Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

THIS is the bill that President Obama is staking his political career on?!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:47 AM
Original message
THIS is the bill that President Obama is staking his political career on?!
First of all, as much as I HATE the health care "reform" bill, and hope that it is killed by House progressives, I cannot bring myself to root for a GOP victory in the upcoming special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.

On the other hand, by making the decision to come to MA to campaign for Coakley, President Obama HAS made that election a referendum on him, and on his disaster of a "reform" bill.

President Obama had SO MUCH political capital during his first months in office, that if he had kept his incredible campaign machine - and more importantly his CAMPAIGN ADVISORS - in place, and used that machine to strongly advocate for REAL health care reform, staking his career on a plan with a ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION, there would have been no "Blue Dog" democrat brave enough to oppose him.

Instead, that campaign organization was allowed to atrophy - ending up as little more than an e-mail collecting web site; and, he replaced his bold, agressive, progressive, campaign staff, with corporatist DLC advisors like Rahm Emanuel.

Obama is going to end up with EXACTLY the health care bill that he, Rahm, and the Health Insurance industry wanted. Its a piece of crap. And if President Obama goes down in flames next week, because the American people recognize the bill as piece of crap, and a give-away to the Health Insurance industry, then he will have nobody but himself, and Rahm Emanual, to blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't think going there is the problem.
It was already the straw that broke this camels back. I imagine I'm not alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. No . . . but going there is like going ALL IN on a bad hand in poker,
Although the Right Wing media would have been all over him for "abandoning is own plan" if he didn't go, by making the decision to go there, he has made the MA election about HIM, instead of being about Coakley and Brown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. It was about him already. If he didn't try she will do worse and he will get the blame.
Heck he tried to bail out Corzine and the olympics. I don't think that hurt him much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. There is truth to this.
Although I think there are other factors in play as well, including how Teddy really held the Democratic Party together in that state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. They probably knew there would be a day of reckoning, but didn't have a clue it would come this soon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
46. You really gotta watch where you step around DU these days.
Dogshit everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. Some people (like you) like "strongly advocating." Others (like Obama) like actually doing something
Joe Lieberman doesn't give two shits about what Obama wants and would have happily seen the whole bill die if it wasn't written to please him. That's all that was needed. Obama knew that from day one.

Of course, you would rather see Obama fight and lose than accept the best he could possibly get. That is your right. There are plenty of others like you who think politics is all a game or a fight. But there are those that are less vocal who actually need help and don't care about games or fights, and this bill (despite the shrill criticism on this board) will do a HUGE amount to help those with pre-existing conditions and those who can't afford insurance.

But if getting into a fiery rage about Rahm Emanual is therapeutic for you, more power to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Liebermann doesn't care about what Obama wants . . . but he DOES care . . .
about his Committee Chairmanship. If Rahm had told Harry Ried "If Liebermann votes against us on the Public Option, I want you to strip that fucker of his committee chairmanship, and give him an office the size of a broom closet down in the basement" Liebermann would have fallen into line.

THAT is how you play Politics. None of this "pass anything" and call it a "victory" bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Hm, good point. What ever happened to bare knuckle politics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. It's amazing to me that people could have watched the Bushies do JUST THAT for 8 years
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 10:33 AM by tom_paine
and then turn on a dime and accept this timidity (purposeful, built into their character, who knows and who cares all that matters is it IS) so easily.

HELLO????

Ummmm, if it cant be done how come the Bushies just DID it for 8 years?

I swear, Krashkopf there is no drive more powerful in human beings than denial, except maybe sex drive.

Frightenting.

As Helen Thomas recently said, and it is a question we should ALL be asking (but thanks to the massive power of human denial only 0.001% of people are asking) "Who are we? What are we becoming?"

The answer, sadly, appears to be that we are becoming exactly what our Corporate and Aristocratic Masters want us to be. What the finished product will be, I cannot guess, but it will be Authoritarian and feudal or feudal-like, that much seems certain by the neon-arrow quality of the trends and their direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zaj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
40. That would have done nothing.
JL owes NOTHING to the Dems. He's ready to bolt, has the leverage and knows it.

If he bolts, he becomes a Republican and opposes EVERYTHING the Dems do. The Dems lose ANYTHING that JL has voted with them on.

He's got them by the balls.

Next time, progressive Dems need to win the general election. Not just the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
24. Oh, I see.
In 2008, The American People gave the Democratic Party:

*The White House

*Huge MAJORITIES in the Senate

*Huge MAJORITIES in The House

*a HUGE MANDATE for "CHANGE"

but this is ALL Joe Lieberman's fault. :cry:

Obama & The Party could squash Joe Lieberman like a roach...if they wanted to.
THIS HCR Bill (Mandates without a Public Option) is EXACTLY the Bill that the "Centrist" Party Leadership wants.
ALL the rest has been Kabuki Theater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. Exactly..
... George Bush pushed through almost everything he wanted without half the advantages. To blame this on a couple peon senators is pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
58. Please show us evidence of CONTROLLING majority because dem do NOT have it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. I didnt' see him try until the middle class tax on benefits was threatened
I saw him let the teabaggers drive the debate all through August while he left town. I saw Rahm show up at the Senate on a Sunday night and order Harry Reid to cave to Lieberman. It was kind of weird for Joe, as evil as he is even, to come out against the expansion of Medicare that he was promoting in September and which he had indicated to the Senate leader that he would vote for.

But we'll never know. I certainly do hope for his sake this is, as Russ Feingold told us, the bill the President wanted all along, Cause it's the one he's gonna get and he went all in for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. More nonsense..
... Obama could have gotten a decent bill if he had WORKED for a decent bill. The buck DOES stop there and Obama BLEW IT. This handwringing about Lieberman and Nelson is BULLSHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
41. If this bill was the best Obama could get
he would have looked better had he lost while fighting for a bill that actually helped people get access to health care not just "coverage".

As it stands, it looks like this scam is exactly the bill Obama wanted and he doesn't care how much it hurts the working and middle classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
47. You prove my point exactly.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 01:41 AM by BzaDem
You would rather "fight" than actually get anything done. This is why Obama is in the Whitehouse, and not you, and this is why you will be perpetually disappointed (as I'm sure you were with the previous Democratic presidents). Obama cares FAR less about what you think of him than actually passing a bill to help 30 million people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. Explain how this bill will help 30 million people.
I know they will be forced to pay Private Insurance Cos for 'coverage' and if they don't, the IRS will be after them. But what kind of coverage can people who have little or no money buy, even with subsidies (also going to Private Ins.)? They will buy the shittiest policies available with huge co-pays and will not only not be able to use their 'coverage' but will be out of pocket for money that they desperately need.

No wonder people are calling it 'protection money'. Pay up or get fined. This is not health care reform, it is a bail-out of the Insurance Corps.

Wendal Potter predicted this long before it happened. He said Private Insurers were eying the 40 million uninsured as a potential market. NOT as people who needed health care. This bill has found a way to squeeze money out of them, AND get the government, that would be the tax-payers, to pay Private Ins. for those who can't pay.

I have to hand it to them. I could never have come up with such a clever way to rip off the tax-payers AND the poorest Americans at the same time in order to make a fortune. Nor would I, had I thought of it, have expected anyone in their right mind to defend me for doing it. But here we are with people actually trying to tell us this is a good thing and it will provide health care for 30 million people. You have to give credit where it is due. They knew how apathetic and beaten down the American people have become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. And, let's not forget the 15 million who will not be "helped" by this bill
(meaning they still won't even have "coverage"). And, the CBO estimates that by 2019 this bill will be leaving 19 million uninsured - so we'll still be in the same situation we are now. A growing number of people both uninsured and underinsured.

Again, if all Congress & Obama could "accomplish" was mandating the status quo we would have been better off with nothing because we'll never get this scam changed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
45. You're kidding, right?
You actually think this bill will help people with pre-existing conditions. I wish it did.

This bill, as it is written now, does prevent health-insurance companies from denying someone
healthcare if they have a pre-existing condition. However, have you read about all of the
loopholes and about all of the things that are NOT in this bill?

The health insurance companies now must insure people with pre-existing conditions, but
the health-insurance lobby fought long and hard to make damn sure that there are NO
controls on costs. They can charge you whatever they damn well please. Sure, they'll
insure you-but you'll pay several thousand just to buy in. Then, comes your co-pays
and your deductibles. Guess who decides how much you pay? The insurance companies decide
and they're in business to profit--not make your life easier.

When will people get it? The insurance companies wrote this bill. The insurance companies
paid our politicians off, and our elected officials are delivering for them--in the form
of this healthcare bill. There is no reform in it. The system is still broken. Profit
mongers are still in charge of deciding who lives or dies--based on profit maximization.

I feel sorry for anyone who is still holding out hope that this bill will do anything
positive. It won't. And not only will it be bad for healthcare, it will sink our
entire party...for YEARS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Insurance companies will not be able to charge you more if you are sick.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 01:46 AM by BzaDem
That means everyone will have to pay more or less the same amount with FAR less variation than exists today. So if costs for everyone go up, the government will be forced to act. As opposed to now, where costs only go up for the few that are sick (those that don't have a large political voice), which results in the sick going bankrupt while the healthy don't have to bear the brunt of the cost.

Of course the insurance companies decide. Of course they want to make a profit. Of course this is not a good system. But who do you think decides now? How is this any worse than the current system? You act like you are comparing this to your fantasy Single Payer system that could have been enacted if only Obama showed more "leadership." Not the actual system we have today. This bill will be a huge benefit to tens of millions of people no matter how many bad things you cite about the bill that really are no worse than the current system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
53. Yeah -- they're knifing us in the back.
Sometimes, not doing something is better than getting stuck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DontTreadOnMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. This MA Senate election is a referendum on Obama / Rahm HCR
The FACT that it is even close says volumes. MA is the bluest state in the country.

When DEMS pander to the right, it always comes home in a really bad way.

The disappointment in Obama is staggering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Staggering but wholly justified. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Actually it is an Indy state.
Someone posted registrations and I was very surprised by that stat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. People like me started that trend 30 years ago
I registered Independent in Massachusetts right from the beginning, though I only voted for a Republican once in my life, and that was 30 years ago. I still register that way to this day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. I don't agree.
I think it's every bit as much about Coakley, Brown and their respective campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. I don't think any of that is right.
It is not a referendum on Obama. It isn't as close as is being portrayed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
11. It's a good bill

Fixes the worst habits of the insurance industry, and gives millions of Americans coverage that they wouldn't have otherwise (myself included).


I won't like paying to an insurance company, and the minute there is any form of public option, I'll take it - but this bill does good things, and harms no one. The latter is what I suspect most people are bitching about; we'd like to see insurance companies punished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Strongly Disagree
First of all, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Government does not have the constitutional authority to compel people to enter into PRIVATE contracts. (On the other hand, a single payer system would be consitutional because the government does have the constitutional authority to compel us to pay our taxes).

Secondly, without a strong public option, there is NOTHING in the bill to force the Insurance Industry to contain the skyrocketing costs of health insurance. The bill gives the Insurance industry 40 million new customers, and says, in essence, you can charge those people, and everyone else for that matter, as much as you want.

And you think that harms no one?!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. It harms no one, and it helps me immensely
and millions of people like me.


The Constitutional angle has been dealt with (seriously, you think a constitutional scholar would go to this much effort w/o being sure he was on good legal footing? c'mon).


You don't like paying to private companies. I understand that. I'll be fighting against that politically for the rest of my life, I'm guessing.


And yes, there are things to contain skyrocketing cost of insurance. MLR's for one thing. And hopefully real competition between companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Wendall Potter has said the 85% MLR was exactly the ratio the industry was angling for
At one point the proposal was for 90% and Obama's director of OMB squashed it saying it would amount to nationalization of the industry. Potter has said 85% was the level at which the industry was most comfortable they can manipulate the numbers suit their purposes. Every 'good' thing people think is in the bill has a loophole-preexisting conditions, rescissions, annual limits. I wish it wasn't so but it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #37
51. It was the director of the CBO. Not the director of the OMB.
Obama didn't appoint the director of the CBO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Ah, you are correct
Does not change the fact that Potter has said the 85% MLR is the level the industry needed to manipulate the numbers. Also, not well known is the MLR for individual plans is 80%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
61. That's not how Constitutional law works--
It's not like a math problem that "scholars" study and then discover the single correct answer to--the SCOTUS is essentially a political body in which the Justices bring well-known political biases decide cases on whatever basis they see fit.

With that background, you can say "it will likely be found Constitutional..." but to say the "Constitutional angle has been dealt with" betrays a misunderstanding of the basic process. In other words, it's another place where Yogi Berra's famous maxim comes into play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
33. Says it fixes the worst habits but has a loophole to allow every one of them to continue on nt
And it does not 'harm no one.' The downward pressure on wages of working class people will be enshrined forever as they are mandated to buy insurance at ever increasing prices forever and ever. Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
64. I wish
I think it does next to nothing on the abuses. They can still drop you for the same bogus reason they could before (fraud) which is insane. With a mandate rescissions should simply be a thou shalt not.
They can reject on pre-existing but can charge 3X the normal rate for the person which means almost no one can afford it but I guess they can get an exception and at least avoid the fine.
They retain the anti-trust exemption so they can collude on prices and territories.
They keep state pools so they can buy and sell regulators.
There is no new enforcement in any event.
The crazy wellness provision will allow them to gouge beyond the gouging of today and piss off many.

As for the benefits of coverage, it looks to be that folks with little money will be mandated into a bootstrap they won't be able to afford to pull themselves up by here. The out of pockets and the monthly on this near junk silver policy will crush people and force them to pay for something they can't use.

As always I hope it does help some but my guess is it will give relief to those allowed to go onto medicaid at least until it is absorbed into the larger program and the upper middle class and rich will get some pretty good asset protection from the out of pocket max. Lots of higher income folks had started going this high deductible route anyway and I bet those that have looked at it are the most gung ho. They may have a little bit of a monthly increase but go to a very low risk situation, the max OOP is about what they kept in their medical savings accounts anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
66. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is what this bill does.
It will extend health care to millions who do not have it now, but without an effective incentive for competition in the market for health insurance, there is no real expectation that health insurance premiums will rise at a slower rate than the growth of people's wages. Cost containment is a massive failure in the current system, precisely because there is very little competition among insurance companies. The market for health insurance could be described as an oligopoly, a state where a few large firms dominate the market and informally collude to fix prices artificially high. Others would call it a cartel in everything but the legal sense.

Eventually, people who make too much money to qualify for subsidies and too little money to afford the insurance will be driven into bankruptcy if they are mandated to hold that insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
13. You think Lieberman would have gone along with a robust public option
just because our President wanted it?


I respectfully disagree.


There are bad things in the bill, there are good things in the bill, it is a bill.


The problem is that we have turned this into a "Waterloo" for our party and need to get something passed no matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Rahm and Obama went INTO the process with the GOAL of passing ANYTHING
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 09:32 AM by Krashkopf
That was obvious when they took "single payer" off the table at the very beginning.

That was either a very STUPID negotiating position, or a negotiating position designed to end up EXACTLY where we have ended up.

I don't think Obama or Emanual are STUPID.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Well said on all fronts! But there's more...
:toast:

Sadly, immensely sadly actually, is that the entire process from the start showed Obama/Emmanuel going limp, so to speak, and saying do with us what you will.

Consider this facet of a many-faceted situation: As you well know, a bill can get started by anyone be it a Rep, Sen, or President. Right from the very start, Obama's people didn't present a bill and say, "here's where we start".

For the 8 years before, that's pretty much most of what passed - White House writes bill, Congress rubber stamps with minor changes at best - a few notable congressional initiatives, ignored by Bush anyway, but largely EVERY important bill that meant a major policy change initiated by the CheneyBush White House was rubber stamped.

Now, SUDDENLY, this MAJOR initiative and the White House doesn't even present a bill as a starting point???

:wtf:

What's wrong with this picture???

Could...could Obama and Rahm have FORGOTTEN that they have the power to write a bill and do just what Bush-Cheney did, dominate the conversation (even if he couldn't strongarm as well as they at least he could provide that starting point and use the bully pulpit to drive the conversation) and guide it to their desired goals?

:rofl:

No, they went limp and "bipartisan" from the start, leaving the whole thing to Congress, who promptly threw the Single Payer people out the front door.

It's all right in front of us, the simplest things like breadcrumbs leading to a very ugly truth that is so big and so ugly no one wants to see it.

"But the Emperor wears no clothes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
68. Yeah, neither of that duo is stupid.
Apparently both are very calculating though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. I think the Medicare expansion Harry Reid put in at the end
was an issue Lieberman was pushing in September. I think the President asked him to kill it and let him take the heat for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
16. We've got to take the long view....
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 09:58 AM by Davis_X_Machina
When the present effort fails -- and it must fail -- we'll just come back stronger, this time with single-payer.

Of course, that will be defeated, too, but it will be a much more righteous, nay, glorious, defeat.

And is there anything more satisfying that that?

I don't think so,

I figure that in thirty years after two more defeats, the bill that gets defeated that time will actually create -- well, actually only call for the creation of, because that bill just got defeated, but you catch my drift -- an American National Health Service, staffed by civil servants, with bricks and mortar belonging to the state.

Now losing a vote on health care reform that sweeping -- I can't imagine how any defeat could be more righteous or more glorious than that one.

But losing that vote lies far in the future. We have to start small, by losing votes on less comprehensive plans now, and gradually increase the scale of the plans that we can't get passed.

Now people will carp, and say "What about the unensured and uninsurable today?" That's just a lack of vision. My plan, in addition to being perfect, would of course also provide for a National Day of Commemoration for all the un- and underinsured who died in the meantime, in recognition of their completely avoidable suffering.

I'm sure they realize the place their sacrifice plays in our inexorable march towards a truly optimal solution to the problem of health care, and won't be resentful.

Do you think they'd like to be on a stamp? Or is something tasteful and not too showy on the Mall in Washington more appropriate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I disagree that a public option was destined to fail
President Obama had enough political capital to pass a reform bill with a strong public option (with either 60 votes, through the normal legislative process, or with 50 votes through the reconcilliation process)if he had FOUGHT FOR IT.

Instead he put a quest for bipartisanship (that he was never going to get) ahead of principle and strong public policy - and look at where we have ended up - a bill that NOBODY likes EXCEPT for the Insurance Industry!

And guess what, I WOULD HAVE preferred to see my President be a LEADER who goes down to a principled, and glorious defeat, than to be a corporate suckup who trumpets a faux victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. You are on a roll. Saying it all with brevity and clarity!
Keep going.

Check out my posts and see that basically they ceded the playing field before the battle even started. It's all right in front of our noses.

Why didn't the WHITE HOUSE present it's own bill FIRST?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tango-tee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
65. Strongly agree.
The "quest for bipartisanship" was the killer.

Talk for me is cheap, I returned to Europe to take care of my sick Mom. But I do worry about my son, daughter-in-law and grandchild living in Texas, as well as those millions of others who will be taken advantage of by this insurance companies' - let me put this politely - nocturnal emissions come true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. That's some nice satire - point taken
But if you truly think such juvenile vainglorious idiocy is what is truly behind many DUers opposition to this bill, you are sadly mistaken.

Will this bill, if passed, help many people? Almost certainly. Is the point you are trying to make correct? It is.

But in trading that, we give a MASSIVE expansion of Corporate Power over our poitical system, and MASSIVE shifting of wealth upward in a nation that is rapidly approaching a GINI coefficient of Zimbabwe. Given that Corporate Power pretty much does in fact wholly dominate our political sphere, our media our everything, one can scarcely guess what is comin after this latest bunch of massive wealth transfers (let's not forget the $10-12 trillion massive wealth transfer in the bailouts from the Fed) further transforms our society.

THOSE changes have yet to be seen and by the time they are, Bad Cop will be back (maybe Palin/Beck 2012 or 2016) to keep the starving madhouse on course to Neofeudalism with some good clouts fom the cat-o-nine-tails and Fatherland Security.

But now I'm getting satiric, too. The fact of the matter is that both you and the OP are right. Like most choices in BushAmerica, this is a lose-lose for the American Subject Populace. I myself am torn between your POV and the OP, as one should be when the choice is lose-lose.

Take the crumbs from Master's Table in exchange for much further pain down the road when the results of our wholsale looting have begun to REALLY sink in maybe as soon as next year and maybe as far away as 20 years (this over-optimistic scenario would suggest your side of the "devil's bargain" is the correct one for the sheer numbers of individuals this would help before the true nightmare set in).

That's the awful choice we now face. You and the OP - you're both right.

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
38. The insurance industry will die a natural death long before 30 years pass.
In fact, I would expect to see them back asking for reform within about 5 years at the outside if this fails. They can't keep shedding customers at the rate they are without dying. They've propped up their profits for a these last years with escalating premiums. They are now going to reach diminishing returns on that. The more they raise the rates, the more customers will bail. It will be impossible to raise the rates enough for the few they have left to cover the shortfall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. Apparently the Powers that Be did not install Obama in the Oval Office
So that he could keep the Progresive Candidate's promises to us.

Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
26. and if he hadn't gone, you'd be blaming him for what-the-fuck-ever
gawd this place gets dumber and more predictable by the day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Krashkopf Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks for the great discussion and all of the RECS.
I'll take a 21:1 read/rec ratio any day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
28. Same rant, repeated for the 50th time
I can tell you that a rant with similar sentiments is posted nearly every few hours, thus it's losing it's 'shock' value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
30. The candidate, the party and the President ignored this election until the last minute
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 07:10 PM by laughingliberal
I'm not sure if they just thought it would be a walk or what. I do wonder, though, if the White House expected they would have their bill by now and, therefore, cared not if this seat fell to Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zaj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
39. Joe Lieberman would oppose anything involving a public insurance program...
The Obama folks knew this all along.

They never had 60 votes for robust public option because they didn't have JL.

Next time, progressive Dems need to defeat Joe Lieberman in the general, not just the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. Maybe "moderate" dems should be as scorned as the Nader voters for putting Joe back in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #48
55. The difference is that "moderate" dems are voting their interests
whereas Nader voters are voting irrationally, completely against their interests.

It's like watching a sports game where your team is about to win, until 10 seconds before the end of the game they all stop playing and do a little dance (allowing the other team to win). Of course you aren't going to be happy that the other team won, but they did what you expected them to do and try to take advantage of an opportunity to win. You would be much angrier at the losing team for blowing it when they actually had the chance to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zaj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #48
63. Yes, any Dems who voted for Lieberman should be scorned...
... that's where the blame lies at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
42. K$R wish Obama had campaigned like this for the PO (during his prez) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
43. K&R.
Word!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadesofgray Donating Member (350 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
44. K&R. A-FUCKING-men!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
49. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
54. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KrazyinKS Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
56. Lawrence O'Donnells Post
Did anybody read his post on Huffington post today? He says that this bill (senate version) is what the Republicans wants. They can campaign against it in the future and it is the first step toward privatizing Social Security and Medicare. I get all parts but the Privatizing of Social Security. I know they want to. Bush tried it. But how is this the first step. I do think they crapped up the health care bill on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. thanks for the heads-up, i'm reading his post now, very insightful!
here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/will-sc...


p.s.: I almost welcomed you to the DU, but then I realized you've been a member for a while! :hi: :toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
62. Wish I could rec this OP!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
67. The Republicans agree with you wholeheartily
Edited on Tue Jan-19-10 03:51 AM by FrenchieCat
Y'all are like 2 peas in a pod.

Isn't that sweet.

They don't want no stinking health care plan either!



While Democrats were busy fighting each other here and everywhere else for all to see,
including leftwing media; tearing down Democrats and this Administration...

Republicans Bloggers and Conservative decision makers were keeping busy strategizing trying to figure out how to win an unwinnable Senate seat, in a state which was the only state won by McGovern in 1972. It might mean a 41 vote for them, and doing away with the 60 vote majority currently held by Democrats. It was worth a try, to say the least.

Let's walk this back.....



IS A BROWN WIN POSSIBLE? Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:01:00 PM EST



An Intriguing Long Shot: Could Massachusetts Save Us From Obamacare?
BY William Kristol
December 22, 2009 9:54 PM


Now, of course the Democrat Martha Coakley is the overwhelming favorite. But someone might want to commission a poll in Massachusetts to see what might happen if the Senate race could be made a referendum on Obamacare. Brown and Coakley debated last night, and they clashed on the health care bill. But so far as I can tell, Brown didn't emphasize that by electing him, the voters of Massachusetts have a chance to save the country from Obamacare.

What if there were a massive independent expenditure that made that point? I bet Obamacare isn't popular even in Massachusetts. And it would be novelistically satisfying if the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat on the issue of government-run health care, thereby dooming...government-run health care.


Conservative Bloggers take matters into their own hands (with or without instructions from above....that we don't know), while Democratic Bloggers continue to assail each other, busy holding feet to fire, demanding single payer, and ramping up a Kill the Bill Campaign....


Saturday, December 26, 2009
Since the Media Wouldnt Conduct A Poll - we did it ourselves!
Because the main stream media have been asleep at Obamas feet, Conservative Revival blog contributor Mark and I decided to gather our own poll data about the January 19 special US Senate election in Massachusetts.

To conduct the poll, we used the local phone book, a script we developed and old fashioned data-gathering tools of paper and pencil.

The random call system involved the Cape Cod phone book. We started with the letter A. We looked for residences of couples. We called each residence and recorded the results. We tried to made one actual contact per page, starting at page 1 of the white pages. This was our rationale: if we could get one contact per page, then 1 out of 300 people per page might be a good sampling of the actual Cape Cod population. Of course, as with all surveys, the more data, the more accurate the sampling.

If someone asks for the name of the polling organization, say www.newmedia.blogspot.com Research Poll. ... Incidentally, although my husband thought he made up this name, the URL actually exists and belongs to a blogger who last entered a post on June 17, 2004!

Here is the data gathered from the 157 answered phone calls we made today:



Unofficial data: Liberal women are nasty and short-tempered. We can begin to understand what part of the problem is with Massachusetts voters: female Dems.
Final thoughts: the Boston news media spent so much time focusing on Coakley, that sleepy MA voters will likely go to the polls on name recognition alone. Therefore, it is our job as patriots who live in this Commie-wealth to tell as many people as we can about Scott Brown between now and January 19.

When we get 500 actual responses (Brown + Undecided + Coakley), we will have an official poll we can publish.

Actually, if you just thought about it, Joe Kennedy's name on the ballot will likely take more votes away from Coakley than Brown. Mass. Dems are not known for their, shall we say, intelligence; Brown could take the seat with a plurality just by Dems voting for "their" Joe Kennedy! :-)

Maybe you should start calling Dems & pushing JK...




While Bloggers where in essence masquerating as a Polling firm, and busy working the phones, many of them
were leaving messages on answering machines talking about a race that wasn't being discussed.....


December 31, 2009

Can a Republican Really Win Teddy's Seat?

There have been no recent "scientific" polls for the January 19 Massachusetts special election that will fill the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy's death. But there has been one kinda-sloppy telephone survey suggesting that Republican contender Scott Brown, a state senator in the Bay State legislature, might actually defeat Attorney General Martha Coakley, who won the early-December Democratic primary.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/can-republican-really...

Wow. Rasmussen: Scott Brown within 2 Points of Coakley Among Voters Very Likely to Turn Out.
January 5, 2010
Since this is the first official poll for the Jan. 19 Massachusetts special election, there is no way to know officially who is rising and who is falling, but one key lesson learned from the 2008 primaries is that a 9-point gap can be erased in 14 days by momentum.

Obama got 62% of the votes in Massachusetts. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one (30%: 11%). Approximately 50% of registered voters are unaffiliated, otherwise known as independent. According to Rasmussen, these voters favor Brown by an impressive margin:

Both candidates get better than 70% of the vote from members of their respective parties, but Brown leads 65% to 21% among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. Eight percent (8%) of Democrats remain undecided while just 3% of Republicans are in that category.

Question for the mathematicians out there: Given the above-stated preferences reported by Rasmussen, what percentages of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents need to vote to generate a WIN for Scott Brown?

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Browns supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/wow-rasmuss... /




January 17, 2010
Seeing Brown coming
The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)



My conclusion:
The above is only a theory based on acnedotal evidence, but it appears that Bloggers make more of a difference for the Republican party than we do here. I believe that there was enough work done on the other side to put Brown's name out there (since it was just one state, and probably pushed top down) that by the time a poll was done, the results were as they were. It is very possible that Rasmussen "knew" who to call and basically mirrored the polls taken by the "sloppies"....as we all know that Rasmussen is reknowned for supporting Republicans.

We need to quit sitting on our laurels complaining and fighting each other. We need to get active and we need to start dealing with both the media and taking on Bloggers and issues in an organized and thoughtful way, but we need to be able to come to an understanding that we want something, instead of nothing...because if we want nothing, then we become the Republicans.

We cannot forget to keep an eye on the other side, nor can we forget to keep our eyes on the prize (understanding that the prize may not be exactly what we want, because that's the price of a big tent party, which is how we have a majority to begin with). I think there should have been multi-tasking all along...cause the next thing we know, Palin will be the Next President, and by the time we figure it out, she'll be getting sworn in.

The musings above weren't shouted onto the Internet; instead they were deliberately thought out and executed, and I think this is part of our problem as Democratic Bloggers; we have big mouths and like to shout everything out onto the Internet to prove how smart we are. In doing so, we lose any Strategic edge. Same goes for our treatment of our President; the louder we shout at him in public for everything he does, the more likely the WH is not given any chance to strategize effectively, as they are too busy responding to us to develop covert type of activities against the opposition that might be beneficial to us....something that the Republicans do every day. Remember too, that they have much of the media on their side.

This Health Care Reform is not something the Republicans want, and considering those here crying thinking that this plan is not "good enough" have basically assisted the Republicans in doing exactly what they wanted to do; defeating this plan, and having something to crow about for election 2010.

You might as well all kiss your asses goodbye, as you will not be getting any fucking thing any fucking time soon. You made the perfect the enemy of the good, and because of this, you may not be getting jack shit. You can be proud, but it will be a hollow victory, cause it means you didn't win a damn thing......in fact, not only did you lose from the get, but you dragged us all down with you.
31 Million people and the possible loss of their subsidies do not thank you; cause you haven't done a damn thing for them--those would be the most downtrotten.

Might as well line up to kick a Haitian in the face next, cause you didn't give him any of your water, that's for sure.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC