America is Not Ungovernable

[raider.adam]

Originally Posted by philly_kid

Adam, sorry if I mischaracterized any of your positions. I remember you talking about the HC policies with a lot more knowledge than I.

Haha, no worries. There was no offense taken. I was more trying to just point out that there are many people that are willing to, and try to, have real discussion on topics and not get it all boiled down to a "socialism vs poor" debate.

Let me try again. The article's main point, which I believe you echoed, is that it takes broad support to pass anything big. My point is that there is no such thing as broad support right now. My point about Sotomayor wasn't about holding up nominations per se, it's that it represents the fact that you can't get broad support on a no-brainer issue like Sotomayor. If you can't get (GOP) Senators to support their own bill (budget commission) when the Dems bring it to a vote, what can you get?

I agree that right now there seems to be a problem with finding the middle ground on a variety of things. Some issues, like Sotomayor, probably didn't need to be as contentious as it was, but other things, like the proposed HC, probably does.

I believe it was Jay Cost who described the HC bill as built from the left by the liberal committee chairs. Perhaps this bill could never pass, but one reason why it hasn't is that it has been described, unfairly but with success, as crazy communist.

I agree there has been misinformation passed around, but that also isn't unique to one side. I mentioned in another thread, many of the people who are complaining about the HC misinformation are the same people passing around misinformation about the SCOTUS campaign finance ruling.

I dislike seeing it form anyone because it ruins the real debate and discussion.

My point is that bill has support of major sections of industry - AMA, drug companies, AARP, which leads me to believe that the bill targets a wide-ranging moderate chunk of the country.

I think this is a case of trying to have it both ways. In this instance special interest group support is listed as a positive sign of wide ranging support, but when special interests support something contrary, they are labeled as buying legislators or corrupting government. It also goes to show people are only against special interest involvement when they are working against their cause.

IMO the zero votes from the GOP says more about them that it does about the broad appeal of the legislation. I disagree that if only the bill was more moderate or broadly appealing it would get GOP votes.

But it is zero votes from GOP (minus Cao) AND no votes from some Democrats too (House). There is actually more bipartisan support against the bill than for it.

The problem with "more moderate" is that it doesn't really say anything about the policy itself. I think people are under the impression that "moderate" means "some right and some left" mixed together. I typically don't think legislation is homogenous. You can have one bill with a bunch of bad left policy and a bunch of bad right policy and it doesn't make it moderate, it just makes it bad.

Again, the premise that if you have a bad bill and just throw a bunch of teasers to the other side to get votes makes it "moderate" I feel is false.

For a recent example from the pro-stimulus point of view. If you talk to someone like Krugman, who would probably say that cutting down the stimulus to get Specter's vote was bad, because reducing the stimulus hurt the overall goal. Someone could claim it was a more "moderate" bill, but he would probably just say it made a correct piece of legislation bad.

I think the parts are very important. Just because it gets a vote doesn't mean it makes it better.

Of course I could be wrong. If for example, all the bill contained was portability and allowed pre-existing conditions, the GOP might vote for it. I'm curious, because I don't know a lot about it, but wouldn't this increase premiums for most Americans? Would that be what people want out of a HC bill? Would that do anything to reduce the overall costs of healthcare?

Well, the devil is in the details ... all matters how it is done. Personally, I would have liked a smaller bill that did the following:

Portability: Move health insurance tax breaks from employers to individuals. If individuals are purchasing the insurance, portability is automatically achieved.

Pre-existing conditions: Pre-existing conditions are covered as long as you don't have a lapse in insurance coverage. If you had a lapse (the window can be debated) you still have to accept pre-existing conditions, but you are allowed to assess a higher premium (or something) as a penalty.

Also, allowing cross state competition and phase out anti-trust protections.

I would like to see how the market responds to more individual level competition and a system that doesn't force healthy people into the system, but creates market oriented financial incentives/penalties if they choose to go without.

In theory it would add in market competition while also expanding coverage to pre-existing conditions.

Is it perfect? No, but I think such approaches that go after pieces of the problem can get more done that blowing it all up and if we make a wrong call, it is easier to fix and readjust.

Of course, therein lies the problem. I also don't think a lot of Congress is looking to honestly fix the system. It is about power and control.


Edit: And frankly, something like I listed is a much easier sell. Instead of having a big convoluted bill that the average american can't understand (or even above average) you get to sell it with the following talking points:

1) This health reform bill is going to give every american more options, choice and security to get the health care plan best for them.
2) This health reform bill expands coverage to americans with pre-existing conditions
3) This health reform bill works towards lowering the cost of health care by making the insurance companies and medical providers fight for your business

And it is easy enough to add in some sort of provisions to help expand medical coverage to the destitute - insurance vouchers, expanding medicaid coverage or some other mechanism.

I would say most americans understand how capitalism works. They understand the concept that if they have the ability to choose from 10 different people, they can find a better deal. It is an easy sell - and they don't have to trust the government to deliver.

[philly_kid]

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Well, the devil is in the details ... all matters how it is done. Personally, I would have liked a smaller bill that did the following:

Portability: Move health insurance tax breaks from employers to individuals. If individuals are purchasing the insurance, portability is automatically achieved.

Pre-existing conditions: Pre-existing conditions are covered as long as you don't have a lapse in insurance coverage. If you had a lapse (the window can be debated) you still have to accept pre-existing conditions, but you are allowed to assess a higher premium (or something) as a penalty.

Also, allowing cross state competition and phase out anti-trust protections.

I would like to see how the market responds to more individual level competition and a system that doesn't force healthy people into the system, but creates market oriented financial incentives/penalties if they choose to go without.

In theory it would add in market competition while also expanding coverage to pre-existing conditions.

Is it perfect? No, but I think such approaches that go after pieces of the problem can get more done that blowing it all up and if we make a wrong call, it is easier to fix and readjust.

Of course, therein lies the problem. I also don't think a lot of Congress is looking to honestly fix the system. It is about power and control.


Edit: And frankly, something like I listed is a much easier sell. Instead of having a big convoluted bill that the average american can't understand (or even above average) you get to sell it with the following talking points:

1) This health reform bill is going to give every american more options, choice and security to get the health care plan best for them.
2) This health reform bill expands coverage to americans with pre-existing conditions
3) This health reform bill works towards lowering the cost of health care by making the insurance companies and medical providers fight for your business

And it is easy enough to add in some sort of provisions to help expand medical coverage to the destitute - insurance vouchers, expanding medicaid coverage or some other mechanism.

I would say most americans understand how capitalism works. They understand the concept that if they have the ability to choose from 10 different people, they can find a better deal. It is an easy sell - and they don't have to trust the government to deliver.

I don't have the expertise to debate all of your points on the merits, but let me say a few things.

The administration based it's plan on the idea the employer-base HC was a tenant of broad support from the American people. I wonder if your plan would have popular support given the high number of people with employer supported plans who like their health care plan but would have to give it up. The ads would say, "x percentage of you will lose your health care coverage if this plan passes ." I currently have a good plan supported by my employer. I'm not sure it would be good for me.

If people had a tax break to support coverage, they wouldn't be able to have abortion coverage even if that portion was not supported by a tax break - if you use the abortion amendment votes in the House as an indicator. The majority of the House rejected the idea that you could separate out abortion insurance. Of course, members might change their minds under a different scenario, but this issue would provide cover for those who opposed your plan. I guess you would have a plan where there would not be abortion insurance for anyone who accepted a HC tax break. I'm not sure if pro-choice members would support this.

People with plans would still have to pay for the uninsured who got really sick and didn't have health insurance but were still treated.

Allowing coverage across state lines might reduce costs, but would it be because there is less coverage? Would my plan be cheaper for my employer with less coverage under you scenario?

How would people who can't afford any plan (the long term unemployed) be covered? Medicaid or something like that?

I appreciate the effort to outline your own plan. Is it similar to the GOP plan? Under that plan, I believe 3 million additional people were likely to be covered as compared to the 30 million - i think - under the Senate bill. I'm not trying to hate on your plan, but I think my post points out that a simple pared-down plan might not gain broad-based support (from people who currently have a good employer based plan, from pro-choice democrats, from people who's main concern is to greatly expand the pool of coverage).

[raider.adam]

Originally Posted by philly_kid

I don't have the expertise to debate all of your points on the merits, but let me say a few things.

The administration based it's plan on the idea the employer-base HC was a tenant of broad support from the American people. I wonder if your plan would have popular support given the high number of people with employer supported plans who like their health care plan but would have to give it up. The ads would say, "x percentage of you will lose your health care coverage if this plan passes ." I currently have a good plan supported by my employer. I'm not sure it would be good for me.

If people had a tax break to support coverage, they wouldn't be able to have abortion coverage even if that portion was not supported by a tax break - if you use the abortion amendment votes in the House as an indicator. The majority of the House rejected the idea that you could separate out abortion insurance. Of course, members might change their minds under a different scenario, but this issue would provide cover for those who opposed your plan. I guess you would have a plan where there would not be abortion insurance for anyone who accepted a HC tax break. I'm not sure if pro-choice members would support this.

People with plans would still have to pay for the uninsured who got really sick and didn't have health insurance but were still treated.

Allowing coverage across state lines might reduce costs, but would it be because there is less coverage? Would my plan be cheaper for my employer with less coverage under you scenario?

How would people who can't afford any plan (the long term unemployed) be covered? Medicaid or something like that?

I appreciate the effort to outline your own plan. Is it similar to the GOP plan? Under that plan, I believe 3 million additional people were likely to be covered as compared to the 30 million - i think - under the Senate bill. I'm not trying to hate on your plan, but I think my post points out that a simple pared-down plan might not gain broad-based support (from people who currently have a good employer based plan, from pro-choice democrats, from people who's main concern is to greatly expand the pool of coverage).

I am not going to really get into "if it would pass or not" since none of the above is even remotely being discussed by the actual events taking place. But as a general rule of thumb, the less things you touch at once, the less opposition from people tied to the status quo you receive.

Also, I can probably guarantee my proposal would NOT have broad support because it is completely out of line with what the Congressional Dems want to do. They want to add more direct control to this segment of the economy. If it was a Republican majority in Congress, something like it probably would have a better chance to pass (and without a super majority).

But it all gets back to my main point and the point of the article. The status of the HC bill isn't because Republicans are "just being obstructionist" or democrats being spineless. It is probably because it is a bill that doesn't have popular support.

[Bulworth67]

Originally Posted by Illiniwek

The White House and the congressional Democrats had -- until Scott Brown took his Senate seat -- the largest majorities in decades. They now have the second largest majorities in decades.

The Republicans didn't have a filibuster-proof majority when Bush got his key agenda items through. Other than the legislation that cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate, all of Clinton's legislative achievements came while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Reagan moved his agenda despite the active opposition of the House majority.

This to me is direct evidence that Democratic congressman are more willing to work with republican presidents. How is that republican presidents seem to get some of their agenda passed with some Democratic support?
While on the other hand-republicans will resort to uniform opposition to stop a democratic president from accomplishing anything. I seem to remember the last Democratic president getting impeached for lying about a blow job while our military was at war in Bosnia.

Could it possibly be that one side is more partisan than the other?
Hmm...

Obama has chosen the wrong priorities at the wrong time, stepped all over his message and appointed the wrong people (starting with Emanuel) to guide his legislation through Congress. Obama never put together a major piece of legislation -- in the Illinois Senate or the U.S. Senate -- from conception to enactment. That inexperience shows. He doesn't take advantage of Biden, who may be a gaffe machine, but he also knows how to get a bill through the Senate. (Speaking of stepping all over his message, note that a week after the "pivot" to jobs, the White House message is still all over the place.)

There may be some truth to this-but hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

[raider.adam]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

This to me is direct evidence that Democratic congressman are more willing to work with republican presidents. How is that republican presidents seem to get some of their agenda passed with some Democratic support?
While on the other hand-republicans will resort to uniform opposition to stop a democratic president from accomplishing anything. I seem to remember the last Democratic president getting impeached for lying about a blow job while our military was at war in Bosnia.

Could it possibly be that one side is more partisan than the other?
Hmm...

Here is a big problem with what is being argued. At no point are you factoring in what voters want. You assume everything is just about partisan politics. You seem to rule out all possibility that maybe those congress people have voters that support such policies?

Too many people seem to be completely disregarding the electorate.

What it comes down to is:
1) How many republicans are going to lose seats for not supporting the current policy agenda of the White House?
2) How many democrats are going to lose seats for supporting the current policy agenda?
3) When Bush was popular, how many Democrats would have lost seats if they were against the White House agenda?

This again gets back to much of what is being said. If the stuff doesn't win votes, support falters. The exact same thing that gave control of the nation to the democrats is the exact same thing that is going to take it away: unpopular policy. The electorate giveth and the electorate taketh away.

I know many on this board absolutely despise the Tea Party movement, but guess what, things like Moveon.org probably helped give birth to it. I would theorize that the widespread activism against unpopular government policy during the end of the Bush presidency showed that average people can make a difference. I would venture to say that America right now is going through a big upheaval in how government is viewed. You see this in the increased grass roots activism on both sides, the increase in independent voters over the major parties and the continued disapproval of Congress by the populace.

I think in general America is voicing its displeasure with how the government handles things and those in power are floundering on how to deal with it. Our elected leaders who have been using the system to their own personal benefits (from City Council up to D.C.) obviously don't want the system to change. I also think that is an additional important point. Both sides and the middle may disagree on policy issues, but I think there is universal agreement that the powers that be aren't doing their job with the best interest of the people.

[Bulworth67]

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Here is a big problem with what is being argued. At no point are you factoring in what voters want. You assume everything is just about partisan politics. You seem to rule out all possibility that maybe those congress people have voters that support such policies?

Too many people seem to be completely disregarding the electorate.

What it comes down to is:
1) How many republicans are going to lose seats for not supporting the current policy agenda of the White House?
2) How many democrats are going to lose seats for supporting the current policy agenda?
3) When Bush was popular, how many Democrats would have lost seats if they were against the White House agenda?

This again gets back to much of what is being said. If the stuff doesn't win votes, support falters. The exact same thing that gave control of the nation to the democrats is the exact same thing that is going to take it away: unpopular policy. The electorate giveth and the electorate taketh away.

In a vacuum I would agree. But take this year for example-Obama campaigned loudly on health care reform. He attracted many votes through his promise to address the issue comprehensively. It was discussed in each debate. At the beginning of the summer of 09-the electorate substantially favored health care reform efforts. Polls favored a public option well into last fall. What happened?
Answer: uniform GOP opposition in order to stall the process, the townhall mess, lies about death panels, government takeovers and the Dems foolish attempts to win GOP votes-which critically delayed the bill.
No Adam-this was pure partisan politics. The GOP plan was to deliver Obama his Waterloo and destroy his agenda. It was even announced publicly by DeMint.

The electorate? Yes you are right they turned against it. Voters have short memories, and no patience.
Yet polling on individual components of the bill yielded healthy support for it's individual initiatives. Taken altogether the support for the bill dives. The independents and moderates which supported Obama while he campaigned loudly on this issue were swayed over the summer by claims of government takeovers, death panels and socialized medicine-none of which were ever in the bill. These voters are a fickle bunch.

Yes the GOPs strategy of delivering Obama his Waterloo appears to have succeeded-but to what end? I still wonder what the GOP is going to campaign on this fall-"we killed health care reform hooray?"

I really don't get it.

What's sad is I want to know that I can get health care for my family if I lose my job. That kind of security is farther away then ever now.

[raider.adam]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

In a vacuum I would agree. But take this year for example-Obama campaigned loudly on health care reform. He attracted many votes through his promise to address the issue comprehensively. It was discussed in each debate. At the beginning of the summer of 09-the electorate substantially favored health care reform efforts. Polls favored a public option well into last fall. What happened?
Answer: uniform GOP opposition in order to stall the process, the townhall mess, lies about death panels, government takeovers and the Dems foolish attempts to win GOP votes-which critically delayed the bill.
No Adam-this was pure partisan politics. The GOP plan was to deliver Obama his Waterloo and destroy his agenda. It was even announced publicly by DeMint.

Again, several problems with this analysis as well as some thick hypocrisy.

First, I agree that the electorate wants health care reform, but all health care reform isn't the same. It is horribly naive to think just because you slap "health care reform" on a stack of papers that everyone is going to accept it. It is like peeing in a bottle and wondering why no one is buying it when "all our polling says people like lemonade". A label is just a label.

Second, it is completely hypocritical to at one point say Obama won an election on the concept of health care reform because he campaigned on it, but then turn around in other threads and say Scott Brown, who campaigned AGAINST a specific health care bill, had NOTHING to do with his election. If you and others are going to run with the line that Brown won because Coakley was a bad candidate, then the same thing can be said that Obama only won because the Republican brand was a bad candidate (or if you even want to more specifically say Palin). So which is it?

The electorate? Yes you are right they turned against it. Voters have short memories, and no patience.
Yet polling on individual components of the bill yielded healthy support for it's individual initiatives. Taken altogether the support for the bill dives. The independents and moderates which supported Obama while he campaigned loudly on this issue were swayed over the summer by claims of government takeovers, death panels and socialized medicine-none of which were ever in the bill. These voters are a fickle bunch.

I think part of the problem extends from the fact no one trusts the government or at least highly skeptical of it. This is all being done with the backdrop of taking over banks, GM, wall street bailouts, etc. And then when you throw on things like union exemptions, Ben Nelson, etc. it makes it really hard to get people to trust you.

The strategy of passing a bill shouldn't be "do it fast before people can discuss things".

Yes the GOPs strategy of delivering Obama his Waterloo appears to have succeeded-but to what end? I still wonder what the GOP is going to campaign on this fall-"we killed health care reform hooray?"

I really don't get it.

I really don't get the obsession over this. If the bill is bad, the bill is bad. If they were being obstructionist on something that I think should pass, I would be critical of it (as I am of Shelby and what he is doing). But what it comes down to is, I don't care about them being obstructionist because frankly, I don't want the proposed health care bills to pass.

But I still want health care reform ... just not what they are serving.

What's sad is I want to know that I can get health care for my family if I lose my job. That kind of security is farther away then ever now.

And interestingly enough if that is your major concern, then you should be just as upset that the proposed health care bill is still centering around the concept of employers supplying health care plans.

[Bulworth67]

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Again, several problems with this analysis as well as some thick hypocrisy.

First, I agree that the electorate wants health care reform, but all health care reform isn't the same. It is horribly naive to think just because you slap "health care reform" on a stack of papers that everyone is going to accept it. It is like peeing in a bottle and wondering why no one is buying it when "all our polling says people like lemonade". A label is just a label.

Well-it is also easy to criticize any bill and poke holes in it. No one has come up with a better way to help insure the millions of uninsured Americans, prevent rescission, and reduce costs. While I admit fully that the bill was imperfect-and did address all of these things.

Second, it is completely hypocritical to at one point say Obama won an election on the concept of health care reform because he campaigned on it, but then turn around in other threads and say Scott Brown, who campaigned AGAINST a specific health care bill, had NOTHING to do with his election. If you and others are going to run with the line that Brown won because Coakley was a bad candidate, then the same thing can be said that Obama only won because the Republican brand was a bad candidate (or if you even want to more specifically say Palin). So which is it?

Stay with me. I already admitted to you that the electorate turned against the current health reform bill. I made no hypothesis regarding Scott Brown. I think the health care legislation was a factor. But go back and read my previous post on why the public soured on it.

I think part of the problem extends from the fact no one trusts the government or at least highly skeptical of it. This is all being done with the backdrop of taking over banks, GM, wall street bailouts, etc. And then when you throw on things like union exemptions, Ben Nelson, etc. it makes it really hard to get people to trust you.

Yes I agree with this. But then why elect Obama at all with the platform he was running on? Do you think voters didn't expect him to try to reform health care?
Why do voters expect immediate results within 6 months? Or a year?

The strategy of passing a bill shouldn't be "do it fast before people can discuss things".

I would have agreed with this until I saw how quickly the electorate turned on the process, and how much misinformation was peddled by the bill's opponents, and quickly the public bought it.
Death panels? Government takeovers? I mean please.

I really don't get the obsession over this. If the bill is bad, the bill is bad.

Just so we're clear here-I don't think the bill is bad at all. I think it needs to pass. I wish it could have gone farther, but I understand the process and the bill is what it is.
but to be clear-the country needs it and it needed to pass and the fact that it isn't is a tradegy for many people-especially the millions of uninsured in this country. It's a national embarassment.

If they were being obstructionist on something that I think should pass, I would be critical of it (as I am of Shelby and what he is doing). But what it comes down to is, I don't care about them being obstructionist because frankly, I don't want the proposed health care bills to pass.

But I still want health care reform ... just not what they are serving.

We fundamentally disagree here.

[seand]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

Why do voters expect immediate results within 6 months? Or a year?

Dude the greatest recession since the Great Depression, global warming, Islamic terrorism, and healthcare still aren't fixed? Pfffft. Change the channel.

Hey whats the shiny object?

[raider.adam]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

Well-it is also easy to criticize any bill and poke holes in it. No one has come up with a better way to help insure the millions of uninsured Americans, prevent rescission, and reduce costs. While I admit fully that the bill was imperfect-and did address all of these things.

That's a lie. Lots of ideas have been discussed. The problem is those currently in power want to do it in the way they have envisioned it.

There is also significant disagreement on how much the proposed bill has adequately addressed those issues listed.

Stay with me. I already admitted to you that the electorate turned against the current health reform bill. I made no hypothesis regarding Scott Brown. I think the health care legislation was a factor. But go back and read my previous post on why the public soured on it.

I apologize then. I thought you were one of the people saying Brown's election had nothing to do with health care.

Yes I agree with this. But then why elect Obama at all with the platform he was running on? Do you think voters didn't expect him to try to reform health care?

Because the electorate thought what he was offering was better than the other side (and with how the Republicans had run the country, that isn't a hard sell). But now it isn't about choosing between two different sides, but the merits of the specific plans.

Why do voters expect immediate results within 6 months? Or a year?

I do believe Obama is the one who kept setting the deadlines.

I would have agreed with this until I saw how quickly the electorate turned on the process, and how much misinformation was peddled by the bill's opponents, and quickly the public bought it.
Death panels? Government takeovers? I mean please.

The other side of that is why couldn't Obama and the Dems sell the bill on its merits?

And the government take overs aren't exactly lies. You have multiple high ranking elected democrats saying the health care route they are going is to eventually implement single payer and this is just the first step. If DeMint is the sneak peak into the "Obama waterloo" agenda, then Frank is the sneak peak into the government takeover agenda.

But again, speeding through legislation when you have the largest majority in decades because you don't think you can win the battle of messaging against a vocal minority is not the solution. That is actually why I do prefer the filibuster, to force debate (of course in some instances the filibuster is being abused).

Just so we're clear here-I don't think the bill is bad at all. I think it needs to pass. I wish it could have gone farther, but I understand the process and the bill is what it is.
but to be clear-the country needs it and it needed to pass and the fact that it isn't is a tradegy for many people-especially the millions of uninsured in this country. It's a national embarassment.

We fundamentally disagree here.

And yes, we obviously disagree about the quality of the proposed legislation. I agree with you that America needs health care reform; I just don't agree anything should pass just because it is doing something.

[Bulworth67]

Originally Posted by seand

Dude the greatest recession since the Great Depression, global warming, Islamic terrorism, and healthcare still aren't fixed? Pfffft. Change the channel.

Hey whats the shiny object?

So true.

[Bulworth67]

Originally Posted by raider.adam

That's a lie. Lots of ideas have been discussed. The problem is those currently in power want to do it in the way they have envisioned it.

I don't buy it Adam. The republicans controlled congress from 1994-2006, and the White house from 2000-2008 and did absolutely NOTHING about the outrageously high numbers of uninsured in this country and spiraling health care costs. If they are given back control of congress-you know what I think they will do about the uninsured? Nothing.

I believe they are trotting out a hodge podge of ideas so they can say they're not obstructionists-but they have no real intention of doing a damn thing about it.

But you can educate me-if you have time-and tell me how the Republican proposals will 1) reduce the outrageous numbers of uninsured in this country, 2) prevent rescission and other insurance company abuses, and 3) reduce costs.

[raider.adam]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

I don't buy it Adam. The republicans controlled congress from 1994-2006, and the White house from 2000-2008 and did absolutely NOTHING about the outrageously high numbers of uninsured in this country and spiraling health care costs. If they are given back control of congress-you know what I think they will do about the uninsured? Nothing.

I believe they are trotting out a hodge podge of ideas so they can say they're not obstructionists-but they have no real intention of doing a damn thing about it.

But you can educate me-if you have time-and tell me how the Republican proposals will 1) reduce the outrageous numbers of uninsured in this country, 2) prevent rescission and other insurance company abuses, and 3) reduce costs.

You said "no one". I wasn't restricting to just "republican" ideas. I don't review policy information based on a party's talking points.

It is also getting tiring to continually discuss a current policy based on what a previous administration did or didn't do. Just because one group of people are wrong for not fixing a problem doesn't excuse the other side for trying to fix it a wrong way.

[thunda]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

Voters have short memories, and no patience.

...no knowledge, a lack of critical thinking ability, susceptibility to sloganeering and sound bites, a tendency to elevate emotions over reason, false impressions of history, a dangerous affinity for religious "magical" thinking, and an inability to challenge their preconceptions when new information becomes available.

Politics becomes easier to understand once you accept that 1/4 to a 1/3 of people are complete and irredeemable morons, and most the of the remainder is still pretty stupid.

[eldondre]

US is too big, power should shift back to the states.

[Illiniwek]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

This to me is direct evidence that Democratic congressman are more willing to work with republican presidents. How is that republican presidents seem to get some of their agenda passed with some Democratic support?
While on the other hand-republicans will resort to uniform opposition to stop a democratic president from accomplishing anything. I seem to remember the last Democratic president getting impeached for lying about a blow job while our military was at war in Bosnia.

Could it possibly be that one side is more partisan than the other?
Hmm...

It may be that Republicans choose popular policies that attract votes from across the aisle. (Considering Obama's push on health care when the country's top concern is jobs, that's probably the present case.)

There are other reasons for Obama's failure as well. Reagan, for example, learned the value of reaching across the aisle in Sacramento, where the Democrats controlled the legislature. None of those Democrats ran on the promise that they would work with Reagan, but Reagan knew how to deploy his charisma as a political tool. Obama, on the other hand, appointed Emanuel, who treats legislative politics like electoral politics, a zero-sum game in which the other side must lose. (It doesn't help that they can't deploy Obama himself to do the outreach. Obama is a bit of a cold fish. He doesn't have a lot of friends among the people who served with him in the Illinois State Senate or the U.S. Senate.)

Obama has never put out a message without stepping on it, leading the opposition to wonder just how sincere he is. Just today, Obama told the White House press corps it was time for bipartisanship. Minutes later, Gibbs opened the daily briefing with a partisan attack.

As was demonstrated today with Lincoln's and Nelson's votes on cloture for Obama's nominee to the NLRB, he hasn't even persuaded his own party to get on board with his agenda.

Obama needs to stop complaining about the filibuster -- which he was happy to support as a Senator, but the way -- because it makes him look like a whiner. That weakens him even further and gives Republicans even less reason to put their votes on his legislative agenda.

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

There may be some truth to this-but hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

I posted at PB about Obama's inexperience, and about why Holder was a rotten choice for AG. (I'm guessing Holder is the next problem on Obama's horizon.) It was the core of Hillary's argument against Obama as well. Some of us saw this coming.

[Bulworth67]

Originally Posted by Illiniwek

It may be that Republicans choose popular policies that attract votes from across the aisle. (Considering Obama's push on health care when the country's top concern is jobs, that's probably the present case.)

There are other reasons for Obama's failure as well. Reagan, for example, learned the value of reaching across the aisle in Sacramento, where the Democrats controlled the legislature. None of those Democrats ran on the promise that they would work with Reagan, but Reagan knew how to deploy his charisma as a political tool. Obama, on the other hand, appointed Emanuel, who treats legislative politics like electoral politics, a zero-sum game in which the other side must lose. (It doesn't help that they can't deploy Obama himself to do the outreach. Obama is a bit of a cold fish. He doesn't have a lot of friends among the people who served with him in the Illinois State Senate or the U.S. Senate.)

Obama has never put out a message without stepping on it, leading the opposition to wonder just how sincere he is. Just today, Obama told the White House press corps it was time for bipartisanship. Minutes later, Gibbs opened the daily briefing with a partisan attack.

As was demonstrated today with Lincoln's and Nelson's votes on cloture for Obama's nominee to the NLRB, he hasn't even persuaded his own party to get on board with his agenda.

Obama needs to stop complaining about the filibuster -- which he was happy to support as a Senator, but the way -- because it makes him look like a whiner. That weakens him even further and gives Republicans even less reason to put their votes on his legislative agenda.



I posted at PB about Obama's inexperience, and about why Holder was a rotten choice for AG. (I'm guessing Holder is the next problem on Obama's horizon.) It was the core of Hillary's argument against Obama as well. Some of us saw this coming.

I admit my theory is not proveable-but neither is yours. I think it more likely that Jim DeMint's strategy was adopted from the beginning-which was to obstruct Obama at all costs and deliver him his Waterloo. Unfortuantely-independent voters bought the townhall rage and fear tactics about death panels and pulling the plug on Grandma hook line and sinker. The evidence is overwhelming to me that the GOP would never work with Obama under any circumstances. DeMint just happened to let it out.
And the GOP's 180 degree turn on curbing medicare costs was the ultimate hypocrisy-after spending decades trying to sink the program. It shows that their obstructionism was carefully crafted politics.

With regard to Hillary-it's funny how with Obama's rise-republicans all of a sudden show respect for Hillary Clinton. Before Obama-Hillary was one of the most vilified and hated and castigated figures on the planet.

One thing is for sure though-Hillary would have probably been more effective at dealing with republican obstructionism. She wouldn't have hesitated to use reconciliation-and she would never have engaged in a futile attempt at bipartisan compromise with a party that was determined to obstruct a democratic presidents agenda at all costs.

[Illiniwek]

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

With regard to Hillary-it's funny how with Obama's rise-republicans all of a sudden show respect for Hillary Clinton. Before Obama-Hillary was one of the most vilified and hated and castigated figures on the planet.

Hillary supports some policies I don't like. That doesn't make her warnings about Obama's callowness any less prescient.

[Niked]

Hi, long time reader, first time poster. Now that we have dispensed with the introductions...

Originally Posted by raider.adam

And frankly, something like I listed is a much easier sell. Instead of having a big convoluted bill that the average american can't understand (or even above average) you get to sell it with the following talking points:

1) This health reform bill is going to give every american more options, choice and security to get the health care plan best for them.
2) This health reform bill expands coverage to americans with pre-existing conditions
3) This health reform bill works towards lowering the cost of health care by making the insurance companies and medical providers fight for your business

And it is easy enough to add in some sort of provisions to help expand medical coverage to the destitute - insurance vouchers, expanding medicaid coverage or some other mechanism.

I would say most americans understand how capitalism works. They understand the concept that if they have the ability to choose from 10 different people, they can find a better deal. It is an easy sell - and they don't have to trust the government to deliver.

Your hypothesis intrigues me. Please explain how increasing the supply of insurance companies would decrease overall healthcare costs, for example:
1) how does it decrease how much the hospital charges for a procedure?
2) how does it decrease the cost of a chemotherapy regimen?
3) how does it cut out "waste" from the system by reducing the provision of unnecessary care?

[raider.adam]

Originally Posted by Niked

Hi, long time reader, first time poster. Now that we have dispensed with the introductions...

Your hypothesis intrigues me. Please explain how increasing the supply of insurance companies would decrease overall healthcare costs, for example:
1) how does it decrease how much the hospital charges for a procedure?
2) how does it decrease the cost of a chemotherapy regimen?
3) how does it cut out "waste" from the system by reducing the provision of unnecessary care?

What do you mean "supply of insurance companies"?