why wait until 2012?
Let's impeach Obama now.
Defeating Obama in 2012 and putting winger in the white house will teach the Democrats a lesson, for sure. But that's messy. Republicans just aren't good for the country (nixon, Reagan, Shrub).
But we can always impeach and remove Obama.
And it's doable.
The progressives simply have to join will all the wingers (who always vote in a unanimous block)and he's gone.
The votes are there.
And if biden doesn't do what we want, we'll impeach him too.
But we can always impeach and remove Obama.
On what grounds?
Force them to vote on it. Let them join a Republican filibuster on health care and suffer the consequences at the polls if they want. And kick anyone who does support a Republican filibuster out of their committee and subcommittee chairmanships.
If they can't support bringing health care to a vote, an issue which as been a core plank of the Democratic party for 70-80+ years, then they aren't really Democrats and don't deserve any of the benefits of being counted as Democrats. The vast majority of the public believes that Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate. If there aren't 60 votes for cloture, then they don't, and the sooner that the public at large knows it, the less damage will have been done to the party.
How senators votes on the final bill is between them and the people they represent, but on procedural issues like cloture, you vote with the party or you get out of the party.
Can any of you Americans explain to me why Reid simply doesn't stipulate that any Democrat who joins ANY GOP filibuster will lose all his chairmanships and other privileges granted to him or her by the Democratic leadership AND shall receive no DSCC support during the next election?!?
Here in Germany, that's the kinda pressure party whips often enough exert. On proper votes, rather than procedural ones.
Were I the Senate Majority Leader, I'd simply make it an absolute no-no for any caucus member to desert the leadership on procedural votes.
Why isn't this the norm? Am I missing anything? Or are Reid (and I'm afraid Obama) pathalogically weak?
@Charles
In the US we don't really have strong unified national parties like elsewhere. It is not how are system is designed. The Republicans may make it look like that sometimes but that is largely due to the nature of their ideology and size.
The true nature of parties in the US is coalitions of state parties and caucuses in the legislature to maintain a level of organization. The actions and positions of the individual members determine much of their success, not their loyalty to party because the ultimate power in the party belongs to the voters and not the party hierarchy.
Oops, different Charles, I think.
The main point is that in order to get a number of centrist Democrats the public option either will not be included or it might be included but configured so that will not be sufficient to get the vote of Roland Burris and possibly those of other liberals. If that is the case then any lost votes on the left have to be replaced. It may actually be easier to reach a scenario where more Republican moderates are gained than liberal Democrats are lost versus reaching a scenario where complete unity of the Democratic caucus is maintained.
Charles-
what good would that do?
Evan Bayh is in it for the money. Period. He doesn't care what committee he's on.
As for DSCC campaign support, senators like Bayh are flush with cash from their corporate donors.
put it this way, if you offered Bayh a cool million dollars to resign his committee post, would he take it? of course.
That's why threatening to removing from a committee means nothing when they're being plied with cash and who knows what from the medical industrial complex.
As for obama being weak - he's wasn't my first choice, but I do admire his courage. It takes alot of strength knowing the threat of assassination by the wingers and racists hasn't been this high since 1968.
You and I don't care about his skin color, but the Tim McVeighs and Glenn Becks of the world do.
Oh, Laurence O'Donnell
"Does anybody really believe that Rush Limbaugh can bend over and grab his ankles?"
Oh SNAP!
Why isn't this the norm? Am I missing anything?
Two party system. Ergo a party that is anywhere close to majority tends to cover a lot more political ground. That's going nuclear (it happens, just not often) rather than just flamethrower that it would likely constitute in Germany. Also remember that, not being a parlimentary system, there are no "Non-confidence" votes.
What kind of political advantage or cover does Obama think he will gain by getting Snowe's vote?
Snowe voted for Obama's Porkulus Bill and you can see how popular Obama and the Porkulus are now.
Snowe will not get the Dems to 60 in the Senate because too many Dem Senators are up for reelection in 2010 and will not cross their constituents and vote for a government insurance program.
Are the Dems that desperate for symbolic GOP approval?
Burt said...
Let me say this as clearly as I can. I didn't just vote for Obama last year. I gave him hundreds of dollars and worked my ass off to convince as many people as I could to vote for him.
Yes you will. You Libs will vote for whoever the Party nominates no matter how many times they betray you. You always do. That is why the Dems take you for granted.
Here is some incentive - Sarah Palin in the White House. You betchya you'll vote for Obama!
The president of the United States is an incredibly powerful individual. If he chose to use his weight to push individual members for a public option - something that at this late date we still have no indication whatsoever of him having done - then I think, yes, he could get all 60 Dems/Indies on a procedural vote on an issue that he has already said is the paramount issue of his presidency. While the GOP would relish bringing down the number one issue for this president, I dare any Democrat to stand up and vote with the GOP to kill this bill. Wouldn't happen.
But in any case, before one even looks at your analysis, we're missing one crucial point - we're vote counting and whipping without the help of the White House. That's absurd. Had the president bothered lobbying for his own campaign promise we might not even be in a situation where we're worried about 58 vs 60.
Burt writes:
Let me say this as clearly as I can. I didn't just vote for Obama last year. I gave him hundreds of dollars and worked my ass off to convince as many people as I could to vote for him.
Then you'd have thought you'd have read his platform at least once, and noticed that he never made a single promise about a "public option" in it.
Obama's interest is the "insurance exchange." He thinks that constructing a competitive market for insurance will do more to bring down insurance costs than public competition. A) he's almost certainly right and B) insurance costs are not a major driver of the US's absurd health costs. But apparently people on the far left just really hate doing math. Or, it would seem, reading.
Maybe Obama has seen the latest Rasmussen polling finding that likely voters not trust the GOP over the Dems on every single polled issue for the first time in years, including double digit leads on five out of ten issues and 46% to 40% on health care.
Can you say tsunami warning?
Maybe Obama is hoping that likely voters will trust Obamacare if Snowe votes for it because she is a Republican.
Then you'd have thought you'd have read his platform at least once, and noticed that he never made a single promise about a "public option" in it.
Yeah, and I also remember that he campaigned against mandates to buy insurance, something he now supports 100%, so obviously his campaign promises are, shall we say, "flexible."
Obama's interest is the "insurance exchange." He thinks that constructing a competitive market for insurance will do more to bring down insurance costs than public competition.
Then obviously he hasn't looked at Massachusetts, where they did exactly this (insurance exchanged with no public option). Guess what? It didn't lower health insurance costs at all - they went up drastically.
Without the public option as competition, insurance companies will have no incentive to cut costs. They'll simply collaborate to keep increasing them, and only an idiot would think otherwise.
Bart DePalma said...
finding that likely voters not trust the GOP over the Dems ;)
~~~~~~~~~~
Is Rasmussen using turdblossom's 2006 math? ~ just wonderin' ...
Keep hope alive!
First of all, the trigger was DOA right from the start. No one ever really liked it except as a path to bipartisanship. Second of all, when push comes to shove, Obama will sign a Dem-only bill. He's giving lip service to a bipartisan bill, but remember that it wasn't so long ago that his own administration suggested using budget reconciliation to pass health care. It doesn't get more partisan than that. Obama knows how to be partisan when it's the best (or only) choice available to him.
The problem that we keep making, as outside observers to this process, is thinking that every word or proclamation or statement that comes out of DC is genuine and lasting. Often neither is the case. Politicians say things to position themselves for future challenges. They say things because they think it's expected of them. But at the same time, Obama is a very smart person, and he's going to take a good deal if he can get it. Reid wouldn't be out there talking about a public option now if he didn't think that it was going to be in the final Senate bill. Meanwhile, on the House side, Pelosi is hedging on her "robust" public option. In other words, in case you guys haven't noticed, the two halves of health care reform are starting to merge. The final bill is taking shape right before our eyes.
@BDP
Tsunami?
I think it will be the GOP running for the hills!
From PPP (10/16-19/09):
2010 House: Generic Ballot (chart)
40% Democrat, 29% Republican, 22% independent
If only Democrat or Republican: 48% Democrat, 40% Republican
Rasmussen also says But 73% of GOP voters nationwide think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their voting base.
And shiloh says, 100% of Dems and Ind voters nationwide know for sure Reps in Congress have lost touch ...
p.s. my polling science has been as accurate as Rasmussen over the past (2) years! ;)
Screw 61 votes. And 72 votes. Screw 57. Just get the bill, whatever shape it ends up in, to the floor.
It doesn't take 60 votes to pass it. Only 60 to get it to the floor, like Nate says, only 60 to pass the motion to proceed.
Surely those 60 are an automatic 60, right? I mean, self-preservation is the cardinal principle in all of politics, and if you're a Democrat, you can't join a R filibuster here. Your self-preservation instincts can't allow you to do so. You wouldn't.
Or would you? That looks like political suicide to a well-informed observer like me, but I guess I could be missing something.
(Is it Lieberman? Is he the stick in the wheel? God help us all if he's in the way here.)
And the next time I hear a columnist, pundit, commentator, blogger or commenter tell me it takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate... I will not be held responsible for my actions.
'Surely those 60 are an automatic 60, right?'
You have slept for the last three months, haven't you?
We're talking about the motion to proceed, not the floor vote on health care all the time. The fight for 50 floor votes is another thing.
Yes, you're right, there are Dems who will probably vote for cloture but are not a lock for the floor vote- people like Mark Begich. But we're talking about getting 60 for the cloture vote here.
Forget about 60 votes. Make the Republicans do an old-fashioned filibuster like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Bring in cots, make them read from the DC phone book and show every minute on C-SPAN. Let people see the Party of No in all its glory.
They'd cave within a week and the time wasted would be much less than the time wasted in trying to assemble 60 votes.
shiloh said...
Rasmussen also says But 73% of GOP voters nationwide think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their voting base.
I have been telling you for months that the Tea Party movement was a massive conservative rebellion and not a creation of the GOP.
However, the combination of the finding that the GOP conservative base does not trust the party in general, but trusts it far more than the Dems on major issues should hardly be of comfort to Dems like you and Nate who are banking that low generic GOP approval numbers will translate into low GOP turnout in 2010.
Of note along these lines, as soon as Sarah Palin endorsed Doug Hoffman in NY-23 over the GOP establishment anointed liberal, $116,000 flooded into Hoffman's coffers in one day, and over $200,000 during the past week since his candidacy gained national news. This is not an indication of low interest by the conservative base. They are fired up to take back the GOP and then Congress.
Until we have a health care system that is "not for profit" it is not reform. What medical service or for that matter any service do the insurance companies provide for the millions they make?
BdP-
You are correct, the teaparty movement has created independents and taken away from the repub base. This is GREAT for democrats though as the extreme right is a shrinking minority of the country so those candidates who follow the spend nothing, sow hate, extreme right religious/social agenda will always be a small minority of those elected into Congress - thus the debate we see today on healthcare between moderate dems and liberal dems is likely to be the debate going forward for a long time if the Palin minority really takes hold - thank you Dick Armey!
Ailes has to be kicking himself, or he is completely insane, because the Fox drive to the right has energized a minority of even the Republican base, and highly energized them, to completely screw up any chance of a big tent tent repub party - see NY-23.
Further, if Ailes does run for President (as some this week have encouraged, and he seemed to float a trial balloon this week)he will suck all the airtime on Fox and further screw moderation in the party. THIS COULD BE GREAT - FOR DEMOCRATS!
I think that this is such a non-issue and is being used as cover for Obama. A bill doesnt need 60 votes to pass, it needs 50. It would be a lot easier to convince these few dems that are not inclined to support it - and even Snowe for that matter - that they can vote for closure and still vote against the bill. This will work well for those that oppose the bill simply due to fear of retribution from a right leaning constituency. Reid needs to make it known that these dems can vote anyway they want on the bill without any retaliation, but playing ball with the GOP on procedural games will cost them dearly.
Just get it to the floor and it will get passed.
The other point is this: Who cares if it is 'bipartisan' or not? It is totally irrelevant. Nobody cares now who voted for or against Social Security or Medicare. These are programs that are wanted by the public. This is no different.
Unfortunately, I just don't see many yes-cloture/no-bill votes this time. This is hardly a normal bill but a bill that has been front and center for months and "60 for passage" beat into public's minds in every talking head show.
I just don't see how any senators can thread the needle in this case. With all of this focus on 60 front and center, it's not a simple procedural issue in this matter and people on either side will get mad at hedge-betting.
No conservatives are going to go any lighter on any senator that votes yes/no. And even if it passes in the end, a Democratic senator that votes yes/no isn't going to win any love from Democrats.
I agree with Base. Is it possible that this reaching for as much bi-partisan appearance as possible is just cover for a long held plan to push this reform through by whatever means necessary?
I would not mind. Get it done. It's time. If it looks like President Obama bent over backwards at every turn but still was told "NO", he can do what he needs to do and say, "sorry, they left me no choice..."
Burt writes:
Yeah, and I also remember that he campaigned against mandates to buy insurance, something he now supports 100%, so obviously his campaign promises are, shall we say, "flexible."
So you admit, then, that you never actually bothered to read Obama's platform when you were campaigning for him? Or did you just hope he didn't really mean any of it and that after he was elected he'd turn around and do what you wanted?
As for the mandates, he didn't "promise" not to enact a mandate, anymore than he "promised" not to enact a public option. He was always free to adopt these if congress brought them to him without in any way going back on his word. My point was simply that it's absurd to suggest that you have been "betrayed" by Obama if he fails to sign either of those things into law when he never made any campaign promise to seek either of them.
Without the public option as competition, insurance companies will have no incentive to cut costs. They'll simply collaborate to keep increasing them, and only an idiot would think otherwise.
Yes: that's why we need US Government Computer Manufacturers to force private companies to bring down costs on computers. Oh, and we need US Government Car Insurers to bring down costs on private car insurers.
Oh, wait...no, we don't.
Competition works pretty well as a price regulator. The whole point of the Insurance Exchange is to bring competition to a market which has found various ways of avoiding it.
Yes, healthcare costs have continued to rise in Massachussets. That's healthcare costs. It's not that the insurance companies are making massively increased profits while exactly the same amount of money is spent on healthcare; premiums have risen because more and more money is being spent on healthcare services.
Insurance, as I said before, is not a major driver of the cost of healthcare in the US. Healthcare insurers do not make extraordinary profits (unlike Big Pharma, say). Controlling private insurers premiums via competition with a Public Insurance Option--even if it is successful will do very, very little to contain the overall cost of healthcare in this country.
The Massachussetts plan was to get everyone covered first and then to start thinking about ways to control healthcare spending later (and they're now beginning to). The Federal approach is similar. Let's get people covered--then let's start to tackle the problem of too many unnecessary tests and too many unnecessary procedures; that's where the real savings are to be made.
And, in the meantime, rail against Obama all you want, Burt, but don't pretend he "betrayed" you by simply following through on what he explicitly promised to do during his campaign.
Yoink, I have no problem with people making money for a service that they provide or a product that they manufacture. I have dealt with health insurance compannies for over 35 years and have yet to figure out what service they provide that could not be provided on a not for profit service. The health insurance companies are only motivated by the amount of money they make---the less medical service they allow the more money they make. Health care should be the motivation.
Bradford said...
BdP-You are correct, the teaparty movement has created independents and taken away from the repub base. This is GREAT for democrats though as the extreme right is a shrinking minority of the country so those candidates who follow the spend nothing, sow hate, extreme right religious/social agenda will always be a small minority of those elected into Congress...
The Tea Party movement is both the conservative GOP base and Perotist independents.
Democracy Corps tried to limit it to the GOP base and admitted that even this arbitrarily reduced group made up 20% of the electorate.
In fact, the movement is probably better reflected in the 42% of likely voters Rasmussen finds strongly disapprove of Obama - a figure which exceeds by 10% the entire GOP Rasmussen uses in his likely voter model.
This pissed off plurality joins with Indis worried about the absolutely insane growth in government control, spending and deficits to form majorities of likely voters opposed to issues of common concern like Obamacare.
I am thrilled that the left is ignoring the tsunami warnings and is pressing ahead. This complacency will only suppress the turnout among the young and minorities who usually can't be bothered to vote under normal circumstances.
Last night I was trying to figure out who was joining Nelson in opposing the opt out. Lieberman was my first pick, but Bayh really doesn't surprise me.
Bayh's ties to the insurance industry (and pharma, and medical device manufacturing) are the nature of the beast for any Dem representing Indiana. Just north of the city of Indianapolis proper is a stretch dominated by various insurance headquarters. The state has some of the most severe med mal caps. The state also serves fewer people under Medicaid than many others by imposing greater restrictions. While the legislature has passed some good mandates, cost controls are unheard of.
It isn't just who is giving Bayh money, though. Basically ever since he gave up on running for the Presidency in 2008, he's been trying to create a Blue Dog lite group in the Senate. Don't forget, he linked himself at the hip to Hillary in the primaries, too. He probably hasn't been high on Rahm's call list and sees opposing things like this as a way to create a power base for concessions in the future.
It has nothing to do with the merits of the issue, but his campaign coffers and base.
Burt -
I strongly favor single payer health care overall, and a public option right now. Having said that...
Are you a Republican plant, or just a narcissist? I suspect the former.
Let me say this as clearly as I can. I didn't just vote for Obama last year.
Wow! Did you have to get up early in the morning to do that? Stand in a tiresome line? Oh, the martyrdom.
I gave him hundreds of dollars
The outrage, the martyrdom! Hundreds of dollars, and the President of the United States still isn't doing everything exactly the way you want it?
and worked my ass off to convince as many people as I could to vote for him.
Stop, stop!!! My handkerchief is soaked with tears already! You worked your ass off? You poor, assless man. How you have suffered!
But if he signs a bill that forces people to buy health insurance without a public option,
You got me here, that will piss me off tremendously as well, to put it mildly.
he will not get one dime of my money, one minute of my time, or even my vote in 2012.
Here's where you lose me and raise my suspicions. Obama was running against McCain/Palin in 2012 and will be running against something at least as bad in 2008, because outrageous as this may sound, McCain was one of the least insane people left in that party, and they already used him up.
And you can bet your ass that there are a LOT of progressives out there who feel the same way I do.
And here's where I really start to smell the vague scent of "undercover right wing agent" in the air. "It's not just me - all of you progressives need to stay home and not vote against the Republicans in 2012! Yeah!".
Sorry, I don't think so.
The Tea Party movement is both the conservative GOP base and Perotist independents.
The Perotist independents like Pat Buchanan? There might be a few true budget hawks, maybe even some actual libertarians, in the mix but they are quickly swamped (if not starting outnumbered) by the bigoted, totalitarian social conservatives who quickly toss libertarian ideals and budget restraint under the bus when it doesn't fit their social agenda.
If you were really anything close to a conservative libertarian that would be your fate, any movement you tried to get off the ground gets hijacked by those that ape the ideals either in ignorance or for personal gain. (Of course you are one of the hijackers.)
It's all playing out again in NY-23, although now it's going even further into the crazy than even Gingrich will stand for. And who do we find in the Conservative Party corner? Surprise, surprise Club For Growth. They've managed snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for years now, especially in the NE (although somehow managing to do it in ID, too :O ). Constantly getting un-electable people through the GOP primary, or mortally wounding the otherwise electable candidate.
Now when they couldn't even get an unelectable candidate through the primary they have decided to stab the GOP in the back from the outside. It's flat out civil war by people that have actually had a lot of influence for some time, and have driven the party into near rump status.
BdP-Before you have an orgasm over 2010, I don't think anyone is denying that there is a radical right segment of the population. Always has been. I don't call them conservatives, because they want to roll the clock back at least 100 years, which is not what the word "conservative" means. They also aren't a majority and won't be.
Will the Dems lose some seats in 2010? Well history says yes and 2008 was certainly a historic high-water mark. There just aren't a lot of Republican seats left that the Dems can win right now.
The really important thing for Dems is to pass their agenda and NOT cave. Caving got them 1994. I think most Dems in swing districts can come home and say, "We passed health reform. It isn't perfect, but the present system is unsustainable. Let's try it and fix it where it needs fixing". That's a sensible, salable argument with appeal to moderates. "We passed nothing", is certain death, though, because voters who want nothing passed will prefer the Party of No, regardless of what the Dems do.
Here's where you lose me and raise my suspicions. Obama was running against McCain/Palin in 2012 and will be running against something at least as bad in 2008, because outrageous as this may sound, McCain was one of the least insane people left in that party, and they already used him up.
Yes, he is about as fiscally conservative as is electable. And he plays it up even more than he is.
But he doesn't hate The Gay and doesn't pound on the Bible and rant about "family values" every possible chance he gets, so the GOP "base" is at best 'meh' about him. :/
Nam Vet Joe writes:
Yoink, I have no problem with people making money for a service that they provide or a product that they manufacture. I have dealt with health insurance compannies for over 35 years and have yet to figure out what service they provide that could not be provided on a not for profit service.
I agree that not-for-profits can do the job as well or better than for-profit insurers. A very large number of the health insurers in the US, however, are already not-for-profits. Kaiser--for example--one of the giants in this field--is a not-for-profit.
Look. I want the Public Option. I think it will be a Good Thing. But those who think it's the magic bullet that will get US healthcare spending in line with the rest of the world's just haven't done their homework. Go read Atul Gawande's fabulous New Yorker piece on Health Care costs. Insurance company profits just aren't a big piece of the puzzle. Nor are malpractice suits.
Yes: that's why we need US Government Computer Manufacturers to force private companies to bring down costs on computers. Oh, and we need US Government Car Insurers to bring down costs on private car insurers.
Oh, wait...no, we don't.
Does the government force people to buy computers? No, it does not. If the computer companies raise prices too much, you can just keep on using your old computer instead of buying a new one. And you can opt out of having to buy car insurance by choosing not to drive. In both those cases, the consumer has choices. But that won't be the case after the federal government passes a mandate requiring people to buy health insurance.
I really don't think you have a grasp on what an individual mandate without a public option is going to do to the health insurance market. Not only are prices going to go up, customer service is going to turn to shit. Seriously, what incentive will the insurance companies have to provide good customer service if the government is forcing people to buy their product? The big insurers will slash their customer service budgets to the bone in order to pad their bottom line even more.
The only way to get the insurance companies to stop screwing people over is to have strong, meaningful competition from a public plan. Otherwise, the insurance companies will just keep on doing what they're doing now (or find new ways to do it). The big for-profit insurance companies will have no incentive to do anything else. And if you think some scrappy little company will come along and take all the big insurers' customers by offering low prices and good service, you're dreaming. The barriers to entry in the industry are way too high.
Without a public option, an individual mandate is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the private, for-profit insurance industry. We'll soon find out if that's what Obama wants.
Nam Vet Joe-You are largely correct that insurance company profits are a small part of the picture. Of course, all those small parts add up-a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.
What real competition will do is give an incentive to hold the line on costs. Right now, there isn't one, since they just get passed on to subscribers.
There are a ton of unnecessary procedures. A few years ago, I dislocated my shoulder. Believe me, I knew what happened immediately. Nevertheless, the doc wanted an MRI, which showed, guess what, a dislocated shoulder. Then another appointment and finally he sent me for physiotherapy, which really did help. All the MRI did was delay treatment and run up costs.
Here's where you lose me and raise my suspicions.
I really could give a shit about your suspicions. I've been around here since the primaries last year. Go check some old posts if you're so suspicious.
Or, all you have to do is go look at some progressive blogs to see that there are lots of people on the left who are deeply unhappy with Obama. Like me, they are unhappy for a wide variety of reasons: His flip-flop on FISA and telecom immunity, his failure to lift a finger for cramdown legislation, his inaction on DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, his inaction on climate change, his refusal to prosecute Bush Administration lawbreakers, his continuation of Bush's state secrets claims, and more. Much, much more.
Obama has done nothing but kiss the asses of conservatives since taking office. Progressives have put up with it because we are holding out for the big one. If Obama screws us over on that, too, he is going to have problems on the left. Big problems. Whether you want to believe that or not really makes no difference.
Bart DePalma said...
I have been telling you for months that the Tea Party movement was a massive conservative rebellion and not a creation of the GOP.
~~~~~~~~~~
The teabagger I'm really pissed off an African/American family is living in the White House faux movement is the creation of and totally sponsored free of charge by fixednoise and winger talk radio who are also really pissed off an African/American family is living in the White House.
ie totally staged and not spontaneous for sore losers, like yourself! nothing more, nothing less ...
And yes, you've been telling me and others for months Limbaugh talking pts. and as I am a staunch defender of the 1st Amendment :) please continue to spew your delusional nonsense.
Keep hope alive!
btw, a conservative pure party of No!. Sort of along the lines of the Aryan race, eh. Hey, now it makes perfect sense. ;)
Come'on admit it BDP, the (8) year legacy of cheney/bush is going to be your worst nightmare for the next (30) years ~ added to your present nightmare of an African/American family currently living in the White House.
Oh the humanity!
p.s. keep clinging to your guns, religion and Rasmussen polls and when's your next fixed sponsored teabagger meeting ...
"Obama has done nothing but kiss the asses of conservatives since taking office."
He's earning my vote with that, and I'm not the only one. It's kind of nice having a Democrat in the White house: he gets a peace prize when a Republican would have been pilloried for much, much more pacifistic foreign policies.
BdP-
That grossly over-optomistic thrill running up your leg shows why the repubs will never make it back to power like this. Lets look at the numbers in NY-23 where the teapartiers are for the Conservative party candidate, and the repubs are for the GOP candidate. The NRA and Newt are for the GOP candidate, the Palin bunch is for the Conservative Party candidate. The numbers show Dem 35%, GOP 30%, and Conservative 23%. Your argument is add the last two up in this very conservative district and the GOP wins! Nope, Conservative supporters were asked for their second choices, with only 9% saying they would back the GOP, 3% for the Dem, 26% who wouldn't vote, and 62% who are undecided. WOW! I bet the numbers for the GOP candidate are similar. There were 48% or so of people who did not vote for Obama, 42% of them hate him - who cares that shows no movement - and now look at the schism in those haters - Repubs are hopelessly lost in the woods thanks to the hate on the Fox front. Good news for Dems all around.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/whose-side-are-they-on-the-big-gop-schism-in-ny23.php?ref=fpa
Shiloh-
Also, do not forget all the hatin' the Repubs have done on hispanics and blacks has/is, and will continue, to come home to roost as those are the populations where all the real growth is in coming years (and among Muslims). They have lost these groups for at least a generation, and the Fox and Rush and Palin crowd just keep making sure they will never vote Repub. Good for Dems!
"Racial and ethnic minorities are driving the nation’s population growth and increasing diversity among its younger residents. Hispanics have accounted for roughly half the nation’s population growth since 2000. Already, racial and ethnic minorities represent 44 percent of U.S. residents under the age of 15, and make up a majority of that age group in 31 of the nation’s 100 largest metro areas (and a majority of the entire population in 15). Hispanic populations are growing most rapidly in the Southeast; Asian populations are rising in a variety of Sun Belt and high-tech centers; and the black population continues its move toward large Southern metro areas like Atlanta, Houston, and Washington, D.C."
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/03_metro_demographic_trends.aspx
@harold
Quite the bee in your bonnet.
I can't really fault Burt for his frustrations. I did all those things, too. I'm just a little more cognizant that campaign promises take time. But I know plenty of liberals who feel the same as Burt.
The vitriol wasn't really necessary.
BDP,
it is astonishing how much faith you have in one pollster. Virtually all of the points you have stated in the past few months are anchored by extrapolations of Rasmussen polling. Crucially, you explain away the apparent outlier status of Rasmussen's issue polling by invoking the "likely voter" filter, as well as conflating Rasmussen's issue polling with electoral polling.
Since all of your assertions seem to depend on your absolute faith in Rasmussen's "likely voter" filter, could you please state precisely what constitutes a "likely voter" in Rasmussen's polling?
Let's leave aside the issue that, a year from an election, the use of a "likely voter" model is not called for.
If you do not know what criteria Rasmussen uses for the model, how can you credibly place such enormous faith in it?
And please don't cop out by pointing to Nate's rating of Rasmussen's electoral polling, because this merely displaces your blind faith in Rasmussen with a blind faith in Nate...and we all know that you do not have blind faith in Nate. Likewise, vague things such as asserting that Rasmussen's LV model measures 'enthusiasm' are exercises in circular logic.
What I see is your putative "wave" being split asunder (TPP vs. TPE), while the Party itself is split between TP adherents and 'traditional' Republicans. And if, as you claim, the TP adherents will vote for Republicans anyway when push comes to shove, then you are really just looking at the same old "base" that the GOP went into the 2006 election with, and all of this third-party theory that you have floated is moot.
Uh... Or it could just be a different trigger they're talking about, and this latest TheSkyIsFalling episode could be just more crap for the anti-Obama whiners to whine about.
Whoops forgot linky.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/24/125457/69
Bradford said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Yea, the party of 24/7 negativity w/no new ideas or solutions to any problems is hoping for low voter turnout to win as they are now exclusively the party of southern white guys.
It's all good.
Todd Dugdale…
BDP cites Rasmussen because they always sing his tune. He’ll dance to anybody that sings his tune.
Hey, Burt,
Yeah, I believe you're a liberal (although these days a LOT of "liberals" aren't - it's the old "divide & conquer" gambit). So am I.
And from there we differ. I understand that Barack Obama is not and never has been a liberal. I understood it from the very beginning.
On the other hand, I'm convinced he is a bonafide progressive, and at worst a left-leaning moderate. And that ain't hay!
I'm 63 years old. I first got interested in politics as a supporter of Robert Kennedy. After he was assassinated, I backed Eugene McCarthy. When Humphrey was "selected", I was so angry that I wrote in Kennedy in the election.
I was so very, very wrong to do that. And if I had it to do over, I would. Can you guess why?
Look, this is not a battle we're waging here - it's a war. And a war that's going to be won or lost in the trenches, with a few feet of ground won and held making the difference.
So it's your choice: You can be stupid, like I was, so many years ago. Or you can figure it out early.
Barack Obama is a great President. I firmly believe that. Is he perfect? No. Is he a pragmatist? Yes. But maybe that's exactly what we need right now.
To me, President Obama is an unpredicted hope for this country, a country that I'd about given up on. Pretty hammy, I know. But there it is.
Look, this is not a battle we're waging here - it's a war.
You're absolutely right. This is a war. The only question is whether Obama wants an army on his side or not.
*
@ harold
Priceless snark. Thankyou. Laughter is chicken soup for the soul.
Yes, I guess most people who post on a blog are narcissistic to some degree. I mean, just think about the front pagers at major blogs who constantly claim complete credit for Obama's election. Which is a hoot considering they supported Edwards during the primaries.
Pragmatus wrote:
"BDP cites Rasmussen because they always sing his tune."
That's what I am implicitly stating as well. Again and again he cites Rasmussen, and he brushes away other polls by invoking Rasmussen's allegedly superior "likely voter" screen. Odds are heavy, though, that he has no idea what makes up that screen. He likes what he sees from Rasmussen, so they are therefore the most accurate in his mind.
The Democrats registered record numbers last year, and many of them were either first-time voters or voters that had not turned out frequently enough to maintain their "registered" status. I think it doubtful that Rasmussen's screen would consider these to be "likely voters". However, beyond anecdotes from consultants who claim to have seen the criteria of the screen, I have no evidence of what constitutes a LV in Rasmussen polling.
We have heard this same old refrain every cycle: Democrats will stay home and Republicans will turn out 100%. Everyone who was here for the Presidential campaign heard it from conservatives when it came to the 2008 election. No matter how angry a voter is, though, they still only get one vote. The Republican "base" is about 20% of the electorate. There is polling to back up the assertion that Independents have their doubts about Obama, but there is strong evidence that they draw the line at the peculiar paranoia and outrage exhibited by the "base".
Aside from that, there is no national race in 2010. Extrapolating state outcomes based on national generic polling a year out is deeply speculative, to put it mildly. It is clear that the Republican "base" is not evenly distributed throughout the country.
It seems more likely to me that the "base" will either push for unelectable candidates or vote third-Party. If they do not, then their "TP movement" is toothless in practical terms, and the GOP will merely string them along.
@ Harold:
In all fairness, it could be a Clinton-supporter. It's always been close to impossible to tell the difference between them and rightwingers, where Obama is concerned.
Pragmatus wrote: "BDP cites Rasmussen because they always sing his tune."
Todd Dugdale said... The Democrats registered record numbers last year, and many of them were either first-time voters or voters that had not turned out frequently enough to maintain their "registered" status. I think it doubtful that Rasmussen's screen would consider these to be "likely voters".
In fact, Rasmussen tracked the surge in Dem voters from the outset in 2008 and again pegged the race nearly perfectly.
I took issue with what appeared to me to be Ramussen's ahistorical overcount of Dem voters. However, Rasmussen was right and I was wrong.
Rasmussen still has self identified Dems at around 5 points higher than the GOP in its likely voter model. The reason that Obama and the Dems are doing so poorly in Ramsussen's model is that most of the Indis have joined the GOP against them.
We have heard this same old refrain every cycle: Democrats will stay home and Republicans will turn out 100%....No matter how angry a voter is, though, they still only get one vote.
Outside of Chicago, that is generally true. However, only around 40% of voters generally show up in off year elections. When pissed off voters show up in force, they carry more than their demographic's usual weight.
Who cares about 61? Or 60? Or even 58? All it takes to pass a bill is 50 votes plus Joe Biden.
Todd Dugdale said...
BDP, it is astonishing how much faith you have in one pollster.
Actually, I also like the bipartisan Battleground polling and Pew when they are running their likely voter models. However, neither are doing much if any polling right now.
The other pollsters working now are offering utterly useless polling of adults, only a small fraction of which will vote in 2010, and registered voters of whom only about 40% will vote.
Once again, anyone who declines to vote simply does not count to Congress critters running for re-election or to me.
Since all of your assertions seem to depend on your absolute faith in Rasmussen's "likely voter" filter, could you please state precisely what constitutes a "likely voter" in Rasmussen's polling?
Past voting history and current intensity of concerning the issues and candidates. Given Rasmussen's success in tracking the first time Dem voters last year, it appears his intensity measurements are rather good.
And please don't cop out by pointing to Nate's rating of Rasmussen's electoral polling...
The fact that Rasmussen is highly rated by those who know what they are talking about on both sides of the political divide is a yet another rather telling recommendation.
What I see is your putative "wave" being split asunder (TPP vs. TPE), while the Party itself is split between TP adherents and 'traditional' Republicans. And if, as you claim, the TP adherents will vote for Republicans anyway when push comes to shove, then you are really just looking at the same old "base" that the GOP went into the 2006 election with, and all of this third-party theory that you have floated is moot.
Maybe I need to reclarify something yet again.
There is almost without a doubt a conservative wave building. Whether the GOP can ride that wave as they did in 1994 is still far from certain, although the latest generic congressional and issue numbers released this week are pretty encouraging in this regard.
GOP conservative candidates will ride the wave. GOP liberals like Scozzafava will get crushed by the wave, perhaps to the local benefit of the Dem competition. However, the TP folks have only taken on Scozzafava and maybe Christ in Florida, which indicates they are otherwise happy with the field.
At the rate GOP Presidential candidates are lining up against her (Pawlenty looking to be the next one), Scozzafava would be wise to step down. She does not have a chance. The intensity and money is going to her conservative opponent.
Bart De Palma…
If voters are pissed off at one party, they never go to the party that’s even less popular. You have a circular fantasy going—if people dislike the Democrats they loathe, despise and ridicule the Republicans.
There isn’t even a leader in the GOP, unless you think Michael Steele is (ridiculed by his own right wing) or Rush Limbaugh (ridiculed by every thinking American) or Sarah Palin (ridiculed even by aimals) or Mitch McConnell (ridiculed by everyone under 95) or John Boehner (ridiculed by everyone not employed in the tanning-bed industry).
If people don’t like a movie, they don’t go to an even worse movie down the street—they go home.
The GOP has zero chance of ever attracting voters as long as Rush Limbaugh is still on the air.
@Jeremy. I know. I said the same thing last night in this thread. But Nate seems to be implying that the WH is worried it might not get all 60 Democrats to vote even for cloture. Which astounds me. We've come to this already? One or more D's actually filibustering a crucial, WH-supported bill advanced by another D? That's sobering and a little discouraging. Unless we're all worried for nothing. Which would be typical for us liberals, but also a nice outcome.
Just John said...
Which astounds me. We've come to this already? One or more D's actually filibustering a crucial, WH-supported bill advanced by another D? That's sobering and a little discouraging.
=============================
You've never heard of Joe Lieberman?
You've never heard of the corrupt Evan Bayh (former head of the DLC)?
Where have you been these last 10 years?
Sorry to get off topic (actually that's not true. You guys were getting nowhere indulging in Bart's delusion world), but any news on the Strategic Vision thing?
Mr. Universe said...
You guys were getting nowhere indulging in Bart's delusion world, but any news on the Strategic Vision thing?
~~~~~~~~~~
Strategic Vision is now sub-contracting for Rasmussen. It was only a matter of time before the (2) would hook-up and work as a team as they both have a seat of their pants mentality ...
BDP, don't obsess too much about 2010 as high stress can be a major medical concern and Reps want you to die quickly if you get sick!
The above discussion include many references to the Tea-baggers and their righteous rage. Can someone enlighten me as to what they are angry about if it isn't the color of the president's skin?
And don't tell me it's the out-of-control spending by the government. Overall government spending as a fraction of GDP is the same now as it was in the Ford administration (about 25% federal, 10% state and local).
And don't tell me it's sky-high taxation. The overall tax rate in the US is lower than any other industrialized country with the exception of Mexico and Turkey.
And Obama is so maddeningly centrist (just ask Burt), it can't be that his policies are out of the mainstream.
So what is it?
@David
I suspect it is a healthy dose of fear. Fear that their party is disintegrating, fear whipped up by the health insurance industry, fear that the privileged post WWII era is over, and, yes, an unstated fear of a black man as president.
'Nazi' is the new nigger.
Change can be good but it can also be scary. They'll get over it.
Guess what? Obama is screwing us over yet again:
President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.
The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.
"The leadership understands that pushing for a public option is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top," said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.
At this point, I think we have to conclude that Obama wants a bill whose primary purpose is to enrich the private, for-profit insurance industry. He's made it clear from the beginning that his #1 goal in health care reform was to protect insurance industry profits, so I can't say this comes as any kind of surprise to me.
David-
The Teabaggers are really mad as they can see the middle class in the country getting screwed, and they are on average not smart or educated enough to analyze why this is - thus Fox and FreedomWorks are simply using them to screw themselves, as they stoke there anger at strawmen in order to make sure the corporations and billionaires still run the place. It is atruly sad...
To the "Obama is a liberal, or not" debate -
All our presidents wil be moderates of one flavor or another, as the wing of either party is unelectable nationally. I think this is actually a good thing as it causes a consistency of government even when it changes parties. Government can do alot of good, but it can also screw alot of things up and having government move faster than the country in any direction is bad for the country and the economy.
Obama is doing this EXACTLY right. I love the foreign policy so far, he just got NATO troops to Afghanistan so we have to send fewer, and he has the world behind us generally which greatly increases our power, at little or no cast.
Let's look at forest instead of trees. Here's historical data, back to the dawn of polling in the late 1940s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
The only presidents who never fell below 50% were Eisenhower and Kennedy (and we don’t know how Kennedy would have done if he’d completed his term). But those were days when the partisan divisions were much more muted than they are today. Since Vietnam and the civil rights movements, you have had deep divisions and Presidents can only achieve broad support at rare moments of crisis, like Bush I in the Gulf War and Bush II after 9/11. And their huge popularity at those moments didn’t last long.
Reagan, considered to have been an enormously popular president, spent 3 of his 8 years below 50%. On the other hand, Bush Sr, who couldn’t win a second term, omly dipped below 50% fairly briefly. Unfortunately for him, it was right when he was up for re-election. Clinton in his second term is perhaps the only one who got stably above 50%, but he had a historic economic boom behind him.
The bottom line-the country is deeply divided and support for any President will be in the ballpark of 50%, barring either a crisis or a huge boom. One can’t predict the former, but I don’t see the latter in the cards any time soon.
On a related topic, the House is again proving the truth of the Tea Party argument that Obamacare will be providing abortions. 40 Dems cosponsored an amendment barring tax money being spent on abortion and the Dem leadership again refused to consider it in committee. However, there are now enough votes to stop any Obamacare plan without the amendment.
I wonder of there are enough Blue Dogs to support a similar amendment to prohibit government subsidies to illegal aliens?
Burt and Mr Universe -
Or, all you have to do is go look at some progressive blogs to see that there are lots of people on the left who are deeply unhappy with Obama. Like me, they are unhappy for a wide variety of reasons: His flip-flop on FISA and telecom immunity, his failure to lift a finger for cramdown legislation, his inaction on DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, his inaction on climate change, his refusal to prosecute Bush Administration lawbreakers, his continuation of Bush's state secrets claims, and more. Much, much more.
Hey, I'm extremely, extremely unhappy with all of that, too.
And there's one thing you can do to make it even worse - help elect more Republicans.
Complaining about the gross imperfections of the Democrats - logical.
Saying that you'll react to that by doing something that helps the obviously worse Republicans - illogical.
That's what I'm saying, and I'll keep saying it.
I guess I'm also saying that this is a tough world and you don't get everything exactly the way you want it.
Sometimes you have to work long and hard achieve partial results. Some other guy spent hours and thousands of dollars trying to get McCain/Palin elected. You have to do more than spend a few hundred dollars and a few hours of time once every four years. It's nice that you did that, but your money is no more special than everyone else's money. It takes a lot to get meaningful change.
David said...
The above discussion include many references to the Tea-baggers and their righteous rage. Can someone enlighten me as to what they are angry about if it isn't the color of the president's skin?
The Democracy Corps is a Democrat Party polling outfit whose purpose is to feed the Dem media polling data to support Dem political positions. Last week, the Democracy Corps just issued a report on their findings from two sets of focus groups that provides the best insights on the Tea Party movement that I have yet seen from the left.
Democracy Corps correctly notes that the indictment of Obama is not based on race (as is usually argued by Dems) and is only partly based on partisan opposition. Rather, these conservatives argue rather persuasively with extensive examples that Obama's policies are socialist, that Obama is not disclosing his socialist goals and that Obama needs to fail because his policies are a clear and present danger "to the United States as it was conceived by our founders and developed over the past 200 years." These conservatives repeatedly argued that their goal is a return to the founding principles of the Republic. As one focus group member noted:
I think it goes back to the basic founding principles. We need to get back to the Constitu- tion and what the founding fathers wanted this nation to be, what freedom really means, "Of the People and By the People" and smaller government. I don't want big government. I want the people to have the say-so. Go back to the origi- nal intent of the Constitution... and that is not what this administration stands for, I believe.
Previously:
"Since all of your assertions seem to depend on your absolute faith in Rasmussen's "likely voter" filter, could you please state precisely what constitutes a "likely voter" in Rasmussen's polling?"
Past voting history and current intensity of concerning the issues and candidates. Given Rasmussen's success in tracking the first time Dem voters last year, it appears his intensity measurements are rather good.
--------------
What would the "voting history" of a first-time voter be?
If Rasmussen's LV screen considers someone who has never voted to be a "likely voter", then the screen really just measures "intensity", doesn't it?
And where did your brief, vague summation of the "likely voter" screen come from? It sounds to me as if you really don't know what the specifics are; you just have faith. How do you know that Rasmussen is using the same LV screen that he used in the GE? He's certainly changed his polls since January, relying on "strong" approval/disapproval.
When a pollster is such an outlier as Rasmussen is currently, these are not petty questions.
We are a year from the election. Many state races have a plethora of candidates. Here in MN, our Governor race has at least 32 people running currently. Just how "intense", as a voter, am I supposed to be about such a race? Yet I have voted (at least) every two years since I was 18, and I am quite sure that I will vote in 2010. A year from the election, however, I am not "intense". Others who are "intense" now may lose interest over the course of the next year, especially if their preferred candidate bows out. That is why nobody else is using "intensity" as a screen in their polling but Rasmussen.
Even those who swear by Rasmussen's electoral polling often concede that his issue polling (such as you routinely cite) is not up to the same standards. There will be no national vote on the approval of the President in November, for example, so Rasmussen will never be held accountable for his results in the way that he would be in an electoral poll.
You don't know any more than the rest of us about Rasmussen's screens, or which states he is sampling from, or the rural/urban makeup of the sample. Nothing wrong with that, though. It is in placing this enormous faith in one pollster's issue polling, however, where you lose touch with the rational and embrace the results you wish to see.
We are talking about a fringe that has been in apoplectic rage for over a year now, and has another year to go. We are talking about a "movement" that is now seeing divisions emerging between the Tea Party Express (GOP-backed) and the Tea Party Patriots ("mavericks"). While Independents share some of that movement's concerns, as a whole they are repelled by the movement itself. The proof of that is here.
And, once again, national polling tells us nothing about state races. The views of voters ("likely" or otherwise) in Texas have no relevance to a race in Minnesota, for example.
There are no national races in 2010.
Burt said:
Without the public option as competition, insurance companies will have no incentive to cut costs. They'll simply collaborate to keep increasing them, and only an idiot would think otherwise.
You have heard of the Sherman Antitrust Act, haven't you?
@David
On the offhand chance that you're new here...
Poster Bart DePalma is a right wing troll on this site. He lives in an illusory world and is in denial of reality. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why people continue to think there is any possibility of having a credible argument with him.
But there you have it. Take any comment of Bart's with the appropriate grain of sand (in this case, a very large dump trucks worth). Unless, of course, you like getting into circular arguments full of strawmen. For example: none of us has ever heard of 'Democracy Corps'.
Bart falsely believes that if he keeps repeating BS it will eventually come true.
FWIW
Democracy Corps is Carville's org:
http://www.democracycorps.com/
Mr. Universe wrote:
"And for the life of me, I can't figure out why people continue to think there is any possibility of having a credible argument with him."
BDP is just another one in a long line of delusional wingnuts here. We all suffered through increasingly improbable scenarios backed by mere assertions throughout the Presidential campaign. Once the election was over, these delusional wingnuts scattered in the breeze. Remember PK's "hidden voters"?
Then BDP showed up saying, "Wait a minute! You haven't heard my delusional scenarios yet!", and we all groaned. We have another year of BDP's assertions to deal with before they are disproved and he comes up with some remarkably lame assertion explaining why his scenarios didn't pan out, but will amazingly predict that the next election will be the one that fulfils his fantasies.
Rather than reading the conclusions of the Democracy Corps study, he skimmed over the parts he liked - which were examples of statements from the "base" showing how out-of-touch they were with the rest of the electorate.
The Republican "base" always thinks that they are the majority. Always. Even though the DC study places the base at 20% of the electorate, BDP skips over that and concludes that whatever the "base" believes, so goes the nation.
He also skipped over the comments of the Independents in the study, which showed that they deeply and fundamentally disagree with the Republican "base", and want little to do with them.
Of the statements from conservatives in the DC study, the most intriguing were the ones in which they expressed utter bewilderment over the lack of outrage from the nation as a whole. Yet we are left to believe by those such as BDP that this out-of-touch bewilderment is a positive credential.
Even the low favourables of the Party are cited as 'proof' of this fantastic wave of conservative power. For those who accept "not conservative enough" as a valid explanation for 2006 and 2008, there will never be a credible test of that theory. There will always be something in a candidate that is not conservative enough, which will be cited as validation when that person fails.
For the South, the Civil war is always frozen in time just before Pickett's Charge. For conservatives, time is frozen in 1994. They will forever be calling upon legions of non-existent voters, who are always mysteriously placed in strategic states and cleverly avoid pollsters. And the next election always will undoubtedly be the one in which they emerge from hiding and show us all. Because now they are angry, and they never were angry before in any previous election.
True enough Todd.
Ever since the emergence of the "silent majority" idea forty-some years ago, the right has staked its legitimacy on the idea that they represent the true majority in this country (i.e. the "this is still a centre-right nation" canard that we have heard so many times).
Thus an Republican victory is a vindication of the conservative majority ideal, whereas any Democratic victory must mean that voters are punishing Republicans for not following their base, since it is inconceivable that they might agree with the Democrats.
And so we hear notions like "Obama promised to do everything bipartisan," or "Obama's (moderate incrementalist) approach is socialism and he promised to be centre-right."
Ah, if only Obama weren't so centre-right, we might start to move in the right direction.
Nothing will convince right wing fanatics otherwise, as the right-wing majority idea is so deeply tied to their faith in the morality of their ideas.
Hey, I'm extremely, extremely unhappy with all of that, too.
And there's one thing you can do to make it even worse - help elect more Republicans.
Yeah, you're right. If Republicans get elected, they might do something absolutely horrible - like pass a law requiring you to give money to massive, private, for-profit corporations that will then proceed to deny you the (potentially lifesaving) services you paid for.
Oh, wait. That's not right. It's the Democrats who are going to do that.
Seriously, even in their wildest corporatist dreams, the Republicans never came up with anything like requiring people by law to pay money to private corporations. So you are not going to scare me into supporting the Democrats with "The Republicans are worse." If the Democrats pass an individual mandate with no public option, it will be proof that they're just as bad as the Republicans and it's time for progressives to abandon them and start building a real progressive party in this country.
When both major parties will sell you out to giant megacorporations at every opportunity, there is no reason to support either of them. Period.
And one more thing, Harold. As pissed off and unhappy as we are, people like me aren't even your biggest worry. How do you think all those young voters who turned out in record numbers for Obama are going to feel if all they get is a government mandate to buy private insurance?
You do realize that this is the kind of thing that could put an entire generation of voters off the Democratic party, right?
I've known for a while now that the Democratic party is corporate-owned. But we're about to find out if those corporations own them so thoroughly that the Dems will march off the political cliff at their order. These next few weeks will be very telling.
You get what you vote for. Or, in Burt's case, you deserve what you don't vote for.
Hey there, unfortunately ignorant of history commentators. The USPS has ALWAYS relied on contractors to move mail between post offices. Express riders, stage coaches, riverboats, trains, airplanes and trucks all carried the mail under contract to USPS. AMTRAK carries mail to this day. Look out the window next time you fly out of a major airline hub and you'll likely see a whole lot of USPS mail tubs going up the baggage ramp into the aircraft. Where your USPS "inefficiencis" come into play is at the terminal end of mail delivery. Seems no one has been able to dramatically improve on the sort and deliver system developed by Benjamin Franklin in the 18th Century. The final leg of delivery still has to be hand sorted, and taken to virtually every address in the U.S, on a daily schedule. Still damned cheap at less than half a dollar an item. BTW, if the package "Absolutely, Positively" DOESN'T "has to be there overnight", USPS 1st class Parcel Post is a bunch cheaper than FedEx or UPS.
"Of the People and By the People" and smaller government."
Ah, the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation of small farmers with a small collection of merchants in a few cities along the Atlantic seabord. Oh, and of course slaves. Rendered obsolete around about 1830 when the Industrial Revolution arrived.
How many of the tea partiers are small farmers with 40 acres and a mule? Didn't think so. All posturing aside, government will get smaller when society becomes simpler-no multinational corporations, no 50,000 occupational categories, no internet, not much of any of what we see around us. Until then, the tea partiers are just wearing their 1776 Halloween costumes a bit early.
Todd Dugdale said...
Rather than reading the conclusions of the Democracy Corps study, he skimmed over the parts he liked - which were examples of statements from the "base" showing how out-of-touch they were with the rest of the electorate.
There is a 4000 character limit for posts here. I had to cut my critique of the weak DC attempt to spin the Tea Party as limited to 20% of voters in the GOP base.
Let's dispose of Democracy Corp's transparent spin. Democracy Corps uses a set of self identified "weak partisans" and "independents" from the city of Cleveland to represent the roughly 27% of voters who self identify as independent. Cleveland is a reliably blue voting area and is hardly representative of independents as a whole. Democracy Corps deliberately left out the majority of independents in the suburbs and rural areas, which also so happens to be where the independent base of the Tea Party resides. In fact, Cleveland area Tea Party group rallies out in the suburbs.
The claim that the Tea Party movement does not include independents is nonsense. When Rasmussen polled on support for the Tea Party protests, he found 58% were closely following the protests and 51% had favorable views of the protests. Those who had a favorable view of the Tea Party protests included 83 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Indis. Correspondingly, the 40+% of likely voters who strongly disapprove of Obama outnumbers self identified Republicans by 10% and are double the 20% GOP DC identifies as TP.
Of the statements from conservatives in the DC study, the most intriguing were the ones in which they expressed utter bewilderment over the lack of outrage from the nation as a whole. Yet we are left to believe by those such as BDP that this out-of-touch bewilderment is a positive credential.
No, they were pissed off at the Dem media who intentionally and routinely ignore their viewpoint. You need not go any further to discover the reason why the conservative alternative media is growing by leaps and bounds.
However, by all means believe that we are now a center left country, Obama and the Dem policies are popular with the voters and those of us who believe in founding principles are just a tiny fringe. Hell, libs enjoy such an enormous majority that it is hardly worth the effort for a lib to take the time to vote. We Tea Party folks will beat the polls, though. All of us.
Just keep spinning there BDP. The nurse will be in shortly to feed you your gruel. She can turn up the volume on Leave it to Beaver and wipe the drool from your mouth.
Bart DePalma said...
~~~~~~~~~~
BDP always gets his disingenuous, winger, limbo, talking points in, ignoring reality. Hey, that's what obsessive trolls do ...
Mr. Universe sez, "BDP is just another one in a long line of delusional wingnuts here."
I find many of the posts on this board stimulating and intelligent, so I routinely skip over BdP's so I have more time to read them.
I did make an exception in this case because he was addressing my question, but there wasn't much meat in them. To summarize, he said the Teabaggers were angry because:
- Obama's very timid and centrist policies are "socialist". Calling Obama a socialist is like calling him a Muslim or foreign born - inflammatory and demonstrably untrue. If Obama's "socialism" were the reason for the Teabaggers' anger, then they would have been equally furious at Bill Clinton, who was just as moderate, but was not Black. The right was angry at WJC, but nothing like this.
- Obama's policies are inconsistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers. This is not very enlightening as no one could possibly know FF would have wanted us to address the problems of today, such as international terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
There is some value to knowing what the Teabaggers are SAYING they are angry about, I suppose, but what they say is absurd. I can only conclude that they are either not articulating their anger, or that they are mad.
And if it turns out that 20% of the US population are insane, I would be forced to rethink the idea of mental health parity in the current health care debate.
Remember, the crazed right parties get 2-10$ of the vote in Europe. They are generally ignored by those in power, when can we start ignoring?
Good news, Glenn Beck ratings down after Obama attacks by about 8%.
@Bradford
Rachel had about the best explanation of why FOX is not news Friday night. She pointed out that when you promote events like the tea parties, you're trying to make news not report it.
Contrast the 9/12 event coverage (and subsequent crowd number exaggeration) followed by an almost complete lack coverage of LGBT march on DC in the following week. If that's not cherry picking to support an agenda, I don't know what is.
FOX has the audaciousness to be incensed that the White House met with Kieth and Rachel when they were both excluded from meeting with the Bush administration and FOX was given an exclusive audience. Talk about double standards.
Completely agree Mr. Universe, but the proof for me occurs daily as Fox' news anchors talk "terrotist fist jabs" and make Nate feel unwelcome to talk facts on their air (after they invite him).
Mr. Universe said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Rachel Maddow's Blistering Commentary On FOX "News"
This is a story that most of the media has gotten wrong so far. By not only defending Fox, as if Fox is just a news network that has a right wing point of view. But by ignoring what Fox does as a network that has nothing to do w/the news, it's a free country and Fox can do what it wants god bless them and keep them. But it would frankly be strange, it would be weird for the White House, for the U.S. Govt. to treat a group that is organizing protests and rallies against it as if that group is just covering the news, it's not! One of these things is really not like the other!
Mind Over Chatter, indeed!
Leftwingnut Dem flack Rachel Maddow is calling Fox News biased? LMAO!
Rachel, at the rate your ratings are tanking, you will be looking for work by Christmas.
By the way Rachel, Fox News is not organizing or running our Tea Party protests, not that you would be one to allow the truth get in the way of a wingnut conspiracy claim.
David said...
Calling Obama a socialist is like calling him a Muslim or foreign born - inflammatory and demonstrably untrue.
I am nearly 100 pages into writing a book reporting on Mr. Obama's socialism. He is literally the gift that keeps on giving for this project.
Nationalizing Chrysler.
Nationalizing GM.
Firing CEOs.
Setting employee pay by decree for banks in which the government has no common share ownership interest.
Ordering the banks by decree to give away their shareholders' property to deadbeat home mortgage borrowers up to 60% of the homes equity.
Using government police power to redistribute income from one set of businesses the government dislikes to another group of businesses the government favors with the intention of putting the former out of business and creating a new government dependent economic sector. See health care and the combination of cap & tax and government make work Green jobs programs.
And this is just in the first year.
Obama is only a moderate when compared to Mao of Stalin.
Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Bart DePalma said...
Leftwingnut Dem flack Rachel Maddow is calling Fox News biased? LMAO!
~~~~~~~~~~
No, she is accurately saying fixed is not a news organization, rather a winger opinion service that promotes, organizes and encourages protests and rallies against the U.S. govt., which of course is perfectly legal, but makes fixed a winger talk radio entertainment show, not a legitimate news service.
And BDP, the obvious, "we" don't care about your faux Socialism tome, so maybe one should try hustling your fantasy pamphlet at freepertopia or redstate, just sayin'.
btw, you've been nearly 100 pages into writing your nonsense for 3/4 months, let's try and pick up the pace, eh ;) as the world is eagerly awaiting your fiction!
so much drivel, so little time ...
p.s. and since one is sooo fixated on ratings and polls. As I keep saying, progressives like to be entertained and are extremely happy an African/American is living in the White House, so "we" watch regular tv and sports, etc. whereas southern white bigots, etc. like yourself are extremely unhappy Obama is president, so conservative, yahoo, redneck, low educated sheep are clinging to your guns, religion and fixednoise demagougery/McCarthyism to ease the pain of 3+ er 7+ more years of Dem control!
ie this is not rocket science. So much sour grape, sore loser whining from wingers, so little time ...
take care, blessings
BdP, the man who cannot think and only applies facts that fit his world view in ways that reinforce an incorrect and warped world view in writing a book. WOW! I hope for your sake alot of white guys are still being educated well enough down south that they can read.
Where are you from?
Willton said...
You have heard of the Sherman Antitrust Act, haven't you?
Yes, and there are three current standing exemptions from that act. Major League Baseball, National Football League, and...yup health insurance industry. That's why Obama last week rattled the "play ball or your anti-trust exemption goes bye-bye" sabre. This is serious stakes for them. They were already dropping gobs of cash on this but a cornered rat is not to be discounted. The industry may say screw it and take it up a HUGE notch in attacking him. Now and in the future.
It appears that Gallup is now picking up on the conservative rebellion...
Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative [the highest finding since 2004], 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group...
In addition to the increase in conservatism on this general ideology measure, Gallup finds higher percentages of Americans expressing conservative views on several specific issues in 2009 than in 2008.
Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009.
The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009.
Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)
The percentage of Americans favoring a decrease in immigration rose from 39% in June/July 2008 to 50% in July 2009.
The propensity to want the government to "promote traditional values" -- as opposed to "not favor any particular set of values" -- rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.
The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-life" on abortion rose from 44% in May 2008 to 51% in May 2009, and remained at a slightly elevated 47% in July 2009.
Americans' belief that the global warming problem is "exaggerated" in the news rose from 35% in March 2008 to 41% in March 2009.
Gallup has not recorded heightened conservatism on all major social and political views held by Americans. For instance, attitudes on the death penalty, gay marriage, the Iraq war, and Afghanistan have stayed about the same since 2008. However, there are no major examples of U.S. public opinion becoming more liberal in the past year.
This is polling of adults. Likely voters are very probably more conservative.
Bart DePalma said...
It appears that Gallup is now picking up on the conservative rebellion...
I met a fellow on the weekend that was pissed off that "[his] party was stolen by thieves". Of course he was happy to see Obama putting the boots to the health insurance industry.
But I guess that's to be expected of someone with a university degree(s) AND who is not a bullshit artist trying to dupe the yokels.
From a political standpoint, it might be more advantageous for the democrats to have zero republicans on board for what should be a popular bill. 10 years from now, when it is very obvious how much health reform has helped most Americans, democrats will still be able to remind everyone how every single republican opposed the bill.
Reid has called for an up-or-down vote on a Public Option and thinks he has 57 yea votes. As long as there is no filibuster (the Dems could dtill require a 24-hr real filibuster to drive support for Repubs into freefall if Snowe balks too much), then it'll pass and can't be removed because there is no way for the GOP to get to 60 votes to strip it out once it's in. Then, upon merging the House and Senate bills, it'll have to be in, in some form or another. It's "what kind of option" not "if" anymore.
-Jeff
Jeff, even Fox New was talking about the public option perhaps rising from the dead this morning.
Of course my first thought was "It had died, when?" ;)
P.S. Yeah, my gym has Fox News blaring on the single TV in the men's change room. Expcept on Saturdays (and maybe Sundays?) when it's tuned to ESPN for football coverage.
Originally, the Dems chose the marketing term "public option" to avoid calling their plan government health insurance. However, those rascally voters figured out that public = government, so Nancy Pelosi is now calling government health insurance the "competitive option."
I guess Pelosi figures that if she uses free market terms like competition, those rascally voters won't connect it with the government. Who knows, it could work. Even idiots do not confuse the government with competition.
This all begs the question: If government health insurance is such a popular idea, why do the Dems keep running away from it?
If Reid has 57 votes, why won't he name them?
Baucus has now backed Reid's move to call for the up-or-down vote, so that brings the total to 58 and Lieberman will have no cover to help a filibuster - especially a real one that goes on for days, Depends undergarments and all. I would really like to see McConnell's office flooded with adult diapers.
-Jeff
Bart DePalma said...
If Reid has 57 votes, why won't he name them?
Because he wants to keep you tingling with suspense!
But you're too smart to fall for that, right? So, you know....
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "will announce this afternoon that he plans to push ahead with a public option vote -- one that includes an opt-out provision for states -- even though he's currently short several votes for passage, according to people close to the situation," Politico reports. Reid has 3:15 p.m. press conference to discuss details.
"Leadership sources tell me that Reid, who spoke with virtually every member of his 60-member caucus this weekend, currently has between 56 and 57 votes for the opt-out, which is being pushed by Sen. Charles Schumer, according to Democratic aides."
In announcing a health care bill with a public option, it sounds like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already lined up the support of Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). Said Baucus: "It is time to make our system work better for patients and providers, for small business owners and for our economy. It is time for health care reform. For more than a year, we've been working to meet the goals of reducing the growth of health care costs, improving quality and efficiency and expanding coverage. There are a tremendous number of complicated issues that go into reform and the public option is certainly one of them. I included a public option in the health reform blueprint I released nearly one year ago, and continue to support any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. Success should be our threshold and I am going to fight hard for the 60 votes we need to meet that goal this year." The bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee did not have a public option provision.
-Jeff
Dwight said...
So, you know....
~~~~~~~~~~
Totally off-topic, there's no rhyme or reason to YouTube re: copyright infringement. They zapped my FB ending Go Home! scene and ignored my Bueller, Bueller scene.
I've had (2) previous accts. zapped by YouTube re: copyright violations, which begs the question ~ 99% of the crap posted to YouTube is copyright protected, eh.
On the bright side, since PK was told to Go! he hasn't been around much.
Small blessings lol
and BDP, we don't want you to Go! as you are 538's fav winger whipping boy!
Keep hope alive!
I love this kabuki dance.
Reid is shopping around a secret bill or bills he is afraid to make public.
Unnamed people close to the situation say Reid is "several votes" short of 60 for one or more of the secret bills.
Unnamed Dem leadership aides claim that Reid is only short by 3-4 votes for a secret bill that includes Schumer's faux state opt out provision. I wonder if that head count includes RINO Snowe?
I wonder how many hours after the bill is made public before Reid holds a vote before the voters have a chance to read it.
This is big D Democracy at work.
So BDP, being in the permanent minority isn't much fun, eh.
But, but, but you have your work in progress, Socialism pamphlet to take your mind off the Rep's 24/7 negativity ...
潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,
情趣,G點,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,無線跳蛋,
按摩棒,電動按摩棒,飛機杯,自慰套,自慰套,情趣用品,情趣內衣,
情趣按摩棒,.,
自慰套,角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,情趣跳蛋,
色情小說|七夕情人,一夜情,
BDP - the bill has been available online since 10-19. If you were not a semi-literate neanderthal, you could have read the meager 1500 pages by now. This is what offends me about conservatives who attack big bills. "Ooh, it's too hard for any human to read that much." This childish whining and bellyaching is ridiculous. The average college student reads 1500 pages per semester (16 wks). We've been arguing health care in America for 15 yrs! You have all year to read this bill. If you'd actually do your work (for which we taxpayers pay you an exhorbitant sum each year to do, Congress-stallers) instead of just moaning and whining about it, you'd not only feel you'd actually *gasp* earned that huge paycheck I give you, but you wouldn't have the excuse of not knowing what's in it when you spread lies about it.
-Jeff
Todd Dugdale said...
...
Party itself is split between TP adherents and 'traditional' Republicans.
...
So the new wave of the GOP doesn't wipe? Man, they really do want to set the clock back centuries!
Bart DePalma said...
...
However, the TP folks have only taken on Scozzafava and maybe Christ in Florida, which indicates they are otherwise happy with the field.
...
I would have thought they would want Christ on their side? After all, he is their lord and saviour, right?
(somebody had to inject a little levity into the fierce debate, even if both my jokes sucked)
Post a Comment