Republicans are already selling access to government in order to raise money!

[joepistole]

“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. “ The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” - President Obama

Now I know you're immediate objection will be “but it's true” but that is beside the point which is that what he is doing is using this threat to generate fear, to generate action, to push a specific piece of legislation.

He is stating an honest fact. And there is nothing wrong with stating honest facts. The nation would be better off if more politicans were honest with the voters. Sometimes facts are scary, but they don't get any less scary if you ignore them.

But there isn't just one answer and everything does not have to be completed in one single bill. There are plenty of issues that both Reps and Dems agree upon that could begin the reform process while we work out further solutions. For example, both parties (in various proposed bills) have proposed the following:

Insurance reform preventing insurance companies from dropping people unjustly.
Insurance reform preventing insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of health.
Exchanges where people can competitively shop for insurance.
Malpractice reforms.
Subsidize insurance for individuals with incomes less than 200% of the poverty level.

If you take Republicans at face value and believe them, then the things you listed as being agreed upon by themselves would not do a single thing to control healthcare expenses. If you adopted those things you listed, it would likely cause healthcare costs to soar. And that is the typical Republican soluton to the healthcare problem in this country. We cannot afford to do this any longer (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug).

But there are many reasons not to take Republicans at face value. They have been doing a lot of lying recently. Whenever Obama and the Democrats back anything they propose, the suddenly reverse positions...even when they sponsored the piece of legislation in question. So I think the Democrats are smart enough to figure out that the Republicans are just not going to play ball with them no matter what happens.

Now the last one is a bit contentious because the debate there is more about how to finance the increase rather than if we should provide assistance. But both sides seem to agree that people at 200% or less do need help. But certainly the other 4 options are readily passable and would significantly improve the concerns for many people.

The problem is that it doesn't benefit either side to compromise and agree. Without a political victory there is no advantage to it. There is also the problem in that if they resolve part of the problem by enacting solutions where there is agreement they lose much of the political momentum to push through the more controversial legislation.

It's also important to note the discrepancy between the rhetorical appeal to morality and the political reality. The single payer option was supposedly sacrosanct until the conservative backlash caused many democrats to withdraw from it. And at the present moment they may not have enough votes to pass the bill, not because there is anything in it they disagree with but, because the administration responded to public upset about single state deals and demanded their removal. In other words, no vote unless there is a little something extra in it for them. Again, this is business as usual for both sides.

Don't misunderstand, there's no lack of honest thinking. Both sides know exactly what they're up to. It's a lack of honest speaking. I see it too. I just see it on all sides.

Subsidies and tax breaks = free health care. This and how it gets paid for are the more controversial aspects of the legislation.

No, you're not reading it correctly. But don't worry, you have company. Neither did President Obama. The estimate stated that it will save $132 billion over the next 10 years (2010-2019). There was the claim that it might possibly save $1T over the following 10 years (2020-2029) but I haven't been able to verify that. Projections beyond 2019, by the CBO's own admission, are imprecise and “represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in
that decade under current policies”.

CBO Estimate from the source:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf

Of course, even if we took the $132 billion (though the most recent projection is $118) plus the $1 trillion, that averages out to shy of $66 billion a year. Compare that with this years budget which does not include the increased spending due to the bill, inflation, etc. and the reduction is 1.5%. This is not going to save us. Especially when the analysis over the next 10 years comes to a savings of 0.33%.

It may not be an blatent lie but show me how these claims of savings are not manipulative BS. Now contrast this with the administrations assertion that we must pass this specific legislation right now.

Please show me the unsubstantiated claims and where I'm backing the Republican agenda. I'd really like to know where I'm so off base. So far, all anyone has done is tell me I'm wrong. I'm quite willing to change my opinion but I'm going to need more than your say so.

~Raithere

Free, means they don't pay for it and that is not what is being discussed. As previously stated, everyone pays what they can afford. You cannot expect people to pay more than they can afford. So some of the cost for healthcare will be subsidized for those individuals.

If you refuse to believe the CBO estimates, that is your choice. Personally, I think they are too conservative as they do not look at changes in healthcare pricing brought about by a more competitive and efficient healthcare industry.

The irony is that Republicans like the CBO when it supports their position and dismiss it when the CBO numbers go against them as in the case of healthcare reform.

 

[Raithere]

He is stating an honest fact.

Only part of what he said is factual. His claim is actually a false dilemma. Pass this bill or bad things will happen. He has failed on two counts. He has failed to show that this bill is the only, or even the best, solution. And he has failed to show that some of these bad things won't happen even if we do pass it.

If you take Republicans at face value and believe them, then the things you listed as being agreed upon by themselves would not do a single thing to control healthcare expenses.

So you don't believe that having insurance exchanges and enacting malpractice reform will help control expenses? Doesn't that make Obama a liar?

If you refuse to believe the CBO estimates, that is your choice.

That is not what I said. I suggest you read it again and try to understand what I did say.

If you think I am lying after that please read the CBO's statements and make the calculations yourself:

March 11th analysis:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf

December 19th analysis:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf

Correction to December 19th analysis:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10870/12-20-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction1.pdf

~Raithere

 

[joepistole]

Only part of what he said is factual. His claim is actually a false dilemma. Pass this bill or bad things will happen. He has failed on two counts. He has failed to show that this bill is the only, or even the best, solution. And he has failed to show that some of these bad things won't happen even if we do pass it.

There is nothing false or misleading in what Obama said. He has failed on no counts as of this writing. There is no false dilemma. It is pretty clear to any honest observer that our nation spends more than twice what any other nation pays for healthcare and we don't even cover all of the population as other industrial nations do.

If this bill is not passed, it is highly likely that we will have to wait until we are in crisis and Medicare is on the brink of collapse. And the nation is in even more debt.

Yeah in the universe of possibilities, there are better bills. And has been stated numerous times, this bill is not the best. But it is a start.

As for proving the bad things that will happen, just run the numbers. It is no secret that healthcare expenses have been rising at twice inflation rate for decades. That is just not sustainable. It is also known that government is picking up an increasing share of those expenses because people cannot afford healthcare. It does not take a rocket science to figure out that the do nothing option is not sustainable. If you are unable or unwilling to understand that there is nothing I can do about that.

So you don't believe that having insurance exchanges and enacting malpractice reform will help control expenses? Doesn't that make Obama a liar?

No, show me where Obama said that insurance exchanges and malpractice reform was enough to control healthcare costs? Just one instance will be fine. The fact is you cannot, because Obama never made such a statement and neither did the CBO. According to the CBO tort reform only accounts for 5 billion per year at most. Five Billion out of 2.5 trillion dollars per year is not going to make a dent in overall healthcare expenses. By insurance exchanges I take it you mean cross border selling of health insurance. If that is the case, how is that going to change the market dynamics. Insurance companies today can sell in any state they want too. They just need to register with the state. It does nothing, Obama and the Democrats have included it in their bill to appease Republicans. But it really has no impact. And no one but the insurance companies and Republicans are saying same.

That is not what I said. I suggest you read it again and try to understand what I did say.

If you think I am lying after that please read the CBO's statements and make the calculations yourself:

March 11th analysis:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf

December 19th analysis:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf

Correction to December 19th analysis:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10870/12-20-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction1.pdf

~Raithere

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The CBO says the Democratic plan will save over a hundred billion dollars in the first 10 years and a trillion over the next 20 years. The CBO is clear and the CBO is widely recognized as the bipartisan gold standard for estimates. I have also stated, that the CBO is probably too conservative. Because they do not account for a more competive healthcare market which will drive down healthcare costs. So it is very likely that the CBO numbers rate healthcare expenses too high over the course of the next twenty years. Which means it is highly likely even more money will be saved.

And on top of all that, you want Obama and the Democrats to belive what the Republicans are saying about heatlhcare. When all evidence to date shows that they are not a trustworthy lot. If you have not noticed, since Obama came to office, Republicans are notorious for arguing one side and when the Democrats agree, Republicans vote against the positons the previously advocated.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32047.html

Republicans are not serious about healthcare reform or anything else that will benefit the country at this point. Republicans are only interested in playing politics no matter who or what suffers as a result. Which I think is a crying shame. Our young men and women go overseas to fight our wars and give their lives if need be for this country. It seems to me the least a senator or representative could do is to vote for things in the national interest and not play political games in order to save their seats.

 

[Raithere]

There is nothing false or misleading in what Obama said.

Sorry but I see the distinct use of fear to push an agenda. I don't find this surprising. I just don't find it one sided. Obviously we're not going any further with it though.

No, show me where Obama said that insurance exchanges and malpractice reform was enough to control healthcare costs?

I wasn't addressing what he said. I was addressing your assertion that none of things I listed would do “a single thing to control healthcare”. You're confusing his mistakes with your own.

Five Billion out of 2.5 trillion dollars per year is not going to make a dent in overall healthcare expenses.

Why not? You're telling me that $11.8 billion per year will save us.

BTW: $118 billion / 10 = $11.8 billion per year.

It does nothing, Obama and the Democrats have included it in their bill to appease Republicans. But it really has no impact. And no one but the insurance companies and Republicans are saying same.

How to you reconcile this statement with the one you make below about the CBO not taking into account cost decreases due to competition? Also, how do you respond to this official position from the White House?

Health Insurance Exchange - The proposal creates a new insurance marketplace that lets individuals and families without coverage and small business owners pool their resources and increase their buying power to make insurance more affordable. Private insurance companies will compete for business based on cost and quality and they’ll have to follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses. For the first time ever, Americans who lose their jobs, change jobs, move out of state, get divorced or get sick will have the peace of mind and security of knowing they will always have quality affordable health care they can rely on. For Americans who get coverage through their job but can’t afford it, the exchange will give them new choices. For small business owners, the exchange will level the playing field with big businesses and lower their costs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titlei/exchange
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010...inesses-charge-their-own-health-care-coverage

The CBO says the Democratic plan will save over a hundred billion dollars in the first 10 years

Now try dividing $1,118 billion by 20. Then divide that by the national budget. Now try telling me with a straight face that this will help us by any significant measure.

and a trillion over the next 20 years.

Wrong.

The CBO's analyis shows that these “savings” will only happen IF after 2019 the Medicare Commission makes further cuts to the budget after 2019. So what they're promising is that we'll make cuts and save money later.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10642/10-7-Baucus_letter.pdf


Sure... and I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.



While you're at it you may want to look at the $9.8 trillion dollar deficit the president has cooked up for us in the next 10 years.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=482

Now please explain to me how lowering the deficit by $1 trillion over the entire decade after it's increased to $9.8 trillion is going to save us.

Because they do not account for a more competive healthcare market which will drive down healthcare costs.

Get your story straight because you can't have it both ways. Do insurance exchanges reduce costs or don't they?

And on top of all that, you want Obama and the Democrats to belive what the Republicans are saying about heatlhcare.

No. What I would prefer with health care reform is a bill that simply moves us to a single-payer option over the next 10 years or perhaps 20 depending on an impact analysis.

Republicans are not serious about healthcare reform or anything else that will benefit the country at this point. ... It seems to me the least a senator or representative could do is to vote for things in the national interest and not play political games in order to save their seats.

Yes, I agree. I just don't see anything to convince me that the Democratic politicians are any more interested in doing anything to benefit the country than the Republican politicians are.

I'm just trying to get you to open your eyes and see that the Democrats are only different in the details, not in the game they are playing or how it is played. I'm quite confident that I've proven my points and I really don't feel like bickering and proving you wrong repeatedly unless you can come up with something different than, “no they don't”.

I would like you to see that comprehensive changes need to be made to our political system and the way we allow our government to be run or we are in for a mountain of shit. This entails far more than simply swapping one president and majority party for another. That is not change, is the same old crap.

~Raithere

 

[joepistole]

Sorry but I see the distinct use of fear to push an agenda. I don't find this surprising. I just don't find it one sided. Obviously we're not going any further with it though.

As stated many times before, sometimes reality is scary. But that is not a reason to go stick your head in the sand, and no reason to beat up the messenger.

There is a difference between addressing reality and making shit up to scare people as the Republicans/conservatives have done. But you do not seem to be able to make that distinction.

I wasn't addressing what he said. I was addressing your assertion that none of things I listed would do “a single thing to control healthcare”. You're confusing his mistakes with your own.

Why not? You're telling me that $11.8 billion per year will save us.

BTW: $118 billion / 10 = $11.8 billion per year. .

I think if you go back an reread you will understand that I made no mistakes, that is why I provided further clarification by defining the term exchanges. I think you are confusing exchanges with interstate selling of health insurance. Republicans are not advocating the use of exchanges. However, they are advocating interstate selling of healthcare insurance. And I pointed out, that there is nothing stoping healthcare insurance companies from competing in any state today. They just have to register with the state and comply with state laws. So there is nothing that interstate insurance brings to the table in terms of reducing costs.

I also said 5 billion dollars per year out of 2.5 trillion spend on healthcare is not signficant. And that is the highest end estimate provided by the CBO that could be saved with tort reform. It is also important to note that torts are not a federal issue it is a state issue. Now the federal government can help states with tort reform, but tort reform unltimately is a state issue and Obama and his democrats trying to get money in the bill to help states with tort reform. So bottom line the key Republican proposals for healthcare reform do absoutley very little to address the issue of cost despite their many claims to the contrary.

How to you reconcile this statement with the one you make below about the CBO not taking into account cost decreases due to competition? Also, how do you respond to this official position from the White House?

Health Insurance Exchange - The proposal creates a new insurance marketplace that lets individuals and families without coverage and small business owners pool their resources and increase their buying power to make insurance more affordable. Private insurance companies will compete for business based on cost and quality and they’ll have to follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses. For the first time ever, Americans who lose their jobs, change jobs, move out of state, get divorced or get sick will have the peace of mind and security of knowing they will always have quality affordable health care they can rely on. For Americans who get coverage through their job but can’t afford it, the exchange will give them new choices. For small business owners, the exchange will level the playing field with big businesses and lower their costs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titlei/exchange
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010...inesses-charge-their-own-health-care-coverage
.

As I said before, I think you are confusing many differnt things. Let's try to simplify:

* The CBO numbers are more conservative, and likely to over state cost. Because it uses historical data to bring forth assumptions about the future. We have never had in modern times a competitive healthcare industry. So the CBO has no historical data from which to base such assumptions. But it is also a mistake to ignore the fact that a more competitive market for healthcare services will cause healthcare costs to decline over time.

* The healthcare exchange, is meant to be a common place for insurance to be purchased. Not a bad idea, providing insurance companies are competing with each other on service and price...that means the elimination of the healthcare insurance industry trust exemptions which has passed the House but not the Senate. This is the competition of which I have spoken and it is not factored into the CBO numbers.

Now try dividing $1,118 billion by 20. Then divide that by the national budget. Now try telling me with a straight face that this will help us by any significant measure.

Wrong.

The CBO's analyis shows that these “savings” will only happen IF after 2019 the Medicare Commission makes further cuts to the budget after 2019. So what they're promising is that we'll make cuts and save money later.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10642/10-7-Baucus_letter.pdf

Sure... and I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

While you're at it you may want to look at the $9.8 trillion dollar deficit the president has cooked up for us in the next 10 years.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=482

Now please explain to me how lowering the deficit by $1 trillion over the entire decade after it's increased to $9.8 trillion is going to save us.
.

Please see previous post and the many before it. A trillion dollars is a trillion dollars. This is part of an overall plan. And the CBO numbers are overstated in terms of cost because the impact of market based competition is not used in the calculations.

Get your story straight because you can't have it both ways. Do insurance exchanges reduce costs or don't they?.

I think the only confusion is in your head. There is nothing inconsistent in anything I have written. The only thing inconsistent is your cherry picking and taking things out of context.

No. What I would prefer with health care reform is a bill that simply moves us to a single-payer option over the next 10 years or perhaps 20 depending on an impact analysis.

On this I will agree, the single payer system would be the best. It would dramatically change the market dynamics of the American heathcare system. Consumers would go from price takers to price givers. And healthcare practioners would transition from price givers to price takers.

Yes, I agree. I just don't see anything to convince me that the Democratic politicians are any more interested in doing anything to benefit the country than the Republican politicians are.

I'm just trying to get you to open your eyes and see that the Democrats are only different in the details, not in the game they are playing or how it is played. I'm quite confident that I've proven my points and I really don't feel like bickering and proving you wrong repeatedly unless you can come up with something different than, “no they don't”.

You have not proven anything other than repeat your opinions. Democrats are actually doing something. They are not stalling. They are not saying one thing today and doing another when the other side agrees with them as previously pointed out to you with complete backup and proofs. So if you want to ignore fact and reason, go for it. You won't be the first nor the last.

I would like you to see that comprehensive changes need to be made to our political system and the way we allow our government to be run or we are in for a mountain of shit. This entails far more than simply swapping one president and majority party for another. That is not change, is the same old crap.
~Raithere

I would agree our government is in dire need of comprehensive changes including a revision of the Consitution to restructure congress and reform campaign finance and activities by lobbyists.

 

[iceaura]

That's just funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

Second such comment, consecutive. Still avoiding the issue of you retailing Republican talking points, and then denying what you are doing.

His claim is actually a false dilemma. Pass this bill or bad things will happen.

That is not his claim. His claim is do something or bad things will happen - this bill is something. That is a different claim from your revision. The difference is critical in any evaluation of poitical integrity. Your version is a Republican media talking point.

It may not be an blatent lie but show me how these claims of savings are not manipulative BS.

They are not blatant lies. You know that. The Republican rhetoric features blatant lies. You know that as well. So - - -

Now I know you're immediate objection will be “but it's true” but that is beside the point

The difference between saying true things and saying false things is, in my opinion, an important difference. It is, for example, one of the reasons saying "both sides do it" is a coverup of what one side is doing.

Please show me the unsubstantiated claims and where I'm backing the Republican agenda. I'd really like to know where I'm so off base. So far, all anyone has done is tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong in your retailing of Republican media talking points, made up of blatant lies and designed to hide Republican Party misdeeds in a fog of "both sides do it".

Both sides know exactly what they're up to. It's a lack of honest speaking. I see it too. I just see it on all sides.

But not the same and the equivalent on "both sides". One side is telling blatant lies, and employing legislative manuevers, and leveraging political power along with disproportionate media cooperation to block and wreck attempted governance in several critical matters. The other side is engaged in ordinary (or what has become ordinary, these days) political spin (without proportionate media cooperation, btw).

If both sides know exactly what they are up to, the practice of the Republican side delivering falsehoods - delivering them on established major media forums, via official Republican spokesmen and leaders, using overtly partisan major media influences (Fox News, Limabugh and Beck, etc) and its superior media influence elsewhere (throughout) - is being done on purpose and consciously.

I'm just trying to get you to open your eyes and see that the Democrats are only different in the details, not in the game they are playing or how it is played.

And in attempting that, you are joining the partisan Republican efforts to cover up the game they are playing, and the way they are playing it.

No. What I would prefer with health care reform is a bill that simply moves us to a single-payer option over the next 10 years or perhaps 20 depending on an impact analysis.

So would most American people presented with the clear option.

So why, despite that clear public preference in honest surveys and the existence of political support in the Democratic Party (not the Republican Party), is that off the table in any public negotiations?

 

[Raithere]

As stated many times before, sometimes reality is scary. But that is not a reason to go stick your head in the sand, and no reason to beat up the messenger.

I will take this to mean that you concede the point that Democrats do use fear to achieve their agenda. As that was one of the two main points in the OP I'm happily satisfied with that. If you want to keep believing the Democrats are simply telling you what you need to know then you just keep telling yourself that.

There is a difference between addressing reality and making shit up to scare people as the Republicans/conservatives have done. But you do not seem to be able to make that distinction.

Actually, I have made two assertions. That regardless of party, politicians use fear (which was what this last example was about) and politicians lie (which I demonstrated earlier). I also readily agreed that Republicans (particularly recently) seem to be particularly thickheaded about it and draw their speaking points from talk radio whack-jobs. My contention on this issue is that Democrats, while more subtle about it, are no less guilty.

I think if you go back an reread you will understand that I made no mistakes, that is why I provided further clarification by defining the term exchanges.

Actually the Democrats aren't set yet. The Senate bill has state exchanges, the House bill has a federal exchange. The main difference, and why the strictly Republican proposal won't work, is due to a lack of federal regulation. I don't see why a compromise plan couldn't be reached. Which was, of course, my point.

And can I please ask you once again to stop assuming I'm advocating a Republican POV. It's causing some disconnects. I was advocating compromise, not Republican agenda. To do my part I'll try to be a bit more explicit.

But it is also a mistake to ignore the fact that a more competitive market for healthcare services will cause healthcare costs to decline over time.

I agree with this last bit. There are lots of assumptions. Another is that increased taxation and forcing companies to foot the bill for mandatory health insurance will drive up inflation and the cost of living... including healthcare.

Please see previous post and the many before it. A trillion dollars is a trillion dollars.

Not when it's imaginary. The cuts that would create this additional savings are not a part of the bill. They are to be determined and carried out after 2019. The Democrats look like they might just be able to pass the bill as it stands now. What makes you think they'll have the fortitude to pass drastic medicare cuts a decade from now? What assurances do we have? Political promises from people who won't be in office don't do much to boost my confidence.

Democrats are actually doing something. They are not stalling. They are not saying one thing today and doing another when the other side agrees with them

Well, now that the administration changed its mind again on special state provisions they aren't.

~Raithere

 

[iceaura]

That regardless of party, politicians use fear (which was what this last example was about) and politicians lie (which I demonstrated earlier)

The assertion of yours I objected to was that "both sides" were equally guilty of lying and fearmongering.

I also readily agreed that Republicans (particularly recently) seem to be particularly thickheaded about it and draw their speaking points from talk radio whack-jobs. My contention on this issue is that Democrats, while more subtle about it, are no less guilty.

But you fail to argue the contention with any persuasiveness, in the face of the overwhelming evidence otherwise - that the Republicans are uniquely guilty of Party unity in purveying lies through the major media, repeating blatant falsehoods on major media outlets, in the service of a dishonest and corrupt corporate agenda. And that the Dems who resemble them in lying, which is only some Dems, have similar associations and similar agenda.

No Dems equal them even individually, and the Dems have much less Party unity - in aggregate often delivering an approximation of factual or truthful information, which they have much greater difficulty getting on major media outlets.

Meanwhile, you slide between "thickheaded" and "know what they are doing" in describing the Reps. May I suggest that both may apply - they know what they are doing, and it is deeply unwise of them to do it; that what they have been and are up to is really bad - not at all the standard political spinning and maneuvering.

And can I please ask you once again to stop assuming I'm advocating a Republican POV. It's causing some disconnects. I was advocating compromise, not Republican agenda.

"Compromise" is the Republican agenda. Calling for compromise is a current Republican talking point. The current bill has already been "compromised" into Republican form - Republican circa 1992, say. further compromise will move it further away from what you say you prefer, and closer to what the Republicans circa 2008 want: private corporation domination of medical care delivery.

And of course the destruction of the Obama Presidency, in hopes of marketing Republican candidates successfully in 2010 and 2012.

Both of those goals are best advanced by simply wrecking the current health care reform efforts - making sure that whatever passes will not work.

 

[Raithere]

Second such comment, consecutive. Still avoiding the issue of you retailing Republican talking points, and then denying what you are doing.

No, the first time I addressed it directly. This time I was laughed because your statement about "no systematic liars with established access to major media pulpits" is patently absurd. If you want to bother over the ratings between Rush and Ed Schultz or count the difference in how many speaking engagements Al Gore has compared to Ben Stein knock yourself out.

Does Beck and his ilk get a disproportionate share of media attention? Sure. So does Paris Hilton and for much the same reason (Hint: They're both idiots who say and/or do outrageous things). Do Republican politicians use his speaking points more than Democrats quote Michael Moore? Yes. Because the Republicans are trying to borrow from that loudest, lowest common denominator pool to bolster the appearance of popular support.

But stop dissembling... they're all liars with partisan agendas.

Now as far as my Republican agenda goes, I already addressed it. I've stated my position multiple times throughout this thread. If you are simply going to call me a liar well then I'm going to put the onus on you. I've done more than my share of research here and your counter argument boils down to sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Democrats don't lie." Which is not only not the point but is demonstrably false.


I understand that you're handicapped by your emotional investment in partisan ideology but maybe, just maybe, everything that's being told to you isn't quite as honest as you would like to believe even when it allows you to feel morally and intellectually superior. Because if you don't realize that the politicians know damn well that this appeals to affluent young progressives you're in serious trouble.

They are not blatant lies.

I just said that.

The difference between saying true things and saying false things is, in my opinion, an important difference.

Actually, I find the idiotic nut-job lies far less harmful because they are so damn obvious. It's not difficult to ascertain there are no "Death Panels" in the health care legislation and if a handful of boisterous morons believe there are it's not going to do much damage. The same people likely believe the government is run by alien reptiles anyway. But it's a bit more difficult to see that there is really no trillion dollar savings actually outlined in the bill and that it depends on politicians making drastic cuts 10 years from now. So yes, I see important differences too. The first group I wouldn't trust with a potato gun. Around the second group I'm keeping my hand on my wallet at all times.

It is, for example, one of the reasons saying "both sides do it" is a coverup of what one side is doing.

So if I say, "Both sides lie but Republicans lie badly and make shit up." you'll be happy?

But not the same and the equivalent on "both sides". One side is telling blatant lies, and employing legislative manuevers, and leveraging political power along with disproportionate media cooperation to block and wreck attempted governance in several critical matters. The other side is engaged in ordinary (or what has become ordinary, these days) political spin (without proportionate media cooperation, btw).

I disagree with basically everything in this paragraph.

And in attempting that, you are joining the partisan Republican efforts to cover up the game they are playing, and the way they are playing it.

Have you read what I've been saying or does there mere mention that a democrat is lying fill you with such rage you cannot comprehend anything else? I am not advocating for the Republicans. You don't have to be Republican to distrust Democratic politicians.

So why, despite that clear public preference in honest surveys and the existence of political support in the Democratic Party (not the Republican Party), is that off the table in any public negotiations?

Since the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and Administration you tell me.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

The assertion of yours I objected to was that "both sides" were equally guilty of lying and fearmongering.

I don't care about it being equal, I'm not after a quantitative assessment here. Guilty is guilty as far as I'm concerned. I mean I gave you a bunch of quotes of Democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD and they were of major concern. Doesn't that give you pause?

No Dems equal them even individually, and the Dems have much less Party unity - in aggregate often delivering an approximation of factual or truthful information, which they have much greater difficulty getting on major media outlets.

You can't see how this is about what's being said, not who saying it? It's about what titillates, upsets, and excites people. So the Reps are using this to get media attention. The talk show hosts just use it for ratings.

I recall reading an article once I believe it was about Howard Stern. A survey found that people who hated him actually listened longer than people who liked him. It's the same principle at work.

Meanwhile, you slide between "thickheaded" and "know what they are doing" in describing the Reps. May I suggest that both may apply - they know what they are doing, and it is deeply unwise of them to do it; that what they have been and are up to is really bad - not at all the standard political spinning and maneuvering.

The difference in my assessment is between what the politicos are doing and the people who believe in what they are saying. Some are certainly dim but there is an underlying agenda that is contrived and deliberate. And yes, I do think it is a dangerous road to take. But I don't see the Dems as much different. Rallies to boycot and investigate banks that didn't approve subprime lending as racist for example.

"Compromise" is the Republican agenda. Calling for compromise is a current Republican talking point.

Of course. As is the constant threat of filibuster. The Dems did the same things when they were the minority party.

Republicans circa 2008 want: private corporation domination of medical care delivery.

No. That's what the conservative ideology prescribes. Just as the liberal ideology prescribes the redistribution of wealth. The problem is that neither one works.

The mistake is in thinking the politicians give a shit. They're interested in political victory... which equates to whatever improves their chances of reelection. That's the entire Republican strategy at the moment. It was also the entire Democratic strategy when the Reps were in control. You can use both victory and defeat to gain votes.

And of course the destruction of the Obama Presidency, in hopes of marketing Republican candidates successfully in 2010 and 2012.

Of course. Business as usual. Just as the Dems tore down Bush (admittedly he made it easy). But when you consider that following 9/11 they helped pass the legislation they criticized later and they are still fighting wars they decried you have to do a double-take.

Both of those goals are best advanced by simply wrecking the current health care reform efforts - making sure that whatever passes will not work.

Actually the best strategy is simply to make sure the public knows that you opposed it. If you beat it then you get a victory. If it passes anyway you can turn to your core support and say, "I alone stood against the tide."

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Lies vs. Damned Lies?

Now I know you're immediate objection will be "but it's true" but that is beside the point which is that what he is doing is using this threat to generate fear, to generate action, to push a specific piece of legislation.

Over the last several years, I've been coming to terms with the question of whether or not people really are so _____. Any number of adjectives can go there, and none of them speak kindly. In the end, it comes down to the question, "Really? Can you not tell the difference?"

This sort of ignorance, or pretense there of, benefits the conservative argument because the idea of fact never enters into the argument. At some point, by the conservative argument, we need to look at our mothers and say, "Wear a jacket? Catch cold? Stop fearmongering, Mom!"

• Premiums rising?
• Cost burden shift to individuals?
• Services decreasing?​

Yes, all of these are true. Some of them are even happening already, and anyway. They'll happen without reform.

Why the huge increase? It's not profiteering, says WellPoint, which claims instead (without using the term) that it's facing a classic insurance death spiral.

Bear in mind that private health insurance only works if insurers can sell policies to both sick and healthy customers. If too many healthy people decide that they'd rather take their chances and remain uninsured, the risk pool deteriorates, forcing insurers to raise premiums. This, in turn, leads more healthy people to drop coverage, worsening the risk pool even further, and so on.

Now, what WellPoint claims is that it has been forced to raise premiums because of "challenging economic times": cash-strapped Californians have been dropping their policies or shifting into less-comprehensive plans. Those retaining coverage tend to be people with high current medical expenses. And the result, says the company, is a drastically worsening risk pool: in effect, a death spiral.

So the rate increases, WellPoint insists, aren't its fault: "Other individual market insurers are facing the same dynamics and are being forced to take similar actions." Indeed, a report released Thursday by the department of Health and Human Services shows that there have been steep actual or proposed increases in rates by a number of insurers.

But here's the thing: suppose that we posit, provisionally, that the insurers aren't the main villains in this story. Even so, California's death spiral makes nonsense of all the main arguments against comprehensive health reform.

For example, some claim that health costs would fall dramatically if only insurance companies were allowed to sell policies across state lines. But California is already a huge market, with much more insurance competition than in other states; unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most. And competition hasn't averted a death spiral. So why would creating a national market make things better?

More broadly, conservatives would have you believe that health insurance suffers from too much government interference. In fact, the real point of the push to allow interstate sales is that it would set off a race to the bottom, effectively eliminating state regulation. But California's individual insurance market is already notable for its lack of regulation, certainly as compared with states like New York — yet the market is collapsing anyway.

Finally, there have been calls for minimalist health reform that would ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions and stop there. It's a popular idea, but as every health economist knows, it's also nonsense. For a ban on medical discrimination would lead to higher premiums for the healthy, and would, therefore, cause more and bigger death spirals.

(Krugman)​

Now consider some right-wing fearmongering:

• Obama as a communist.
• Health care reform as white slavery.
• Max Cleland sold out to Al Qaeda.
• Gays are coming to steal your children and force them to be homosexual.
• Saddam Hussein's arsenal of WMD.
• Prosecuting terrorists within our justice system will destroy America.
• Death panels.​

Look, we've tried conservative agendas. All that gets us is scared and stupid and tangled up in ugly wars. We've tried bipartisanship, or "centrism". And what did that get us? War, torture, economic crisis, Patriot Act, FISA "reform", a troubled health reform bill that probably won't work ... the list goes on. Nobody can claim with a straight face that every liberal idea on the planet will lead to utopia, but some of them are worth a try, because we see what happpens when one "compromises" with dishonesty: money is more important than people, and facts have no place in society.

So congratulations to my conservative neighbors on that stunning accomplishment. They ought to be so freakin' proud of themselves. Indeed, as Gene Lyons points out, they are:

No one should be shocked by a Republican National Committee fundraising document recently uncovered by Politico. With condescension bordering upon satire, it divides potential GOP donors into two groups: simple-minded dimwits and wealthy egotists.

The key to raising cash from small donors, according to a PowerPoint presentation given by RNC operatives Rob Bickhart and Peter Terpeluk at a retreat in Boca Grande, Fla., is to dazzle them with scare talk about "Socialism," images of President Obama as "The Joker," Nancy Pelosi as "Cruella de Vil" and other bright, shiny objects. The idea is to exploit "visceral" emotions, "fear" and "extreme negative feelings" toward Obama.

Similar tactics have, of course, been used by shameless broadcast evangelists to pry open the piggy banks of elderly shut-ins since the invention of mass media. The Antichrist will get you, if you don't watch out!

Just imagine the uproar that would have attended the Democratic National Committee's caricaturing President Bush, as, say, a Nazi prison guard from "Hogan's Heroes," or as Wile E. Coyote, the incompetent cartoon predator. But when it comes to Obama, anything goes ....

.... Indeed, the thing makes high-ranking RNC operatives — Terpeluk was Bush's ambassador to Luxembourg, the cushiest of sinecures — sound like carnies setting up sideshow exhibits at a backwoods county fair. What will open the yokels' wallets, the two-headed rattlesnake or the hoochie-coochie show?

No sooner did the document become public than Republicans took flight in all directions. Party Chairman Michael Steele's spokesman said he hadn't attended the conference, "disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee — in any capacity — in the future."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "I can't imagine why anybody would have thought that was helpful. Typically, the way parties raise money is because people believe in the causes they advocate. I think the way we raise money from donors across America is to stand for things that are important for the country."

Ah, but there's the rub. What's telling about the RNC sales pitch isn't so much its borderline offensiveness and condescending tone. It's a classic bait and switch, revealing its authors' bad faith. The people who put the thing together not only don't believe in the causes they advocate; they have no intention of delivering on their implied promises should they return to power.​

See, the thing I don't understand here has to do with the difference between dealing with genuinely frightful, real prospects, and simply making shit up because you think it will sell. Specifically, I don't understand what the hell is so difficult about comprehending the difference.

It's somewhat amazing to think that people really do believe the sort of crap you're pushing, Raithere. Then again, there are, in addition to the partisans and utopiates a class of terminal cynics whose best contribution to society would be to simply go away. They so disdain the human endeavor that their only purpose seems to be to complain about it. Well and fine. If you don't like the game, don't play. But if you don't play, then don't freakin' play.

Because at some point, people shouldn't be remotely obliged to accommodate that kind of intellectual cop-out. People should simply ignore such cynics, or at maybe smile and tell them that the short bus will be along soon.

Because, really, if you can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and if you so disdain consideration of the impacts of each, then you really don't serve any useful purpose in the public discourse, and if we have to stop and hold a remedial review for the sake of a bunch of cynics who don't have any good faith to offer, anyway, then we ought to be able to penalize the lot of you in some way for the damage that occurs while we should be doing more useful things than tracking around hip-deep in intellectual manure.

Nothing is perfect. Nobody is perfect. Now, is that a painful reality, or is it a cheap excuse for detrimental behavior? You're advocating the latter.
____________________

Notes:

Krugman, Paul. "California Death Spiral". The New York Times. February 19, 2010; page A27. NYTimes.com. March 15, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html

Lyons, Gene. "GOP Plays the Game For Donations". Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoon Index. March 10, 2010. Blog.Cagle.com. March 15, 2010. http://blog.cagle.com/2010/03/10/gop-plays-the-game-for-donations/

 

[joepistole]

Over the last several years, I've been coming to terms with the question of whether or not people really are so _____. Any number of adjectives can go there, and none of them speak kindly. In the end, it comes down to the question, "Really? Can you not tell the difference?"

This sort of ignorance, or pretense there of, benefits the conservative argument because the idea of fact never enters into the argument. At some point, by the conservative argument, we need to look at our mothers and say, "Wear a jacket? Catch cold? Stop fearmongering, Mom!"

• Premiums rising?
• Cost burden shift to individuals?
• Services decreasing?​

Yes, all of these are true. Some of them are even happening already, and anyway. They'll happen without reform.

Why the huge increase? It's not profiteering, says WellPoint, which claims instead (without using the term) that it's facing a classic insurance death spiral.

Bear in mind that private health insurance only works if insurers can sell policies to both sick and healthy customers. If too many healthy people decide that they'd rather take their chances and remain uninsured, the risk pool deteriorates, forcing insurers to raise premiums. This, in turn, leads more healthy people to drop coverage, worsening the risk pool even further, and so on.

Now, what WellPoint claims is that it has been forced to raise premiums because of "challenging economic times": cash-strapped Californians have been dropping their policies or shifting into less-comprehensive plans. Those retaining coverage tend to be people with high current medical expenses. And the result, says the company, is a drastically worsening risk pool: in effect, a death spiral.

So the rate increases, WellPoint insists, aren't its fault: "Other individual market insurers are facing the same dynamics and are being forced to take similar actions." Indeed, a report released Thursday by the department of Health and Human Services shows that there have been steep actual or proposed increases in rates by a number of insurers.

But here's the thing: suppose that we posit, provisionally, that the insurers aren't the main villains in this story. Even so, California's death spiral makes nonsense of all the main arguments against comprehensive health reform.

For example, some claim that health costs would fall dramatically if only insurance companies were allowed to sell policies across state lines. But California is already a huge market, with much more insurance competition than in other states; unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most. And competition hasn't averted a death spiral. So why would creating a national market make things better?

More broadly, conservatives would have you believe that health insurance suffers from too much government interference. In fact, the real point of the push to allow interstate sales is that it would set off a race to the bottom, effectively eliminating state regulation. But California's individual insurance market is already notable for its lack of regulation, certainly as compared with states like New York — yet the market is collapsing anyway.

Finally, there have been calls for minimalist health reform that would ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions and stop there. It's a popular idea, but as every health economist knows, it's also nonsense. For a ban on medical discrimination would lead to higher premiums for the healthy, and would, therefore, cause more and bigger death spirals.

(Krugman)​

Now consider some right-wing fearmongering:

• Obama as a communist.
• Health care reform as white slavery.
• Max Cleland sold out to Al Qaeda.
• Gays are coming to steal your children and force them to be homosexual.
• Saddam Hussein's arsenal of WMD.
• Prosecuting terrorists within our justice system will destroy America.
• Death panels.​

Look, we've tried conservative agendas. All that gets us is scared and stupid and tangled up in ugly wars. We've tried bipartisanship, or "centrism". And what did that get us? War, torture, economic crisis, Patriot Act, FISA "reform", a troubled health reform bill that probably won't work ... the list goes on. Nobody can claim with a straight face that every liberal idea on the planet will lead to utopia, but some of them are worth a try, because we see what happpens when one "compromises" with dishonesty: money is more important than people, and facts have no place in society.

So congratulations to my conservative neighbors on that stunning accomplishment. They ought to be so freakin' proud of themselves. Indeed, as Gene Lyons points out, they are:

No one should be shocked by a Republican National Committee fundraising document recently uncovered by Politico. With condescension bordering upon satire, it divides potential GOP donors into two groups: simple-minded dimwits and wealthy egotists.

The key to raising cash from small donors, according to a PowerPoint presentation given by RNC operatives Rob Bickhart and Peter Terpeluk at a retreat in Boca Grande, Fla., is to dazzle them with scare talk about "Socialism," images of President Obama as "The Joker," Nancy Pelosi as "Cruella de Vil" and other bright, shiny objects. The idea is to exploit "visceral" emotions, "fear" and "extreme negative feelings" toward Obama.

Similar tactics have, of course, been used by shameless broadcast evangelists to pry open the piggy banks of elderly shut-ins since the invention of mass media. The Antichrist will get you, if you don't watch out!

Just imagine the uproar that would have attended the Democratic National Committee's caricaturing President Bush, as, say, a Nazi prison guard from "Hogan's Heroes," or as Wile E. Coyote, the incompetent cartoon predator. But when it comes to Obama, anything goes ....

.... Indeed, the thing makes high-ranking RNC operatives — Terpeluk was Bush's ambassador to Luxembourg, the cushiest of sinecures — sound like carnies setting up sideshow exhibits at a backwoods county fair. What will open the yokels' wallets, the two-headed rattlesnake or the hoochie-coochie show?

No sooner did the document become public than Republicans took flight in all directions. Party Chairman Michael Steele's spokesman said he hadn't attended the conference, "disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee — in any capacity — in the future."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "I can't imagine why anybody would have thought that was helpful. Typically, the way parties raise money is because people believe in the causes they advocate. I think the way we raise money from donors across America is to stand for things that are important for the country."

Ah, but there's the rub. What's telling about the RNC sales pitch isn't so much its borderline offensiveness and condescending tone. It's a classic bait and switch, revealing its authors' bad faith. The people who put the thing together not only don't believe in the causes they advocate; they have no intention of delivering on their implied promises should they return to power.​

See, the thing I don't understand here has to do with the difference between dealing with genuinely frightful, real prospects, and simply making shit up because you think it will sell. Specifically, I don't understand what the hell is so difficult about comprehending the difference.

It's somewhat amazing to think that people really do believe the sort of crap you're pushing, Raithere. Then again, there are, in addition to the partisans and utopiates a class of terminal cynics whose best contribution to society would be to simply go away. They so disdain the human endeavor that their only purpose seems to be to complain about it. Well and fine. If you don't like the game, don't play. But if you don't play, then don't freakin' play.

Because at some point, people shouldn't be remotely obliged to accommodate that kind of intellectual cop-out. People should simply ignore such cynics, or at maybe smile and tell them that the short bus will be along soon.

Because, really, if you can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and if you so disdain consideration of the impacts of each, then you really don't serve any useful purpose in the public discourse, and if we have to stop and hold a remedial review for the sake of a bunch of cynics who don't have any good faith to offer, anyway, then we ought to be able to penalize the lot of you in some way for the damage that occurs while we should be doing more useful things than tracking around hip-deep in intellectual manure.

Nothing is perfect. Nobody is perfect. Now, is that a painful reality, or is it a cheap excuse for detrimental behavior? You're advocating the latter.
____________________

Notes:

Krugman, Paul. "California Death Spiral". The New York Times. February 19, 2010; page A27. NYTimes.com. March 15, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html

Lyons, Gene. "GOP Plays the Game For Donations". Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoon Index. March 10, 2010. Blog.Cagle.com. March 15, 2010. http://blog.cagle.com/2010/03/10/gop-plays-the-game-for-donations/

Agreed, and might I add to your list of Republican lies/fear mongering:
- Obama is a socialist
- Obama is a Nazi
- Obama is a Marxist

 

[s0meguy]

aren't government leadership seats sold by the people who occupy them themselves? some of their campaigns are funded by special interest groups too I'd think, like old people's for example. if anyone could just be bought there would be no internet neutrality left for example, we wouldn't even be able to visit this site. so theres still a lot of politicians that don't answer to corporations?

 

[C-Moon]

It is not suprisingly more of the same, fear and ego. It is a recepie that has worked well for them in the past, until last year when the building collapsed because the foundations had become too weak to support the corruption brought about by their "fear and ego" policies.

The Tea Party agrees with you:

III. ...

We reject the scare tactics of the Republican Party, which seeks to herd us into voting for candidates ...


http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/declaration-of-tea-party

But, you said Tea Partiers are psychotic. hmmm

 

[joepistole]

The Tea Party agrees with you:

But, you said Tea Partiers are psychotic. hmmm

I think Tiassa summed it up quite nicely.

 

[Jack_]

Over the last several years, I've been coming to terms with the question of whether or not people really are so _____. Any number of adjectives can go there, and none of them speak kindly. In the end, it comes down to the question, "Really? Can you not tell the difference?"

This sort of ignorance, or pretense there of, benefits the conservative argument because the idea of fact never enters into the argument. At some point, by the conservative argument, we need to look at our mothers and say, "Wear a jacket? Catch cold? Stop fearmongering, Mom!"

• Premiums rising?
• Cost burden shift to individuals?
• Services decreasing?​

Exactly what in the bill causes premiums to decrease?

If insurance does not decrease if this bill passes, then the pubs will use this time and time again against the dems.

You and your folks are betting 40 years that you can get premiums to decrease.

Obama promised unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus passed.

 

[iceaura]

I don't care about it being equal

I do. I want the people who are wrecking the place identified and blamed, so that they can be removed from power and prevented from doing yet more damage.

You can't see how this is about what's being said, not who saying it?

Then why are you insisting that "both sides" are saying equivalent things? My only point is that some people are talking and acting much differently than other people, and these people are doing great harm. Why are you arguing about it?

Republicans circa 2008 want: private corporation domination of medical care delivery.
”
No. That's what the conservative ideology prescribes.

No, that is what the corporate lobbies in Washington want. Conservative ideology wants what is traditional and accepted and proven in the past. That corporate interests are "conservative" is a Republican talking point, a media deception.

Of course. As is the constant threat of filibuster. The Dems did the same things when they were the minority party.

No, they didn't. The threat of filibuster was not used in this way by the Dems, when they were the minority party.

There are currently a couple of hunderd pieces of legislation, dozens of appointments to fairly critical jobs, and much other government business, sitting blocked by the constant threat of filibuster among other things. That never happened with the Dem minority - look it up.

It is not true that "both sides" do whatever the Republicans ( or their Dem allies) have just done.

It was also the entire Democratic strategy when the Reps were in control

The tactics were different, the means were different, among the Dems. Still are.

Are you arguing that means don't matter, only ends count?

Of course. Business as usual. Just as the Dems tore down Bush (admittedly he made it easy). But when you consider that following 9/11 they helped pass the legislation they criticized later and they are still fighting wars they decried you have to do a double-take.

I don't - I never saw the Dems "tear down" Bush in the first place, and without that kind of goofy delusion settting up the surprise there hasn't been one. I am disappointed to see the Dems behaving according to their longstanding pattern, but there's no double take involved.

Actually the best strategy is simply to make sure the public knows that you opposed it

That only works if it's a very bad bill, or at least one you can lie about persuasively. If you allow a good bill through, the coming crisis in health insurance costs will make opposing it look foolish.

 

[Tiassa]

A nickel's worth of a free clue

Exactly what in the bill causes premiums to decrease?

If insurance does not decrease if this bill passes, then the pubs will use this time and time again against the dems.

You and your folks are betting 40 years that you can get premiums to decrease.

Obama promised unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus passed.

As to the stimulus, the problem was that the injection was too small:

The good news is that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a k a the Obama stimulus plan, is working just about the way textbook macroeconomics said it would. But that's also the bad news — because the same textbook analysis says that the stimulus was far too small given the scale of our economic problems. Unless something changes drastically, we're looking at many years of high unemployment.

And the really bad news is that "centrists" in Congress aren't able or willing to draw the obvious conclusion, which is that we need a lot more federal spending on job creation.

(Krugman)​

Or, to reiterate a point:

Once again, Americans see that compromising with conservative interests only gets them bitten in the ass.​

Right now, unfortunately, the only real cost controls in the bill appear to be subsidies and mandates. This is why the Left is frustrated with the current effort, such as we might call it.

And, unfortunately, the Republicans are attempting a variation on their anti-stimulus strategy. By playing an obstructionist role, they are achieving an allegedly centrist compromise. After all, more important than delivering health care to the nation is protecting excessive profits in the health care industry. As such, the public option is not going to happen; no industry-based cost controls are included in the bill; what is emerging is, as Bill Maher once described the reform effort, "a watered-down, ineffectual blow job to the health insurance industry".

To the other, sixteen years ago, this would have been a forty-year gamble. Right now the question is whether Americans are comfortable enough to be simplistic at best, or oblivious most days. The GOP's obstructionist strategy could easily blow up in their faces if the sleeping electoral giant known as The People actually comes awake. If the simplistic days of, "His watch, his fault," continue, then yes, the Democrats are in trouble no matter what they do. If, however, people actually pay attention, it's the GOP that will suffer, because the problem isn't the idea of health care, or economic stimulus, but rather the compromise with a dishonest, calculating, exploitative, obstructionist opposition that is banking on people being stupid enough to elect them as a reward for making sure nothing works.

The problem "my folks" face is whether or not it's worth sacrificing the Democratic Party at the altar of American idiocy in order to get a genuine, prominent liberal voice in Washington. The Democrats can certainly blow this, and cost themselves the next few cycles. The great tragedy there is that the nation will continue to spiral into easily-digested conservative nonsense philosophies, and thus flush itself away like so much dirty bathwater. Reid and Pelosi are hardly liberal saviors. Hell, they're hardly liberal at all. And the nature of gravity is that things tend to fall a lot faster than they climb. Americans can either wake up and seek progress, or they can continue to tumble off the mountain and comfort themselves by saying, "But look at how fast we're going! It's like we're going to Hell in a Lamborghini!"

And then one day, some stupid, middle-aged woman can be videotaped at a local town hall meeting, wailing loudly about how she wants her country back, and this time she'll actually have a point. Except, of course, for the pesky question of why she pitched it to the rubbish tip in the first place.
____________________

Notes:

Krugman, Paul. "Too Little of a Good Thing". The New York Times. November 2, 2009; page A21. NYTimes.com. March 17, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html

"Maher Rips Baucus Bill: 'I'm Going To Start Going To Town Halls And Screaming Now'". The Huffington Post. September 19, 2009. HuffingtonPost.com. March 17, 2010. March 17, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/maher-rips-baucus-bill-im_n_292134.html

 

[C-Moon]

I think Tiassa summed it up quite nicely.

hmmm, so you found something on which you can agree with the psychotic Tea Party. Imagine that.

 

[joepistole]

hmmm, so you found something on which you can agree with the psychotic Tea Party. Imagine that.

I am not getting that comment at all.