this is kinda nuts. i dont know whats crazier, that the thing passed or these old men are still up.

if you arent watching this you should. they are going to fight.

jerseyhoya wrote:Maybe the optics of the health care debate wouldn't have been as detrimental on Obama and the Dems poll numbers if the economy was in better shape, but the entire process of passing this bill, and passing it itself, is going to be a contributing factor in Dem losses this fall. If you doubt that, wait till you see the ads this fall going after the Dems in swing districts who voted for the bill. I bet it tests like gold.

Fall? People will have forgotten about health care reform by end of may, at latest. After Boehner has his "heavy heart" repaired - operation covered under the new health law! - maybe he takes a half-hearted swipe at how awful the new health legislation is come the fall, but that topic will be farther down the list than it is now. If I'm an enterprising news diddler, I follow Truck Stop Scott around for HIS thoughts on it this fall.

Financial industry reform, up next, is going to be a much hotter potato, perhaps for both parties, than health care - but much tougher for reps to fashion a credible position on. if jobs & the economy continue to sputter, as seems likely, banker-hanging is going to be in vogue. reps will need to figure a way to have a hand on the rope. Will Mahogany John have a "heavy neck"?

pacino wrote:

We won the political debate

YAYYYYYYY

Hey, be nice. They don't even seem to grasp that there's anything else.

That said, I think HCR has little to no electoral impact this year--with maybe a half-dozen exceptions, whoever's going to lose would have lost however they voted on this--and is a big plus for the Ds in 2012.

"We hate these nasty procedural moves and tricks used by the Democrats!!! Let's use ours now!!!"

lol, politicians

MIchael Steele is such a joke. He wants to 'fire Nancy Pelosi'. He now wants to repeal this legislation. There's a first time for everything, Geraldo! Tim Kaine > Michael Steele, but that's not too tough

I could not be happier about where the country is going:

1. Good start on the health care.
2. Dems will lose some seats, as is appropriate.
3. Obama just locked up 2012.

jeff2sf wrote:I could not be happier about where the country is going:

1. Good start on the health care.
2. Dems will lose some seats, as is appropriate.
3. Obama just locked up 2012.

The only problem with the Ds losing seats is that it'll be interpreted as a win for the Teabaggers. The sooner those nuts are crushed, the sooner we might get sane, responsible Republicans again.

Maybe if they lose 12-15 seats there will be a realization that without the craziness it would have been better.

dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:

We won the political debate

YAYYYYYYY

Hey, be nice. They don't even seem to grasp that there's anything else.

That said, I think HCR has little to no electoral impact this year--with maybe a half-dozen exceptions, whoever's going to lose would have lost however they voted on this--and is a big plus for the Ds in 2012.

Can you explain what that post by phdave was referring to then, if not the political debate?

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:I could not be happier about where the country is going:

1. Good start on the health care.
2. Dems will lose some seats, as is appropriate.
3. Obama just locked up 2012.

The only problem with the Ds losing seats is that it'll be interpreted as a win for the Teabaggers. The sooner those nuts are crushed, the sooner we might get sane, responsible Republicans again.

Maybe if they lose 12-15 seats there will be a realization that without the craziness it would have been better.

one would think that the GOPers in those districts would not be of the tea party variety, but who knows? well, jerseyhoya probably knows...

anyway, i was very pessimistic about things about 6 weeks ago. i penciled toomey in for senate, corbett in for governor, and this bill going down in flames. toomey seems to be less and less likely, and the bill is passed, but corbett will be our next governor unless he kills someone on live tv. i'll take it.

CalvinBall wrote:so what are some big changes? this is all confusing. you get three sentences to explain it to me.

some immediate changes

phdave wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:so what are some big changes? this is all confusing. you get three sentences to explain it to me.

some immediate changes

Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday
Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
Free preventative care for all
Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.

our country is going down in flames with these changes

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:

We won the political debate

YAYYYYYYY

Hey, be nice. They don't even seem to grasp that there's anything else.

That said, I think HCR has little to no electoral impact this year--with maybe a half-dozen exceptions, whoever's going to lose would have lost however they voted on this--and is a big plus for the Ds in 2012.

Can you explain what that post by phdave was referring to then, if not the political debate?

I can explain what I think Frum meant:

The Democrats wanted a bipartisan bill. To get that, they would have accepted a much less "liberal" piece of legislation: smaller scale, slower phase-in, less disadvantageous to insurers, etc. But the Rs made the strategic decision to try to block any bill from passing, figuring that would lead to bigger gains in November and cripple Obama. The DeMint/Rush group, much more concerned about a political win than solvingthe underlying problems of the uninsured and out of control costs, pushed this tactic. They lost, meaning both that a bill worse on substance grounds than what they could have had will become law and that their political choice backfired. YMMV of course.

A Republican yelled "baby killer" at Stupak when he was speaking.

sweet...more taxes. wait, i better be careful of what i say before i'm called a racist.

a friends facebook status



what does that even mean?

well, he just outed himself as thinking wayyy too much about race, even if he's not an out and out racist.


the vaguely racist comments are out in full force tonight


actual update: "scarey times rite now". Yes, scarey indeed.

we shouldnt even use money... everything should just be free. that would solve a lot of problems. republicans are too greedy so i guess it would never work.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:

We won the political debate

YAYYYYYYY

Hey, be nice. They don't even seem to grasp that there's anything else.

That said, I think HCR has little to no electoral impact this year--with maybe a half-dozen exceptions, whoever's going to lose would have lost however they voted on this--and is a big plus for the Ds in 2012.

Can you explain what that post by phdave was referring to then, if not the political debate?

I can explain what I think Frum meant:

The Democrats wanted a bipartisan bill. To get that, they would have accepted a much less "liberal" piece of legislation: smaller scale, slower phase-in, less disadvantageous to insurers, etc. But the Rs made the strategic decision to try to block any bill from passing, figuring that would lead to bigger gains in November and cripple Obama. The DeMint/Rush group, much more concerned about a political win than solvingthe underlying problems of the uninsured and out of control costs, pushed this tactic. They lost, meaning both that a bill worse on substance grounds than what they could have had will become law and that their political choice backfired. YMMV of course.

I really strongly disagree with him there then. I don't think we were going to get much better on a policy stand point. There is no public option in this bill, and a bunch of GOP ideas were included. And I think the political choice the GOP made is really a strong one. I think you guys are minimizing how unpopular this bill is and how strong of an issue this is going to be in swing districts.

Also I think tonight dramatically increases the possibility Obama is a one term president. Disagree strongly with that jeff2sf conclusion.

Fair enough, jh. I always respect your political instincts, but in this case I think you're overconcluding about the power of process arguments in the age of "Just Win, Baby" politics. The three-hour vote needed by DeLay to pass Medicare Part D didn't sway many races, IIRC.

You know me: I'm pretty much an economic determinist when it comes to politics. In a good economy (or an economy deemed by the media consensus to be good; I don't think there is "one" economy anymore, and probably there hasn't been for years), the party in power can do virtually anything; in a down one, nothing. IMO that holds for both health care and the elections.

The real point is whether or not this represents good policy. For Republicans who agreed with much of this legislation--and I would guess there are about a dozen such people in the House and maybe a half-dozen in the Senate, maybe more--a willingness to deal would have led to a better policy outcome. Now they get nothing.

edit: two other considerations. First, the bill gets more popular the more its provisions are understood, and now there aren't the obfuscating process points to get in the way of making that case. Second, winning creates its own momentum, and Obama just got an enormous win. Still, though, his 2012 prospects will depend on the growth rate, the unemployment rate, and just how polarizing the Republican candidate is. FWIW, I'm as confident as can be two and a half years out.