Health Care Reform - Universal/Public Option

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by cartman

Dola,

This will probably come across as harsh, but I couldn't think of a better way to frame it.

The business of elections of politicians is usually broken down into terms that the lowest common denominator in the voting pool can relate to.

The business of laws and governance is usually broken down into terms that politicians and bureaucrats can understand.

Very rarely do the two worlds meet. The question is "should they". In my opinion, no. That is why we have representational government, not direct governance.

Couldn't disagree with you more. The reason we have representative government is the founders knew a pure democracy would not work. All of the people cannot vote on every little issue that comes up. They also feared the tyranny of the majority, etc.

We vote on elected officials to represent us and we should be able to understand the business of laws and governance. Legislaters do not have the right to do their work in the dark and say that we just don't understand what they are doing. We should all be able to see exactly what they are doing.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

We vote on elected officials to represent us and we should be able to understand the business of laws and governance. Legislaters do not have the right to do their work in the dark and say that we just don't understand what they are doing. We should all be able to see exactly what they are doing.

Who said anything about working in the dark? I sent a link to the text of the bills.

The language used in the governance process is hardly ever easy to read and comprehend. Even when it is easy to read, there is still a lot of room for interpretation. Just look at the Constitution.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by cartman

Just look at the Constitution.

That is actually pretty good advice for Congress themselves.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I know what he meant. I was just suprised at the dollar amount (not sure why).

Ah, my bad then. I misunderstood what you were asking.

Having said that, the dollar amount doesn't surprise me. All that stuff I listed adds up.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interesting analysis by Nate Silver @538 of an Ipsos poll showing that a significant amount of the "opposition" to healthcare reform seems to be coming from those on the left who think the current package doesn't go far enough

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: In Polls, Much Opposition to Health Care Plan Is From Left

Originally Posted by excerpt

One way to look at this: 43 percent of people favor health care reform, whereas 38 percent oppose it (20 percent are undecided). But the actual plan under consideration gets numbers that are more or less the reverse of that -- 34 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed -- because a significant number of people think the plan doesn't go far enough.

[lynchjm24]

Mass has the most 'reformed' health system in America and they spoke loud and clear yesterday. Do the wishes of the people matter anymore?

[Jon]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Mass has the most 'reformed' health system in America and they spoke loud and clear yesterday. Do the wishes of the people matter anymore?

A healthcare system that is very popular. One which Scott Brown (incorrectly) said would be destroyed by the Senate Health Care bill. Not sure if health care was the top issue.

[albionmoonlight]

The Mass. race seemed to have very little to do with health care reform. From all accounts, he was a likeable guy who busted his ass and ran a great campaign, and she was an arrogant machine politician who no one liked.

Personally, I am happy that he won. The more moderates that the GOP has to lead them away from the Palinocolypse and back into being a serious party, the better it will be for us all.

[miked]

Won't somebody think of the poor insurance companies?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Personally, I am happy that he won. The more moderates that the GOP has to lead them away from the Palinocolypse and back into being a serious party, the better it will be for us all.

Please. He won because he wasn't her.

And except for the potentially important purpose he serves at the moment, he's subject to the same criticism/primary challenge that any other lame ass almost-Dem is/will be.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The Mass. race seemed to have very little to do with health care reform.

Let me get this right: The special election to replace a Senator who served for 46 years and whose life work was universal health care produced a Republican who is strongly opposed to the bill and it had very little to do with health care reform?

Funny, the President disagrees with you.

But he (Obama) did give an interview to ABC in which he rejected a dirty quick-fix on healthcare. He said: "I just want to make sure this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. The people of Massachusetts spoke, he has got to be part of that process."

[JPhillips]

I don't think there's any doubt healthcare was a big issue for some people that voted for Brown. The question is how many that would have voted for Coakley or stayed home instead voted for Brown solely or primarily because of healthcare. Because nobody did reliable exit polling that's an unanswerable question, but I assume people will make conclusions that best fit their desires.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting to see the various talking heads on CNN a bit ago & noticed the Dem strategist slyly moving HCR down the list of "core values that are important to the Party", behind the reviving the economy & something else (can't recall what now).

Right or wrong, good idea or bad idea, it was pretty clear that the party line talking points were being shifted away from HCR as fast as possible. In the split screen when another head talked about how the best they could hope for would be a very watered down measure with a few minor improvements the Dem was sitting there just nodding her head in agreement. They could always reverse field again of course or even end up with the Senate clique going in a direction all their own but after seeing that segment I'm convinced there's at least a portion of the D's ready to take their defeat & move on to something else.

[RainMaker]

They might say it's in the rear view mirror but I still think they have to pass something if they expect any support from their base in the coming elections. It's tough to tell your base to come out and vote after you failed to pass something they've wanted while holding massive majorities and the Presidency.

[JPhillips]

Personally I'm not going to support anyone whose only goal is self preservation.

You weren't sent to Washington to get reelected. Either get some shit done or go home. You still have a 40 seat advantage in the House and an 18 seat advantage in the Senate. Stop hiding in the corner and start leading!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Personally I'm not going to support anyone whose only goal is self preservation.

You weren't sent to Washington to get reelected. Either get some shit done or go home. You still have a 40 seat advantage in the House and an 18 seat advantage in the Senate. Stop hiding in the corner and start leading!

Politicians who come to Washington to get re-elected?

In other news Lance Bass announced he was gay.

[JPhillips]

Sure. But today was just a particularly whiny day for elected officials that claim to support some of the same policies I do.

[JPhillips]

I'm skeptical of this because I haven't seen the original polling, but this is interesting if true:

So Howard Dean goes on Hardball today and points out that today's DFA poll shows that of all the people who voted for both Obama and Brown, three out of five voted for Brown because they had wanted a public option and of the Obama voters who stayed home, 80% wanted a public option.

I'd almost guarantee that the "because they wanted" language is too strong for the poll results, but the general thrust of healthcare wasn't the deciding issue may have merit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm skeptical of this because I haven't seen the original polling, but this is interesting if true:... I'd almost guarantee that the "because they wanted" language is too strong for the poll results, but the general thrust of healthcare wasn't the deciding issue may have merit.

Did Crazy Howard (the Ed Orgeron of politics perhaps) happen to mention how many people actually fit that criteria, voted for both Obama & Brown?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm skeptical of this because I haven't seen the original polling, but this is interesting if true:



I'd almost guarantee that the "because they wanted" language is too strong for the poll results, but the general thrust of healthcare wasn't the deciding issue may have merit.

Wow that's some outrageous spin... I have no real horse in this race because this Brown guy will probably end up being a wolf in sheep's clothing and once the Republicrats regain a majority will be voting for more wars, more corporate welfare, more drug warring, and more Patriot Act like liberty deterioration. But you are delusional if you are trying to convince yourself this election somehow wasn't a repudiation of President Obama and his administration of government excess?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Research 2000 Massachusetts Poll Results | Progressive Change Campaign Committee

"In an election between Scott Brown and the public option, the public option would have won."
- Charles Chamberlain, political director of Democracy for America

HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT "DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH"
* by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
* by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home
(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)
VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION
* 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
* 86% of Obama voters who stayed home
OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER
* 57% of Brown voters say Obama "not delivering enough" on change he promised
* 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home

I wonder what that all works out to in real numbers. So lemme see here ...

Obama got 1.89 million votes in MA
18% of that would be 340,200 voters
But turnout was lower (2.2m this week vs 3.0 for Obama v McCain)

So hypothetically if turnout was equal among Obama & McCain voters, then that would project to about 1.39 million Obama voters who also voted this week. I'd be hard pressed to believe they turned out in equal numbers but that should maximize their total here.

That'd be 250,200 Obama voters who voted for Brown (out of his 1,168,107 votes) or about 21% of his total ... if, of course, Obamites & McCaniacs turned out this week in equal numbers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Wow that's some outrageous spin... I have no real horse in this race because this Brown guy will probably end up being a wolf in sheep's clothing and once the Republicrats regain a majority will be voting for more wars, more corporate welfare, more drug warring, and more Patriot Act like liberty deterioration. But you are delusional if you are trying to convince yourself this election somehow wasn't a repudiation of President Obama and his administration of government excess?

It's not spin if there are numbers to back it up.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not spin if there are numbers to back it up.

Here is the thing... the people of Mass cast a vote against national health care reform. It may be that they think they did it themselves and think that it's a state issue. It doesn't matter though. There was only one issue in play in this election and the people who had a chance to voice their opinion could not make it any clearer. Steve's numbers are just plain ridiculous. There is no way in the world that anyone who wanted a stronger bill would have voted for Brown. To pretend otherwise is such a ridiculous position it doesn't even require an argument against it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I have to agree. To suggest that the ultra-liberal were protest voting for Brown because they felt the health care bill was a cop out is seriously delusional. Perhaps it helped depress Democrat turnout, but there is no way it added to Brown's vote totals.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Steve's numbers are just plain ridiculous.

Much as I feel kind of dirty for doing this, I feel obligated to point out that they aren't Steve's numbers, they belong to some group who had Howard Dean shilling their numbers earlier this week. In this case, Steve was just the messenger.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Here is the thing... the people of Mass cast a vote against national health care reform. It may be that they think they did it themselves and think that it's a state issue. It doesn't matter though. There was only one issue in play in this election and the people who had a chance to voice their opinion could not make it any clearer. Steve's numbers are just plain ridiculous. There is no way in the world that anyone who wanted a stronger bill would have voted for Brown. To pretend otherwise is such a ridiculous position it doesn't even require an argument against it.

You want to cast the election as if nothing else mattered but healthcare and what little info we have suggests that isn't the case. Some people voted solely or largely on healthcare. But, some people voted because they're solid republicans. Some because they thought Coakley was a terrible candidate. Some because they wanted "change". Probably some because Brown was good looking. It's a huge mistake to think that any electorate is sending a single message.

While I think it's hard to argue that people voted for Brown to send a message to keep the public option, I don't think it's hard to believe supporters of a stronger healthcare bill also voted for Brown. Not everybody is a single issue voter. One thing we do know is that a percentage of Obama voters that currently approve of his presidency also voted for Brown. Who knows exactly why, but those sorts of seeming contradictions happen all the time. Nate Silver showed that one of the first polls showing a Brown lead also showed that a percentage of people that favored the healthcare bill also favored Brown. Why is it impossible to believe that same thing happened on election night?

[panerd]

Frustrated Democrats: "Why do we keep throwing away all of our opportunities? We have a majority and we can't get anything done!"

Reasonable Person's Response: "A lot of people are with you on fixing the economy, ending the pointless wars, fighting for civil rights of minorities and gays"

Frustrated Democrats: "But most of the people also want this national health care."

Reasonable Person: "No they don't. They voted for Obama because he wasn't Bush and he seemed like he might change some unpopular ideas like endless war, corporate welfare, civil rights"

FD: "You are wrong people want health care"

RP: "OK."

FD: "I can't believe we lost this election in MA. It must be because people really want this health care so much that they voted against the Democrats because they just didn't do enough"

RP: "No. That's not it at all. They don't like this health care bill. They voted for Obama because he wasn't Bush and he seemed like he might change some unpopular ideas like endless war, corporate welfare, civil rights."

FD: "No they want health care. Here is a Howard Dean poll that shows it."

RP: "You're wrong. People don't want health care. A lot of people are with you on fixing the economy, ending the pointless wars, fighting for civil rights of minorities and gays but they don't want health care."

FD: "Look at this poll!!!!"

Reasonable People give up arguing and let them live in their delusional world.

Frustrated Democrats: "Why do we keep throwing away all of our opportunities? We have a majority and we can't get anything done!"

Cycle repeats again in fall elections.

[JPhillips]

Reasonable People: Everyone is a single issue voter that never contradicts themselves.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Reasonable People: Everyone is a single issue voter that never contradicts themselves.

Reasonable People give up arguing and let them live in their delusional world.

Frustrated Democrats: "Why do we keep throwing away all of our opportunities? We have a majority and we can't get anything done!"

Cycle repeats again in fall elections.

[JPhillips]

So, by your logic, Ted Kennedy himself would have lost to Joe the Plumber because the election was solely about healthcare?

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The Mass. race seemed to have very little to do with health care reform. From all accounts, he was a likeable guy who busted his ass and ran a great campaign, and she was an arrogant machine politician who no one liked.

Personally, I am happy that he won. The more moderates that the GOP has to lead them away from the Palinocolypse and back into being a serious party, the better it will be for us all.

Albion,

Agreed it had nearly nothing to do with healthcare she was a unlikable bitch at least that is how she came off. Howard Dean should be canned for having such an unappetizing candidate at such an important time. It was a typical Democrat elitist corner arrogance that cost them nothing else here.

[JPhillips]

Dean hasn't been in charge of the DNC since Obama took office.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Albion,

Agreed it had nearly nothing to do with healthcare she was a unlikable bitch at least that is how she came off. Howard Dean should be canned for having such an unappetizing candidate at such an important time. It was a typical Democrat elitist corner arrogance that cost them nothing else here.

Dean didn't pick the candidate. He's not in charge of the DNC, and hasn't been for about a year. She was picked in a primary where the two progressive candidates who would have beaten Scott Brown split the vote and she benefitted.

Having said that, I think she lost because the Democratic base from Boston didn't turn out. She met her electoral goals in almost every city she had to, except for Boston. I read somewhere that the party leadership in Boston didn't push turnout because she refused advice from party leaders who understood campaigns better than her.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Reasonable People give up arguing and let them live in their delusional world.

Frustrated Democrats: "Why do we keep throwing away all of our opportunities? We have a majority and we can't get anything done!"

Cycle repeats again in fall elections.

Reasonable Person: "You should change your policies based on poll numbers because that shows great leadership! After all, look how we responded after Clinton dropped health care reform in 1993?"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Albion,

Agreed it had nearly nothing to do with healthcare she was a unlikable bitch at least that is how she came off. Howard Dean should be canned for having such an unappetizing candidate at such an important time. It was a typical Democrat elitist corner arrogance that cost them nothing else here.

I wouldn't say it had nothing to do with healthcare, but I don't think it was primarily about healthcare. I generally don't think the voters that are persuadable know or even care much about policy specifics. The people who are passionate about policy have already made their minds up. Persuadables seem to vote more on an emotional level. Do they like the candidate? Is he/she a strong leader? Is this a person I'd like to have a beer with? They don't have the interest or the expertise to delve into policy so they are looking for a candidate they trust to do the right thing.

At the end of the day I'm very skeptical that voters are primarily motivated by any policy issues.

[JediKooter]

Maybe it just boils down to, one candidate ran a better campaign than the other one that lost?

[rowech]

I think it's as simple as calling Schilling a Yankees fan. Dumb move.

[JPhillips]

Some numbers from a phone poll conducted with MA voters after the election. It was weighted to reflect the outcome of the election.

* “Electing a candidate who is committed to controlling health care costs and covering the uninsured” (54% single most/very important factor).

* “Sending a message that President Obama and Congress are going too far in expanding government's role in our lives” (42% single most/very important).

Voters were not worried about Democratic “overreach”—47% said their bigger concern about Democrats is that they haven't succeeded in making needed change rather than tried to make too many changes too quickly (32%). Even Brown voters are more concerned about a lack of change (50%) than about trying to make too many changes too quickly (43%).

* 82% of voters were aware of Scott Brown's opposition to health care legislation supported by President Obama and congressional Democrats, but it had virtually no net impact on the Senate election. Those who knew Brown’s position were as likely to say it made them less likely (39%) to support him as to say it made them more likely to support him (41%).

* Brown actually lost among the 59% of voters who picked health care as one of their top two voting issues (50% Coakley, 46% Brown). Brown voters (55%) were less likely to cite health care as a top issue than were Coakley voters (66%).

[Mac Howard]

I'll probably regret entering a debate about US politics but what the hell

Wasn't Ted Kennedy elected to serve for around 46/7 years for Massachusetts? Didn't he repeatedly say that his first cause in politics was to bring universal health care to the US? Doesn't that suggest that the voters of Massachusetts are not against a candidate who believes in health care reform? Does it make any sense to suggest then that they voted against the Democratic candidate here because she supported health care reform?

Isn't the truth that she was just a crap candidate?

That Obama has said that he will not push trough reform hastily because he must listen to what the voters of Massachusetts have said (clearly implying they have spoken out against reform) looks to me like an abandonment of leadership. He is increasingly looking like a rabbit caught in the headlights or as we say here "all mouth and no trousers". He seems to cave in to opposition far too easily.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Didn't he repeatedly say that his first cause in politics was to bring universal health care to the US? Doesn't that suggest that the voters of Massachusetts are not against a candidate who believes in health care reform?

Correct. They are against this version of health care reform.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Correct. They are against this version of health care reform.

Brown actually lost among the 59% of voters who picked health care as one of their top two voting issues (50% Coakley, 46% Brown).

[Flasch186]

What I can tell you is this. Im sick, and getting a ton of tests done and I work in the housing industry. If they let me go Im going to be bankrupted and that shouldnt be something Im worried about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What I can tell you is this. Im sick, and getting a ton of tests done and I work in the housing industry. If they let me go Im going to be bankrupted and that shouldnt be something Im worried about.

Alright, let me make it clear that I'm not trying to be unsympathetic to your situation. I hope that your troubles turn out to be so minor as to be embarrassed that you even worried and that you're 100% better within a day of them getting to the bottom of it. M'kay, we clear on that?

Now, that aside, you make a hell of a broad statement there and it's one that I take some issue with.

Presumably you mean that if you lose your job then your health coverage goes and your income goes at the same time you have continuing medical expenses and that ultimately you'll be financially screwed.

But have you been putting money in a medical savings account? Have you weaned yourself from employer financed health insurance & onto a private plan that at least outlasts your job by some length of time? What have you done to at least improve your chances of financially surviving a serious medical condition? And most importantly, how are your health & finances somehow my (shared) financial responsibility, particularly since I'm given no control over how you manage your health or your finances?

My industry isn't in any better shape than the housing industry, or at the very least my little slice of it isn't. If anything, our own business has been down further & longer than the housing industry average. So how in the bloody hell am I supposed to be enthused at the prospect of taking someone else's financial burdens when I've got more than hands full with my own? And at the expense of the quality of care my family could currently get if needed? And yet somehow I manage not to be looking for the fucking government to take care of my ass.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Because hopefully, we've progressed past, "fuck you, I've got mine" as a good way to run a society?

Ironic comment considering, of course, that Massachusetts already has universal health care, so what the hell would they care about the distant, wastefull, federal plan.

I definitely hope Massachusetts succeeds. I hope that states have this option. That's freedom, to me.

No thanks, ObamaCare, Mass. is set - The Boston Globe

[larrymcg421]

A private plan isn't really feasible for most people. Employer plans (like mine) will often pay a percentage of the premium, and get a group discount rate for bringing a large pool of customers to the table. I've seen the rates and options for private plans and they have ridiculous premiums and deductibles. They basically amount to no coverage unless you get really, really sick.

I know the theory is that massive deregulation will lower the costs of private plans, but until someone can explain how an unregulated private insurance company is ever going to offer a plan to someone with a pre-existing condition, I don't see how that path is feasible at all.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What I can tell you is this. Im sick, and getting a ton of tests done and I work in the housing industry. If they let me go Im going to be bankrupted and that shouldnt be something Im worried about.

I want to echo JIMGa that I hope nothing bad comes from your tests and that you don't lose your job. But it is sort of ironic that the Fed keeping interest rates low and the government encouraging everyone to own a home is definitely part of what caused the housing bubble and subsequent burst. So now you want the government to get it's hands deeper into something else when conceivably they would be one of the reasons your job is in jeopardy. (It is a whole debate not worth having on whether it is 50/50, 75/25, 25/75 but I think anyone that isn't completely partisan will agree that greedy banks and terrible government policies together led to this collapse)

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by panerd

(It is a whole debate not worth having on whether it is 50/50, 75/25, 25/75 but I think anyone that isn't completely partisan will agree that greedy banks and terrible government policies together led to this collapse)

Agreed and I would also add greedy consumers trying to purchase something they cannot afford and blame any negative results on somebody else.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Because hopefully, we've progressed past, "fuck you, I've got mine" as a good way to run a society?

Of course the war in Afghanistan and the war on drugs can continue killing soldiers and our police officers. Or is this "fuck you, I got mine" just an argument of convenience for the Democrats? You would have a whole lot more ground to stand on if the Demoicrats weren't so damn hypocritical on freedom issues that they used to be on the right side of. When did they also become the party of endless war?

"Fuck you poor people the war on drugs completely destroys your lives disproportionately but it may get us a few middle and upper class votes from people who can't be parents and teach their own children to stay away from drugs."

"Fuck you poor people we know that the majority of troops killed are the front line soldiers who are disproportionally poor while the "academic" military stay well away from the IED's and front lines. But thousands of you poor people dying might save rich bankers from getting killed in another terrorist attack close to Wall Street."

“Fuck you poor people in New York City and Washington DC. We know the criminals already have the guns but we need the rich liberals in the suburbs to vote for us so we will ban handguns even when this has been shown to have no effect on the crime rate of the low income neighborhoods. At least the rich feel good!”

See, this game is easy to play!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Agreed and I would also add greedy consumers trying to purchase something they cannot afford and blame any negative results on somebody else.

You have that all wrong. Only the Wall Street types are greedy!!! Somebody who makes 25K and decides to still drive a new car and run up all sort of credit card debt is just being exploited by the credit card industry. Somebody who eats fast food all the time and becomes diabetic is being exploited by the health care industry. Someone who loses their job working for a company that can't afford to pay outrageous union controlled salaries is being exploited by corporations. We need more government!!!!!

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Of course the war in Afghanistan and the war on drugs can continue killing soldiers and our police officers. Or is this "fuck you, I got mine" just an argument of convenience for the Democrats? You would have a whole lot more ground to stand on if the Demoicrats weren't so damn hypocritical on freedom issues that they used to be on the right side of. When did they also become the party of endless war?

"Fuck you poor people the war on drugs completely destroys your lives disproportionately but it may get us a few middle and upper class votes from people who can't be parents and teach their own children to stay away from drugs."

"Fuck you poor people we know that the majority of troops killed are the front line soldiers who are disproportionally poor while the "academic" military stay well away from the IED's and front lines. But thousands of you poor people dying might save rich bankers from getting killed in another terrorist attack close to Wall Street."

“Fuck you poor people in New York City and Washington DC. We know the criminals already have the guns but we need the rich liberals in the suburbs to vote for us so we will ban handguns even when this has been shown to have no effect on the crime rate of the low income neighborhoods. At least the rich feel good!”

See, this game is easy to play!

Errrr. I'd love every troop to be home tomorrow. I'd love the drug war to be over. It's not fair to paint us with the brush of the electoral politics that our party represents. I disagree with much of it, just like the conservatives on this board aren't big fans of the GOP's social conservative policies.