US Health Care Reform DOA

[Pangloss]

Two separate polls out today show the majority of Americans favoring the abandonment of the current health care plan. A Rasmussen poll says 61% want the emphasis shifted to jobs. According to a USA Today poll, 55% of Democrats, 56% of independents, and 87% of Republicans say a new bill should be drafted.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/01/poll-congress-should-focus-on-jobs-not-health-care/1

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-22-Poll-health-care_N.htm

 

Given that the Senate bill has no chance (according to Pelosi) of passing the House as-is, that pretty much ends the issue. It also puts most of the 2009 legislative year to waste.

 

I think that better options need to be explored. No "public" approach is going to succeed in this environment. Congress should focus on insurance reform and regulation. What do you all think?

[CharonY]

Given the hold the health industry has I do not believe that too much on regulation will pass either. At least nothing that could curtail the profits of the insurers. Without any deeper knowledge (at some time I was not able to follow this tragedy/comedy any longer) what comes to my mind is SNAFU.

[bascule]

I favor abandonment of the current healthcare plan, and I'm supposedly a pinko commie.

[Mokele]

I think at this point, nobody likes it. The right has always hated it, for whatever crazy-ass reason, and as it's become increasingly watered-down, stripped of meaningful reform, and less effective, the left has been looking at it going "What, seriously? We got you a super-majority, and this is best you could do?"

 

At this point, I wonder how much worse US healthcare is going to have to get before we can finally actually see some meaningful reform.

[CharonY]

Until the health care insurers forget to pay their lobbyists?

[npts2020]

Well this radical leftist only had tepid support for the house version. Once they stripped out everything I could support about it, I became convinced that it was better off dead. I will say that forcing everyone to buy health insurance is fair when they also pass laws so that everyone also is not allowed to smoke, consume alcohol, and eat bad foods. Everyone should also have to exercise every day. Otherwise I am paying for their bad habits.

[Phi for All]

the left has been looking at it going "What, seriously? We got you a super-majority, and this is best you could do?"

That part just blows me away. Dems could have kept themselves in power ad infinitum if they had just given the people what they clearly wanted: health coverage that can't be canceled because you get sick, that doesn't bankrupt them if they get really sick, and that doesn't keep them from saving for their kid's educations. This just cements the public opinion that the politicians are either corrupt or inept or both.

[Mokele]

Based on what I saw and the various lefty blogs, right now the opinion of the Dems is "inept", largely due to an idiotic fascination with "bipartisanship".

[Pangloss]

Exactly. That description of "inept" from the far left illustrates the perception problem that colors agenda-based politics. The supermajority was seen as a progressive mandate, instead of what it really was -- a shift of moderate, independent voters who aren't even remotely interested in European-style social "reforms".

 

It's not that the efforts that were made were super-radical -- they really weren't. The problem was that too many strongly progressive Dems thought they had a mandate, and the moment a compromise was offered to a moderate Dem to get their vote, they'd lose a progressive Dem because of that concession.

 

The practical upshot of the election of Scott Brown is that the progressive wing of the Democratic party will now proceed to sit down and shut up. If they're smart, moderates will control the agenda, and the result will be that bills will be passed that represent real progress in a generally leftward direction, and the party will have something real to show in November. That's actually a worst-case scenario for Republicans.

 

Or the progressives can keep screaming about "fighting the good fight" and they can lose in November. Their choice.

 

On a more positive note for the left, the President today appointed David Plouffe (his key campaign strategist and a long-time progressive activist) to head Dem re-election efforts this fall. That will appease the bloggers for a while.

[bascule]

The practical upshot of the election of Scott Brown is that the progressive wing of the Democratic party will now proceed to sit down and shut up. If they're smart, moderates will control the agenda, and the result will be that bills will be passed that represent real progress in a generally leftward direction, and the party will have something real to show in November. That's actually a worst-case scenario for Republicans.

 

At the same time they should stop worrying about bipartisanship. They have (or had) a supermajority and should make the most of it while it lasts. Given how little they've actually managed to accomplish with it, it doesn't seem like it will last for long.

[Phi for All]

They have (or had) a supermajority and should make the most of it while it lasts. Given how little they've actually managed to accomplish with it, it doesn't seem like it will last for long.

Mephistopheles gave Faustus 24 years of supermajority and he did the same thing with it.

[Mokele]

The supermajority was seen as a progressive mandate, instead of what it really was -- a shift of moderate, independent voters who aren't even remotely interested in European-style social "reforms".

 

Then why have polls over the past year consistently shown support for the public option at between 60-80%

 

That's a pretty damn big margin. And the whole "scott brown" thing - Brown only won because those who voted for Obama were disillusioned at the *lack* of a public option, which 80% of them support.

 

The problem was that too many strongly progressive Dems thought they had a mandate, and the moment a compromise was offered to a moderate Dem to get their vote, they'd lose a progressive Dem because of that concession.

 

Bullshit. Cite a source for this happening.

 

The *only* time I recall progressive Dems backing out was with the hideous misogyny of the Stupak-Mills "We hate women" amendment.

 

The practical upshot of the election of Scott Brown is that the progressive wing of the Democratic party will now proceed to sit down and shut up. If they're smart, moderates will control the agenda, and the result will be that bills will be passed that represent real progress in a generally leftward direction, and the party will have something real to show in November. That's actually a worst-case scenario for Republicans.

 

Or the progressives can keep screaming about "fighting the good fight" and they can lose in November. Their choice.

 

Yeah, all those "basic human rights", they're really just bargaining chips, to be cast aside for political convenience.

[Pangloss]

Are you kidding? That bit about concessions to moderates resulting in the trade-off of progressives during back-room negotiations was all over the news during the last stages of the health care bills. If that wasn't the problem then how do YOU explain why Dems couldn't come together to pass a bill with 60 votes? All I'm doing there is pointing out the mechanic of what we already agree actually occurred. Progressives were upset because they thought they had a mandate and they tried to push the line farther than moderates wanted it to go. That is, of course, my opinion, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. What else could it be?

 

Folks can certainly get mad about people's failure to line up behind their extreme ideals, but they're just illustrating my point. When radicals get mad, they lose. Welcome to America, the land in which everyone has their say, not just the "strong", the "wealthy", or the "intelligent".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A perfect example of that negotiating problem was the abortion clause, btw. Moderates (yes, moderate Democrats) did not want the federal government paying for abortions. Progressives considered it critical that the public option health care INCLUDE funding for abortion, which they consider to be a health care expense.

 

Some of the language got pretty outrageous, too. Here's a great one -- Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, talking about DEMOCRAT Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska:

 

“Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care,” Ms. O’Neill said. “And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.”

 

A "right-wing ideologue"? Wow! Win a supermajority and just LOOK at all the fur start to fly!

Edited January 24, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

Are you kidding? That bit about concessions to moderates resulting in the trade-off of progressives during back-room negotiations was all over the news during the last stages of the health care bills. If that wasn't the problem then how do YOU explain why Dems couldn't come together to pass a bill with 60 votes?

 

The problem was entirely from the right. I've not heard of any progressive candidate backing out, only the pseudo-dems "playing hard to get" until, in a vain effort to appease them, the bill was stripped of everything useful. Find me even a single actual quote of a progressive democrat who has said they refuse to vote for the bill due to these concessions (with the exception of the abortion issue).

 

Also, and this is being lost in the shuffle - You only need 60 votes to pass a bill when one party is a load of completely obstructionist jackasses who refuse to participate in the political process, preferring to undermine it. Were it not for the republicans, we could have ditched the Blue Dogs and had a great bill with a public option 4 months ago or more.

 

Folks can certainly get mad about people's failure to line up behind their extreme ideals, but they're just illustrating my point. When radicals get mad, they lose. Welcome to America, the land in which everyone has their say, not just the "strong", the "wealthy", or the "intelligent".

 

Yeah, because that whole "Black people only count as 3/5ths of a person" compromise worked so well.

 

Just because a position is "in the middle" or "politically palatable" doesn't make it *right* or even a good idea.

 

Did the founding fathers adopt "moderate" positions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, etc? No, because basic human rights are never "an extreme position" - the extremists are those who seek to deny people a fair place in society.

 

A perfect example of that negotiating problem was the abortion clause, btw. Moderates (yes, moderate Democrats) did not want the federal government paying for abortions. Progressives considered it critical that the public option health care INCLUDE funding for abortion, which they consider to be a health care expense.

 

Some of the language got pretty outrageous, too. Here's a great one -- Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, talking about DEMOCRAT Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska:

 

“Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care,” Ms. O’Neill said. “And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.”

 

A "right-wing ideologue"? Wow! Win a supermajority and just LOOK at all the fur start to fly!

 

She's also 100% correct - this is an issue of health.

 

Well, I guess I must be a "radical" for holding the "extremist" position that women are actually people who have rights.

 

It's a good job we ignore "radicals" and "extremists" like, say, MLK or Susan B Anthony or Harvey Milk.

[Pangloss]

Find me even a single actual quote of a progressive democrat who has said they refuse to vote for the bill due to these concessions (with the exception of the abortion issue).

 

How about Maxine Waters? They don't come a whole lot more progressive than her, but in August, when Pelosi considered dropping the Public Option from the House bill, Waters and the entire Congressional Black Caucus came forward and declared that they would not support the health care measure before the House unless it included the Public Option. This took place back in August, and here's a typical quote:

 

“As I have said before, particularly in conjunction with my colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I will not be able to support a health care reform bill that does not guarantee the creation of a public option [/b']that will provide an alternative for the 47 million uninsured Americans and millions more who face rising premiums, deductibles and co-pays.”

 

http://blogs.bet.com/news/pamela/2009/08/17/black-lawmakers-say-public-option-is-a-must/

 

Democrats also argued internally over the Cadillac tax, cost concerns, and a dozen other details.

 

 

You only need 60 votes to pass a bill when one party is a load of completely obstructionist jackasses who refuse to participate in the political process, preferring to undermine it. Were it not for the republicans, we could have ditched the Blue Dogs and had a great bill with a public option 4 months ago or more.

 

Republican participation would have looked even LESS desirable to you than 100% Democratic participation. Why do you feel that the right end of the Democratic party is more conservative than the Republican party? That's really strange. "Pseudo-dems"? Seriously? Do you really know that little about the history of the Democratic party?

 

I think Republicans have been "obstructionist" as well, but only in the sense that they could have participated in the process and chose not to. And clearly had they done so those bills would have been more conservative, not more progressive. It's not reasonable, logical or normal to expect people to change their entire ideology after losing an election. What you CAN expect is that should be more willing to compromise, but that means more moderacy -- something has to bring them on board. I would have loved to see Republican participation in health care reform, if it meant more moderation. But it sounds like you would have hated it.

 

Beating conservatives doesn't fix health care, either, because no system in the entire world is perfect -- NOBODY thinks so. So it's perfectly reasonable and logical to bring all parties to the table, recognize all valid concerns regardless of their source, and address those concerns. In short, exactly what American politics used to be about. Compromise is the best part of American politics, not the worst.

 

THAT's what bipartisanship means. Not "the minority party does what we say they should do".

 

 

I guess I must be a "radical" for holding the "extremist" position that women are actually people who have rights.

 

Well that's your choice, and has nothing to do with me. I'm talking about political tactics and realities, and far be it for me to say whether your opinion is valid or not, or to judge you. But for what it's worth, on the issue of abortion funding, I happen to agree with you, or at least didn't have a strong objection to it, because if the federal government is going to participate in health care, and it's normal for private health care to cover abortion, then it has to be covered. (Besides, in theory our tax dollars weren't paying for it anyway, so the argument was resting on a false premise, assuming the funding issue went according to plan.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I wanted to address this point from earlier as well:

 

The supermajority was seen as a progressive mandate' date=' instead of what it really was -- a shift of moderate, independent voters who aren't even remotely interested in European-style social "reforms".[/quote']

 

Then why have polls over the past year consistently shown support for the public option at between 60-80%

 

This presents an incomplete picture. Let me throw a few other poll results out there, from this study from late December:

 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1408

 

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent and disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Barack Obama's handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

 

Looking at the health care plan, independent voters "mostly disapprove" 58 - 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 - 10 percent. Democrats "mostly approve" 64 - 22 percent.

 

56 - 37 percent they don't want the overhaul if it will increase the deficit.

 

You're right to say they supported the public option, but as I said before, they weren't really interested in a social mandate.

 

 

They also took the American temperature on the abortion funding issue. Are Mokele and Pangloss in the extreme here?

 

Voters also oppose 72 - 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

 

Guess we are. (lol) Way it goes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW, I just happened to walk past the TV just as George Will came on, and he said that there are two areas that Democrats could offer compromises on that may attract Republicans to a health care bill:

 

- Tort reform

- Allowing insurance to span state lines

 

Both of these have long-standing opposition in the Democratic party, but widespread support amongst the American people. If we're going to apply a bunch of new rules to insurance companies anyway, as the President has been promising for the last six months, then it seems reasonable to help them out with these two measures that might balance costs.

 

That's bipartisan, and that's how you get everyone covered with a plan.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

How about Maxine Waters? They don't come a whole lot more progressive than her, but in August, when Pelosi considered dropping the Public Option from the House bill, Waters and the entire Congressional Black Caucus came forward and declared that they would not support the health care measure before the House unless it included the Public Option. This took place back in August, and here's a typical quote:

 

Ok, see, that's what I was after. Still, fat lot of good they did. The Dems seem more interested in appeasing their right wing than left.

 

Republican participation would have looked even LESS desirable to you than 100% Democratic participation. Why do you feel that the right end of the Democratic party is more conservative than the Republican party? That's really strange. "Pseudo-dems"? Seriously? Do you really know that little about the history of the Democratic party?

 

I think Republicans have been "obstructionist" as well, but only in the sense that they could have participated in the process and chose not to. And clearly had they done so those bills would have been more conservative, not more progressive. It's not reasonable, logical or normal to expect people to change their entire ideology after losing an election. What you CAN expect is that should be more willing to compromise, but that means more moderacy -- something has to bring them on board. I would have loved to see Republican participation in health care reform, if it meant more moderation. But it sounds like you would have hated it.

 

Beating conservatives doesn't fix health care, either, because no system in the entire world is perfect -- NOBODY thinks so. So it's perfectly reasonable and logical to bring all parties to the table, recognize all valid concerns regardless of their source, and address those concerns. In short, exactly what American politics used to be about. Compromise is the best part of American politics, not the worst.

 

THAT's what bipartisanship means. Not "the minority party does what we say they should do".

 

My point was that if the Republicans hadn't insisted on showing all the debating and political class of a troop of screaming, feces-hurling howler-monkeys, hadn't insisted on treating their party like a cult where any deviation from dogma was an excuse for excommunication, and hadn't insisted on waving their possible fillbuster around like a kid with his dad's gun, then maybe there could have been a productive level of debate.

 

Had there been any *REAL* dialog, rather than political posturing, the Repubs would read the poll results I linked to and actually represent the interests of their constituents. Not the crazy, teabagger minority, the whole constituency. And the damn Blue Dogs would have followed suit.

 

I'm talking about political tactics and realities

 

I realize that, but can you not see the inherent problems of telling a group that has been denied basic human rights that giving them their rights is "not tactically feasible"?

[Pangloss]

Had there been any *REAL* dialog, rather than political posturing, the Repubs would read the poll results I linked to and actually represent the interests of their constituents. Not the crazy, teabagger minority, the whole constituency. And the damn Blue Dogs would have followed suit.

 

What compromises specifically do you feel could have happened, but didn't because of the posturing?

 

I realize that, but can you not see the inherent problems of telling a group that has been denied basic human rights that giving them their rights is "not tactically feasible"?

 

You mean fetuses? Oh I see, you mean adult women. No, I can't support artificial delineations that require the denial of obvious scientific facts just for ideological convenience. I don't think you can't duck a problem just because it's difficult to solve. In my opinion, abortion is a no-winners choice between freedom of life and freedom of convenience (with the latter not necessarily, but sometimes, being trivial).

 

(I'll never forget the time a student asked for more time on a homework assignment, saying it "wasn't anything serious", she just had to go and get an abortion, because she'd partied "just a little too hard" over the summer break, laugh laugh, nudge nudge.)

 

The Dems seem more interested in appeasing their right wing than left.

 

This is a valid point, IMO, and I have to remind myself once again that my position in the middle is ultimately no different from other people's positions at other points in the spectrum, in that what looks to me like "pandering to the left" will certainly look different to others. (Which is just a complicated way of saying I respect your opinion on it.)

Edited January 25, 2010 by Pangloss
typos

[The Bear's Key]

That part just blows me away. Dems could have kept themselves in power ad infinitum if they had just given the people what they clearly wanted: health coverage that can't be canceled because you get sick, that doesn't bankrupt them if they get really sick, and that doesn't keep them from saving for their kid's educations. This just cements the public opinion that the politicians are either corrupt or inept or both.

Does anyone ever get this nagging feeling the Democrat and Republican leadership is playing good cop / bad cop with us?

 

Based on what I saw and the various lefty blogs, right now the opinion of the Dems is "inept", largely due to an idiotic fascination with "bipartisanship".

There's nothing idiotic about compromise or bipartisanship. Just add to it some balls with an ounce of courage to stand firm against political shenanigans.

 

Unfortunately, the Dems lost their balls a while ago due to a pre-existing condition.

 

The supermajority was seen as a progressive mandate, instead of what it really was -- a shift of moderate, independent voters who aren't even remotely interested in European-style social "reforms".

Not true if most voters supported the public option (which is as European-style as they come).

 

 

Or the progressives can keep screaming about "fighting the good fight" and they can lose in November.

 

Ironically, the GOP got away with their obstructionism in '02...

Democratic strategists said that some of the party's senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist -- a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002.

 

Even more ironically, the lawmakers Gang of 14 (anti-filibusters) were *technically* bipartisan, yet actually mostly conservative. They agreed to block the Dems' filibusters of all Bush’s court nominees, except in "extraordinary circumstances" -- so it was labeled as a great example of bipartisanship teamwork, yet was actually more like classic Rove in action. (Paints moderates as "far left", while portraying the Excessive Right as moderates, until finally when the extreme left has vanished, the old moderates now can be painted as the new extreme left. ad infinitum)

 

 

 

If that wasn't the problem then how do YOU explain why Dems couldn't come together to pass a bill with 60 votes?

Once upon a time, filibusters were rare -- until the 70s, at least. Then during Clinton, and Bush W's first six years, it averaged 50 times by Dems per two-year Senate. Until finally, Republicans cranked it up to 139 times in 2007-2008, continuing such a trend in 2009-2010.

 

In other words, the filibuster has changed the Senate's way of voting laws in.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/10/nation/la-na-filibuster10-2010jan10

The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes -- the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster -- has become the minimum required.

Instead of needing a simple 51 votes as usual, today it's become 60. And the practice is seemingly being treated by the press as if always in existence. Note too, a certain absense by a "Gang of 14" (mostly) conservative senators attempting to save the day today. Why? Perhaps because it's no longer strategic for conservatives to deny filibusters?

 

 

Also, let's take a look back on somewhat recent history.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/24/usa1

What's far less well known, though, is that the party has almost as nasty a bugaboo in the House. Republicans there have found stunning success with a procedural tool called the motion to recommit, and they have repeatedly used it to divide the Democratic caucus and block key initiatives.

........

Republicans have mastered the game of crafting MTRs they know will force Democrats to defect to their side or risk political consequences, especially among the 60 or so Democrats who represent "red" districts.

 

 

Progressives were upset because they thought they had a mandate and they tried to push the line farther than moderates wanted it to go.

More history...

 

June 8, 2001

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the new majority leader, pledged today that Democrats would not engage in ''payback'' for the way Republicans stalled the confirmation of judges during the Clinton administration, saying, ''We have to break the cycle.''

........

The bill has gone through several evolutions in recent years, and ''We've compromised as much as I think we possibly can,'' said Mr. Daschle, who became the majority leader this week after Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party and became an independent.

 

''We can't go any farther to the right because I think we'd lose the middle in the compromise,''

........

Of 84 nominees

to the federal appellate courts, Democrats say,

just 46 were confirmed

from 1995 through 2000. Some federal appellate judges waited for years for their nominations to go forward.

 

Richard A. Paez, who was nominated for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Mr. Clinton, waited a record 1,506 days until he was confirmed last year.

.....

Mr. Daschle spoke today of ''nominees who had waited for over four years without getting a hearing'' after being put forward by Mr. Clinton. He said: ''That's what I'm saying we will not do.''

 

 

November 6, 2003

The vacancy rate on the federal bench is at its lowest point in 13 years, because of a recent surge of judges nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate.

 

The intense partisan battle over a

handful of judges

aside, Bush has already won approval of

168 judges

, more than President Reagan achieved in his first term in the White House. And with 68 of his nominees winning confirmation in 2003 as of Wednesday, President Bush has had a better record

this year

than President

Clinton achieved in seven of his eight years

in office.

........

The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee lists 39 vacancies among the 859 seats on the U.S. district courts and the U.S. courts of appeal -- a 4.5% vacancy rate.

 

This is the fewest number of vacancies since 1990.

 

 

October 24, 2007 (Remember the MRTs above, constantly used by Republicans? )

When Democrats were in the House minority, they succeeded only rarely in blocking Republican initiatives with the gambit.

.....

Only 14 of the motions, or 7.6 percent of the minority's efforts, prevailed

between 1995 and 2006

.

 

This year,

16 of the House Republican motions have passed,

several with significant support from across the aisle

, blocking initiatives large and small.

Compare the bolded.

 

And when you say moderates, perhaps it's fair to remember that since the 90s, Dems have walked the walk far more than Republicans in attempts to be moderate?

 

 

 

All said, however, I fall in between two opposing sentiments by John Aravosis that I stumbled across in my research...

 

Sentiment #1.

Why was George W. Bush seemingly more successful getting some his legislative priorities passed (the two tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug law, No Child Left Behind) than Obama has been, and with smaller GOP majorities in the Senate? While recognizing that Obama has been in office for just 11 months, and that the Medicare prescription-drug fight had nearly the amount of drama this current battle has, perhaps here’s an answer to Aravosis: Democrats actually voted with the Republicans. After all, Ted Kennedy worked with Bush on No Child Left Behind, and numerous Dems backed the tax cuts. By nature, are some Democrats just more willing to want to cut a deal than their current GOP counterparts are?

 

Sentiment #2

...had the White House chosen to lead on health care reform, had the Congress not chosen to take a back seat to the White House's non-strategy for victory, we could have had a significantly better bill, and it would have passed. It's all well and good to say that the current bill still has some positive things in it - let's be kind and give it a C. But when you could have had an A, and you started out the gate gunning for a C, you don't get our praise.

 

George Bush never settled for a C.

........

The White House and the Congress did a crappy job running the campaign for health care reform.

 

 

Sentiment #3

You don't praise your kid for getting a C+, or even a B-, on an exam, when they could have had an A, but simply didn't try.

.....

This administration is far too consumed with whether it is liked, far too afraid of being criticized, and far too obsessed with about avoiding conflict at all costs. President Obama was handed the presidency by a rather healthy margin, an opposition in utter ruin, a Senate with a filibuster proof majority, a House with overwhelming Democratic control, approval ratings through the roof, and on his signature issue, he dropped the ball for nine months, until the climate was so poisoned by incessant attacks from the right, that he "had no choice" but to cave on the most important promise of his campaign. That is not leadership. And it's not liberalism.

 

Sentiment #4

I've heard people say that it's not fair to criticize the Democrats for botching health care reform because the Democrats never truly had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sure, they have 60 votes in principle, the argument goes, but with Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh counted as four of those votes, it's not really a solid 60.

 

Perhaps. But then how was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate? In fact, during Bush's most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible.

........

How did they do it? Bush was willing to use his bully pulpit to create an environment in which the opposition party feared taking him on, feared challenging his agenda, lest they be seen as unpatriotic and extreme. By going public, early and often, with his beliefs, Bush was able to fracture the Democratic opposition (and any potential dissent in his own party) and forestall any effort to mount a filibuster against the most important items in his agenda.

 

To be fair, in an interview Obama hadn't felt it proper to tell the 46 million without healthcare sorry, we didn't like everything in the bill. (paraphrased)

 

However, I think Obama could've fought a lot harder, and publicly exposed the filibuster's newly obsene discrepancy compared to its historical use.

 

 

BTW, I just happened to walk past the TV just as George Will came on, and he said that there are two areas that Democrats could offer compromises on that may attract Republicans to a health care bill:

 

- Tort reform

- Allowing insurance to span state lines

 

Both of these have long-standing opposition in the Democratic party, but widespread support amongst the American people. If we're going to apply a bunch of new rules to insurance companies anyway, as the President has been promising for the last six months, then it seems reasonable to help them out with these two measures that might balance costs.

 

That's bipartisan, and that's how you get everyone covered with a plan.

Oh yeah, agreed. But only so long as tort reform doesn't come to mean "let the bad apples f--k us with no consequences to them."

Edited January 25, 2010 by The Bear's Key
added section of text

[bascule]

Not true if most voters supported the public option (which is as European-style as they come).

 

The public option was also one of Obama's campaign promises:

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

 

[A]ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

 

AND one of Pelosi's promises:

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26742.html

 

In her strongest statement yet, Pelosi said that any bill "without a strong public option will not pass the House":

 

“Any real change requires the inclusion of a strong public option to promote competition and bring down costs,” Pelosi said. “If a vigorous public option is not included, it would be a major victory for the health insurance industry.”

 

If this bill passes without a public option, both Obama and Pelosi will have broken their promises.

 

This isn't about progressives at all. Both Obama and Pelosi are relative moderates.

[Pangloss]

Not true if most voters supported the public option (which is as European-style as they come).

 

Actually I've already responded on this point. If you wouldn't mind, please see this post, in the middle section that begins with "I wanted to address this point from earlier as well". It's a long post, I'm afraid. (embarassed look)

 

 

If that wasn't the problem then how do YOU explain why Dems couldn't come together to pass a bill with 60 votes? [/quote']Once upon a time, filibusters were rare -- until the 70s, at least. Then during Clinton, and Bush W's first six years, it averaged 50 times by Dems per two-year Senate. Until finally, Republicans cranked it up to 139 times in 2007-2008, continuing such a trend in 2009-2010.

 

Well if this was meant to challenge my point about internal strife in the Democratic party, I'm not sure how it does that, but maybe you're agreeing with me, I'm not sure. If you're just trying to make the point, as you do pretty well later in your post, that Dems have done a little better in this department than Republicans, I'm down with that. But I also see a descending spiral of action-begetting-more-action. Repubs do X (where X = partisan nastiness), Dems return to power and do X^2, Repubs return to power and do X^4, and then we just seem to rinse and repeat while the country falls apart. Neither party comes out of something like that looking very good, and that's why I cringe every time a party wins the majority and starts talking about its new ideological mandate from the people.

 

My two bits, anyway.

[bascule]

The supermajority was seen as a progressive mandate, instead of what it really was -- a shift of moderate, independent voters who aren't even remotely interested in European-style social "reforms".

 

Can I rephrase this? Thanks. I mean, I am in Europe right now, so perhaps my perspective is a bit tainted, but...

 

The supermajority was seen as a mandate to elevate the availability of services in America from above a third world level, instead of what it really was -- a shift America's largely conservative/reactionary voter base who aren't even remotely interested in having government services on par with the majority of first-world (and many third world) nations.

 

Europe is pretty awesome and has a lot of the problems the plague America solved already. Unless America gets its act together I might end up moving here. It gets rather frustrating having a largely ignorant base of knuckleheads giving carte blanche to the Republicans when they screw up the country, then whining like little babies when the Democrats try to do anything to fix it. Not that the Democrats will fix it, as they're not only fairly conservative, but afraid to take action (or worse, accepting bribes not to do so).

 

Compared to Europe, America is just rather... backwards and I don't see that changing any time in the near future.

 

Those progressives you whine about, Pangloss... are the only ones actually trying to fix the country and the only ones willing to take action. The conservative Democrats you argue the progressives you should kowtow to are offering spendy, half baked solutions. In my mind that's worse than no solution at all. But hey, at least those solutions are "compromises"! Or rather, compromised...

 

I don't like politicians bandying about the nation's pocketbook as if it has infinite credit any more than the teabaggers do, and I especially don't like politicans spending more money on half-baked solutions. Eliminating the public option will cost more, hands down, and the only "pro" is certain politicans are afraid of the public option (or how their campaign contributions might diminish if it were passed)

[The Bear's Key]

Awesome! Hope your Eurotrip is fantastic

 

Yet leaving the U.S. could be just a temporary solution, as it's in the world's best interests for neocons to be exorcized from the Republican Party. Neocons leading the world's most powerful nation has consequences for everyone (and insane benefit/power for that crew).

 

It'd be nice if we got lots more help/initiative from conservatives on this.

 

 

The public option was also one of Obama's campaign promises:

So...independents already knew full well the kind of laws/ideology they were voting for by selecting Obama and a Democratic majority. It was spelled out before the November election. Great point.

 

This isn't about progressives at all. Both Obama and Pelosi are relative moderates.

Except the neocons (strategically) label them as being the most extremely far left possible.

 

It's basically their signature attack on Dems (and even their own party's Republican moderates) to neoconize the center, and eventually the left. Until all that remains on the ideological scale is the extreme right and their bitter opponents the slightly less extreme right (to be found 1 or two CH away on the scale).

 

Clearly they're about speed, a marathon whirl of abuses + delay tactics, leaving behind obstacles to stall any investigations....so in the end they remain five steps ahead of us.

 

Those roaches are, once more, hidden from the spotlight glare of high office -- for now -- but they don't seem anywhere remotely near to being done, as their current schemes indicate. But it's mainly their philosophy which indicates further action, based on a quote to a reporter by a senior adviser to Bush...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?_r=1

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality....That's not the way the world really works anymore....We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

It could be the reporter made it up, yet it's besides the point. The neocons truly act in such a manner.

 

 

An *interesting* bit in that article I liked, behind the scenes we find religious people upset with Bush's views, feeling he catered more to the religious right and not to compassionate conservatism as originally had been promised.

 

Of course the one evangelist advocates "lefty" type issues (social justice), so it's no surprise when his reponse to Bush's praise got him the following...

 

Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.

 

''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.''

........

He is no longer invited to the White House.

 

 

 

Actually I've already responded on this point. If you wouldn't mind, please see this post,

I did read it, you've erred.

 

The independents voted for Obama after knowing his "determination" for the Public Option. But the link you gave is a poll taken long after the election. So logically, the independents could instead be unhappy that the Public Option was dropped, and the healthcare bill fell short of its promises. In the meantime, all the noise by Fox Tabloids likely distorted a lot of perceptions about the bill, while Obama simply defended too little against their stream of distortions.

 

Repubs do X (where X = partisan nastiness), Dems return to power and do X^2

Ok, so show us where.

 

I think it's more accurate to say Repubs do X (where X = partisan nastiness), Dems return to power and do X^-2. (i.e. kissing ass, except for occasional stupidity by Pelosi/Reid, and the equally occasional courage -- lacking in nastiness -- by people like Alan Grayson)

[npts2020]

You guys are just confirming what I have been saying for years about the Democrats and Republicans being the same party. How is it that a supposedly "liberal" party has members that are even more conservative than the "conservative" party? Fact of the matter is that it is all show to keep things basically the same, neither party has any principles that can be called their own. For all of the voters supposed anger at congress, the political process, etc. how many districts do you think will actually "throw the bums out" and elect somebody who has not been part of this process of putting on a show? Which party has proposed bold new solutions to any of our problems?

[Pangloss]

I did read it, you've erred.

 

I supported my opinion that the public hasn't suddenly discovered that it wants socialism. I've backed that up with examples. If you want to have the opinion that the fact that they preferred the public option DOES mean that they now want socialism, more power to you, but -- and I mean no offense by this -- I don't believe you.

 

When you can show me polls showing that the majority of Americans want equal wages for all, an open border, and federal funding for abortion, then I will consider the possibility that Americans want socialism. Until then I'm just going to remind you that the key bogeyman in far-left politics is the existence of the religious right. You aren't doing your friends any favors by pretending it isn't there anymore and that Americans have suddenly decided that they like socialism.

 

 

Those progressives you whine about' date=' Pangloss... are the only ones actually trying to fix the country and the only ones willing to take action.

 

Europe is pretty awesome and has a lot of the problems the plague America solved already.[/quote']

 

I think it's more accurate to say Repubs do X (where X = partisan nastiness), Dems return to power and do X^-2. (i.e. kissing ass, except for occasional stupidity by Pelosi/Reid, and the equally occasional courage -- lacking in nastiness -- by people like Alan Grayson)

 

Sure, okay, whatever, Dems are saints, Repubs are sinners, Europe is awesome, America sucks. You two have fun with that; I'm not really interested.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Sure, okay, whatever, Dems are saints, Repubs are sinners, Europe is awesome, America sucks. You two have fun with that; I'm not really interested.

 

Oh really? Seems you were knocking both Europe and liberal Dems earlier:

 

The supermajority was seen as a progressive mandate, instead of what it really was -- a shift of moderate, independent voters who aren't even remotely interested in European-style social "reforms".

 

How is this any different than "Moderate conservatives are saints, liberals are sinners, Europe's a bunch of hippies, America is fine the way it is"?