jerseyhoya wrote:Lost in this partisan bitchfest is Zogby making a fool of himself again

And that Brown has some really cute daughters

azrider wrote:of course it had nothing to do with ideology... that's the point i was trying to make. did you bother to click the link and see the ideologies that constitute the democratic party? is it absurd to come to the conclusion that "a promise" wasn't broken, but it may rather have been a defection due to the ideology of the policies that were trying to be passed?

"Defection due to the ideology" does suggest that you think it had something to do with ideology, but never mind.

My linking the Klein post had nothing to do with the MA vote, but rather why I and a lot of other Democrats am so glum about this today: they're backing away from something in which a lot of time, energy and hope was invested, and from the notions that 1) this is a good reform, the merits of which (expanded coverage and steps toward cost control) they can convince the voters; and that 2) what flaws are in it can be fixed through an iterative process... as has been true of pretty much every major piece of domestic legislation rbrt to make it through Congress. Instead, they're evidently prepared to slink away from it, confirming the sense (which crosses party lines) that fundamentally they're a bunch of pussies concerned self-preservation not public service. (And they'll accomplish neither, because voters don't support pussies.)

That aside, for reasons listed earlier--the candidate comparison, that MA already has close to universal coverage--I think it's pretty silly to conclude that the MA vote had much to do with health care in particular. The national climate, specifically anxiety about deficits and overreach and essential competence, I'm sure played a role. But it always does; pointed in a different direction, that anxiety, as Obama suggested, helped get him elected two years ago.

But if there's anything about health care that factored in, I suspect it's revulsion at the ugliness of the process. IIRC Brown himself criticized the "backroom deals," particularly the one Ben Nelson cut. That revulsion, which also cuts across party lines (the deals liberals deplore are the ones with the insurance and pharma companies, and with Lieberman), is pretty much universal to any big piece of legislation that plays out more or less in public over a long period of time. It's not a news flash that Americans detest the legislative process.

For another indication of this, check out the approval ratings of the last three or four Senate majority leaders, from before and after they won their leadership positions. (Nate Silver I think had something on this recently.) Maybe Daschle and Frist and Reid were/are just lousy politicians, and/or in bad states for them... but the whole "dealmaker" role seems to be political poison.

Rococo4 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:95 percent? where are you getting that from? i had no idea it was that close.

I dunno. I made it up. I think they were close. Maybe it was more like 85% and that got cut to 40% yesterday. Or 91.3% slashed to 28%. My point is that yesterday dramatically cut the odds of health care reform passing, because now if Republicans really want to drag their feet, they can. Unless the Dems pass the Senate bill in the House, that is.

Chances are very low. What vulnerable or potentially vulnerable House Democrat would vote yes this time around if they voted no last time after seeing how polls have shifed and after last night. They probably barely had the votes before yesterday in the House (to pass Senate bill) - if at all, which I doubt. (This also isnt factoring in yes votes who would shift to no)

I used to think Pelosi could whip enough House members to get 218 to "ping pong" the Senate bill, but I dont see it now. No way. What can they promise you - a visit from Obama? That'll help...

In truth, the Democrats best plan would be to start over. They wont.

honestly, some type of reform is needed. if we could just start with lawsuit caps and that insurance companies are able to cross state lines, i really think it would be a move in a positive direction. it might not seem like much, but i would gladly consider this a reid/pelosi/obama victory. granted somewhere down the road, i would like to incorporate a tax refund that could only go towards a health insurance policy. (different from a hsa) that would then mean a major change in the tax structure, and i don't want to go on for days explaining my ideas of simplifying the tax structure quite yet.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

-- President Obama, in an interview with ABC News.

Probably there's something to this, in that all recent elections seem to be primarily expressions of frustration with the in party.

So let me get this straight, according to Obama, "GWB-fatigue is responsible for Brown's victory in MA"?



Funny guy...

You've misinterpreted. Deliberately or not, I am uncertain.

I will explain. People are angry and scared. They were angry and scared last November, and voted for a guy who brought "hope" and "change". Alas, a year later, they're still angry and scared. So, they vote against the guy who promised "hope" and "change" but has so far failed to fulfill those expectations.

Obama could have been more generously interpreted as saying, Look, I ran against Bush, but in reality, he wasn't quite as bad as many of his critics said.

Or, to put it another way--a lot people voted for Obama in the same way a lot of people want Kolb to start for the Eagles next year. If Kolb doesn't get them a SB win, they'll want someone else. Matt Leinart maybe.

Not wanting to grapple with MP's questionable interpretation, I think the through-line of "the last eight years" has to do with the reality, borne out by data, that during the good economy, economic gains went pretty much solely to those at the top end... and during the recession, the ones who got taken care of, through the bailouts and other measures, were those at the very, very top end.

10 year ago, those same patterns were already evident. But the dotcom bubble had quite burst, so people didn't mind.

Anyway, I'm a little tired of jeremiads.

Not that I'm generally big on inequality arguments--I'm perfectly fine with the rich getting richer so long as everyone else does too--but in the second half of the Clinton administration (ten years ago), inequality actually shrank for the only time in the last 40 years. And the rich still did okay.

TheBrig wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Health care is supply driven (everywhere, not just the US).

If you are talking about the cost of health care in the US relative to what it costs in other countries, then I strongly disagree with this statement.

I don't see how you get that from my statement, which has fuck - all to do with cost relative to other countries, and everything to do with the fact that if there is care, people seek it out, and if there is more care, people seek it out more

azrider wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:95 percent? where are you getting that from? i had no idea it was that close.

I dunno. I made it up. I think they were close. Maybe it was more like 85% and that got cut to 40% yesterday. Or 91.3% slashed to 28%. My point is that yesterday dramatically cut the odds of health care reform passing, because now if Republicans really want to drag their feet, they can. Unless the Dems pass the Senate bill in the House, that is.

Chances are very low. What vulnerable or potentially vulnerable House Democrat would vote yes this time around if they voted no last time after seeing how polls have shifed and after last night. They probably barely had the votes before yesterday in the House (to pass Senate bill) - if at all, which I doubt. (This also isnt factoring in yes votes who would shift to no)

I used to think Pelosi could whip enough House members to get 218 to "ping pong" the Senate bill, but I dont see it now. No way. What can they promise you - a visit from Obama? That'll help...

In truth, the Democrats best plan would be to start over. They wont.

honestly, some type of reform is needed. if we could just start with lawsuit caps and that insurance companies are able to cross state lines, i really think it would be a move in a positive direction. it might not seem like much, but i would gladly consider this a reid/pelosi/obama victory. granted somewhere down the road, i would like to incorporate a tax refund that could only go towards a health insurance policy. (different from a hsa) that would then mean a major change in the tax structure, and i don't want to go on for days explaining my ideas of simplifying the tax structure quite yet.

i agree, some reform is needed, of course,

and those two steps, curbing lawsuit and allowing insurers to sell across state lines would be a huge step in the right direction. even the tax / refund credit is a good idea.

the democratic bills, however, were not good ideas and they were extreme budget busters. and now they are dead.

drsmooth wrote:

TheBrig wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Health care is supply driven (everywhere, not just the US).

If you are talking about the cost of health care in the US relative to what it costs in other countries, then I strongly disagree with this statement.

I don't see how you get that from my statement, which has $#@! - all to do with cost relative to other countries, and everything to do with the fact that if there is care, people seek it out, and if there is more care, people seek it out more

It looked to me like you were making a "supply-side" economic argument about why health care in the US costs so damn much. Sorry if I misread.

dajafi wrote:

azrider wrote:of course it had nothing to do with ideology... that's the point i was trying to make. did you bother to click the link and see the ideologies that constitute the democratic party? is it absurd to come to the conclusion that "a promise" wasn't broken, but it may rather have been a defection due to the ideology of the policies that were trying to be passed?

"Defection due to the ideology" does suggest that you think it had something to do with ideology, but never mind.

My linking the Klein post had nothing to do with the MA vote, but rather why I and a lot of other Democrats am so glum about this today: they're backing away from something in which a lot of time, energy and hope was invested, and from the notions that 1) this is a good reform, the merits of which (expanded coverage and steps toward cost control) they can convince the voters; and that 2) what flaws are in it can be fixed through an iterative process... as has been true of pretty much every major piece of domestic legislation rbrt to make it through Congress. Instead, they're evidently prepared to slink away from it, confirming the sense (which crosses party lines) that fundamentally they're a bunch of pussies concerned self-preservation not public service. (And they'll accomplish neither, because voters don't support pussies.)

That aside, for reasons listed earlier--the candidate comparison, that MA already has close to universal coverage--I think it's pretty silly to conclude that the MA vote had much to do with health care in particular. The national climate, specifically anxiety about deficits and overreach and essential competence, I'm sure played a role. But it always does; pointed in a different direction, that anxiety, as Obama suggested, helped get him elected two years ago.

But if there's anything about health care that factored in, I suspect it's revulsion at the ugliness of the process. IIRC Brown himself criticized the "backroom deals," particularly the one Ben Nelson cut. That revulsion, which also cuts across party lines (the deals liberals deplore are the ones with the insurance and pharma companies, and with Lieberman), is pretty much universal to any big piece of legislation that plays out more or less in public over a long period of time. It's not a news flash that Americans detest the legislative process.

For another indication of this, check out the approval ratings of the last three or four Senate majority leaders, from before and after they won their leadership positions. (Nate Silver I think had something on this recently.) Maybe Daschle and Frist and Reid were/are just lousy politicians, and/or in bad states for them... but the whole "dealmaker" role seems to be political poison.

that was a real solid post. i really wish we could actually see this bill as it was intended, before it got bastardized with all those deals. but unfortunately i don't think we will be around long enough to see those days.

It hurts my head to think how rococo/cshort are patronizingly pointing out what they might find acceptable in an HC deal. For christ sake, you're still a smaller minority than when the Democrats were in the minority and Bush was getting through a lot of stuff. I can see why dajafi is glum. As an Independent, I'm just annoyed at the both of youse.

azrider wrote:that was a real solid post. i really wish we could actually see this bill as it was intended, before it got bastardized with all those deals. but unfortunately i don't think we will be around long enough to see those days.

Thanks. But the problem is (in part, not entirely) with the process. And without some of the deals, industry would have brought enormous, probably unbearable pressure against wavering/buyable Senators.

One lesson of the Clintons' experience that Obama seemed to absorb was that this couldn't be done at all without buying off AHIP and PhARMA. True? Not true? I can't say for sure, but as I believe that Obama and Emanuel wanted to pass something above all else, I feel certain they reached that conclusion.

Then the other piece is that no Republican--not one--went along with this. That's unprecedented on big domestic legislation, and it gave the more hackish and/or malicious Senators like Nelson and Lieberman power to ask for whatever they wanted. Which again turned people off.

In the world of 10-20 years ago, this moderate, incremental, centrist and deficit-reducing (per CBO) legislation probably would have gotten 75-80 votes in the Senate and included tort reform and possibly interstate insurance competition (which I think might be a bad idea because it screws up community rating, but I'll leave that for the doc and others to discuss) along with expansion of coverage--which those things would NOT do on their own--and other things the majority wanted. But there was no good faith on the part of the Republicans, and it looks like the Democrats are going to reward that.

jeff2sf wrote:It hurts my head to think how rococo/cshort are patronizingly pointing out what they might find acceptable in an HC deal. For christ sake, you're still a smaller minority than when the Democrats were in the minority and Bush was getting through a lot of stuff. I can see why dajafi is glum. As an Independent, I'm just annoyed at the both of youse.

well as we found out it doesnt matter what any of us think to the US Senators. they'll do whatever they want.

Its not my fault a party with a supermajority in the senate and a 70 vote advanatge in the House cant get together and get a bill to the WH.

Sorry for speaking up about my preferences.

jeff2sf wrote:It hurts my head to think how rococo/cshort are patronizingly pointing out what they might find acceptable in an HC deal. For christ sake, you're still a smaller minority than when the Democrats were in the minority and Bush was getting through a lot of stuff. I can see why dajafi is glum. As an Independent, I'm just annoyed at the both of youse.

It's not what I find acceptable, it's the fact that rather than go all-in and then get nothing done, why not do something incrementally? Both parties have had this nauseating, winner-take-all mentality, and god forbid they compromise. I just suggested some things that the Republicans would have a hard time backing away from, and would look foolish if they did. And while Bush did get things passed, were any really as sweeping as what Obama is trying to do with healthcare? Look what happened when he tried to get immigration passed.

cshort wrote:It's not what I find acceptable, it's the fact that rather than go all-in and then get nothing done, why not do something incrementally? Both parties have had this nauseating, winner-take-all mentality, and god forbid they compromise. I just suggested some things that the Republicans would have a hard time backing away from, and would look foolish if they did. And while Bush did get things passed, were any really as sweeping as what Obama is trying to do with healthcare? Look what happened when he tried to get immigration passed.

I agree with you. But again, you're assuming the point was to do anything. The Democrats spent six months in the Senate Finance Committee trying to get a deal with the "Gang of Six." Grassley and Enzi gleefully strung them along (and bad on Baucus for being their sap). Snowe might have acted in somewhat better faith, but ultimately she too seems to have concluded that she didn't want to make a deal.

The Democrats were desperate to work with Republicans on health care reform. They weren't going to let a 40-vote minority write the bulk of the bill, but a deal certainly was there to be made; there was openness to incorporating some Republican priorities. The minority didn't play, and basically dared them to do it on their own, and now it seems the MA election has given Democrats an excuse to revert to their default weasel position.

If they pass it, they can start defending it, they'll have proven they can do something, and they won't demotivate their base. If it was worthwhile yesterday, it still is now.

jeff2sf wrote:It hurts my head to think how rococo/cshort are patronizingly pointing out what they might find acceptable in an HC deal.

don't get too concerned. Those points aren't what they think; they haven't really thought about it, really. Those points are straight from the party playbook.

They mean well. If they thought about those points - if they looked at data on the impact of tort reforms that have been implemented, for example - they might think differently about the merits of those proposals in terms of their own interests vs those of Rove/Norquist/others among their political/economic masters. Tip, guys - their bread-and-butter interests do not line up with yours.

But it's neither fair nor realistic to expect everyone to show much interest in these details. Hell, I'm not even that much interested in them.

drsmooth wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:It hurts my head to think how rococo/cshort are patronizingly pointing out what they might find acceptable in an HC deal.

don't get too concerned. Those points aren't what they think; they haven't really thought about it, really. Those points are straight from the party playbook.

They mean well. If they thought about those points - if they looked at data on the impact of tort reforms that have been implemented, for example - they might think differently about the merits of those proposals in terms of their own interests vs those of Rove/Norquist/others among their political/economic masters. Tip, guys - their bread-and-butter interests do not line up with yours.

But it's neither fair nor realistic to expect everyone to show much interest in these details. Hell, I'm not even that much interested in them.

You're right, I haven't dug into the details much. But there are thing that seem like they are the right things to do - for instance portability (and I realize the ins co's will pass on the costs), that could be passed tomorrow, so why wait? My main point at the begining was at least the Dems have gotten the Republicans to put some stuff in the playbook - stuff that wasn't even in there a few years ago.

drsmooth wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:It hurts my head to think how rococo/cshort are patronizingly pointing out what they might find acceptable in an HC deal.

don't get too concerned. Those points aren't what they think; they haven't really thought about it, really. Those points are straight from the party playbook.

They mean well. If they thought about those points - if they looked at data on the impact of tort reforms that have been implemented, for example - they might think differently about the merits of those proposals in terms of their own interests vs those of Rove/Norquist/others among their political/economic masters. Tip, guys - their bread-and-butter interests do not line up with yours.

But it's neither fair nor realistic to expect everyone to show much interest in these details. Hell, I'm not even that much interested in them.

They are what I think. I know, impossible right. All of us Republicans take marching orders right, while people on the other side are all independent thinkers.

Maybe we're not quite done yet. Frank's quick surrender was the worst sign; if he's walking that back, I have to believe some of the other wimps might do so as well.

It occurred to me just a minute ago that Al Franken getting seated as the 60th Democratic senator was probably the worse thing that could have happened to Obama's presidency in its infancy. If the Senate had been 59-41, I really think they would have passed a bill by now that wouldn't have been all that dissimilar to the one that's on the table now.

Howard Dean seems to be sick of Democrats' bipartisan attitude.

In sharply worded comments Tuesday night following the loss of former Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) Senate seat, the former chairman of the Democratic Party asserted that party leaders needed to bypass their quest for sixty Senate votes.

“We’ve got to be tougher," Dean quipped. "I’ve said the Democrats are not tough enough. Bush would have had the health care bill done a long time ago. He would have gone through reconciliation.”

Dean says Obama should start by simply proposing a bill that allows all Americans over 55 to buy into Medicare. Such a bill could be passed through the Senate with 50 votes, a margin the Democrats can easily muster.

There's not much “real” reform in the Senate bill either way, Dean said.

The former top Democrat added that he believed it would have been better had Democrats only had 59 votes from the start, since it would have forced his party to make tougher choices and push the bill through reconciliation in the first place.

“I think we would have been better off if we had had 59 senators to start with,” Dean remarked.

what he said