Jump to content
Roberts

Will you re-elect Obama

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't. He's spent more money in just over a year than most other presidents period. His stimulus plan isn't saving our economy and his healthcare bill is full of crap. I can't believe this guy got put into office. He's an excellent speaker and he hs good intentions, but that doesn't equal a good president.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, no I won't - but then I didn't elect him in the first place...Nor did I vote to send any delegates to the Electoral College on Mr. Obama's behalf...so it's safe to say I'll be voting against him, and his delegates, in 2012 - UNLESS he does something truly amazing in the next few years.

Edited by hylanddd
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't. He's spent more money in just over a year than most other presidents period. His stimulus plan isn't saving our economy and his healthcare bill is full of crap. I can't believe this guy got put into office. He's an excellent speaker and he hs good intentions, but that doesn't equal a good president.

 

well, at least you'll be old enough to vote for palin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oddly enough, no I won't - but then I didn't elect him in the first place...

 

I didn't either...I voted for a pool of people to attend the electoral college... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more pertinent question is "will you reelect your congressperson?" Due to recent developments, I hope health-care reform doesn't pass. I think its a trap for 2010, something that can be pointed to as a failed policy, although it only fails because it has been weakened in the name of so-called compromise. I think we'd be better off exposing the insurance pigs in 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more pertinent question is "will you reelect your congressperson?" Due to recent developments, I hope health-care reform doesn't pass. I think its a trap for 2010, something that can be pointed to as a failed policy, although it only fails because it has been weakened in the name of so-called compromise. I think we'd be better off exposing the insurance pigs in 2010.
That didn't go over well in 1994, thought the situation was somewhat different and the "blame the industry/GOP" tactic was badly organized compared to the GOP Contract With America (on a side note...can we sue for breach?). The problem is, doing this would require a large revolt against the Democratic party from its left wing. And let's face it...the left wing of the party has more power now than they would should they endanger the party's majority in congress. Because of politics, policy suffers. Nothing new, really...George Washington warned us about this when he left office, and no one has really paid much attention to his words yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more pertinent question is "will you reelect your congressperson?" Due to recent developments, I hope health-care reform doesn't pass. I think its a trap for 2010, something that can be pointed to as a failed policy, although it only fails because it has been weakened in the name of so-called compromise. I think we'd be better off exposing the insurance pigs in 2010.

 

if they do nothing obama will be dead politically, and it will be clear that the democrats are ineffectual. it is incredibly important that health care reform is signed by obama before the state of the union. they have a month and the clock is ticking. once health care reform is done he can focus on jobs, and the numbers will probably start to look better by the spring. dems will probably lose a couple seats in 2010 but it wont be a tsunami, and obama's approval ratings will get back to the 52% range.

 

but health care reform has to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My real answer: most likely.

 

Assuming the republicans nominate some knuckle dragging know nothing, do nothing neanderthal, with a fake southern accent (or an annoying Idaho-Alaskan one), then yes.

 

If they nominate someone that is moderate on social issues, moderate even to conservative on fiscal issues, and most importantly someone who doesn't act like it's a crime to have read a book, then I'll honestly take a serious look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if they do nothing obama will be dead politically, and it will be clear that the democrats are ineffectual. it is incredibly important that health care reform is signed by obama before the state of the union. they have a month and the clock is ticking. once health care reform is done he can focus on jobs, and the numbers will probably start to look better by the spring. dems will probably lose a couple seats in 2010 but it wont be a tsunami, and obama's approval ratings will get back to the 52% range.

 

but health care reform has to happen

I'm unconvinced. Specifically, you should explain to me why being "ineffectual" will be more politically devastating than passing a policy that will fail to meet its objectives. I think it is a lot easier to explain to voters that the people blocking true reform are backed by corporate insurance money than it is to explain to them that they didn't really like the final policy but it is a first step in the right direction or some other non-sense.

 

EDIT: I think people who don't eat, sleep, and breath politics end up disliking Democrats because they can smell the corporate stink on them, more than for any other reason.

 

EDIT: Howard Dean's view:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5983608.shtml

Edited by Danny Tanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My real answer: most likely.

 

Assuming the republicans nominate some knuckle dragging know nothing, do nothing neanderthal, with a fake southern accent (or an annoying Idaho-Alaskan one), then yes.

 

If they nominate someone that is moderate on social issues, moderate even to conservative on fiscal issues, and most importantly someone who doesn't act like it's a crime to have read a book, then I'll honestly take a serious look.

 

Larry Craig ftw

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

EDIT: I think people who don't eat, sleep, and breath politics end up disliking Democrats because they can smell the corporate stink on them, more than for any other reason.

 

EDIT: Howard Dean's view:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5983608.shtml

 

i think its republicans who have the corporate stink on them, for people who dont follow politics closely. in politics, you can never look impotent. winners win. the health care policy wont be implemented for several years and it wont be a bad bill anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

EDIT: I think people who don't eat, sleep, and breath politics end up disliking Democrats because they can smell the corporate stink on them, more than for any other reason.

 

EDIT: Howard Dean's view:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5983608.shtml

 

i think its republicans who have the corporate stink on them, for people who dont follow politics closely. in politics, you can never look impotent. winners win. the health care policy wont be implemented for several years and it wont be a bad bill anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think its republicans who have the corporate stink on them, for people who dont follow politics closely. in politics, you can never look impotent. winners win. the health care policy wont be implemented for several years and it wont be a bad bill anyways.
If you're really looking closely, you know it's not an either or proposition; both parties reek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm unconvinced. Specifically, you should explain to me why being "ineffectual" will be more politically devastating than passing a policy that will fail to meet its objectives. I think it is a lot easier to explain to voters that the people blocking true reform are backed by corporate insurance money than it is to explain to them that they didn't really like the final policy but it is a first step in the right direction or some other non-sense.

 

EDIT: I think people who don't eat, sleep, and breath politics end up disliking Democrats because they can smell the corporate stink on them, more than for any other reason.

 

EDIT: Howard Dean's view:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5983608.shtml

 

What objective are you afraid the health care will not meet? Lowering costs? Expanding coverage? Reducing the deficit? Getting rid of some of the worst practices? Improving quality of care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're really looking closely, you know it's not an either or proposition; both parties reek.

 

sure. but the context is people who arent looking closely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say the current form looks like exactly the parts I liked least (mandated coverage) with none of the parts that make it seem like it could lower costs (public option, expand Medicare, etc.) Is this just a giant payoff to insurance companies?

 

Another question, is it possible the reconciliation process makes this vote meaningless? I mean, stopping the filibuster is critical, I understand. But once that is done and this reconciles with the House bill, it just takes 51 votes, n'est pas? So if they include some of the more favorable parts of the house bill, and lose Lieberman, that allows him to go back to the insurance industry and say "I held out for ya, and I didn't vote for the final bill."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting Over

 

— By Kevin Drum

| Tue Dec. 15, 2009 3:10 PM PST

 

 

Blog_Health_Insurance_0.jpgI don't want to blog endlessly about healthcare reform today because, really, there's not all that much to say. I think the Senate bill in its present state is well worth passing, other people don't, and that's that.

But there's one argument that I find perplexing. Here's Howard Dean:

This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.

Here's what I want to know: which one of us is living in dreamland? If you don't like the Senate bill, fine. Don't support it. But in what universe will healthcare reform get revived anytime soon if it dies this year? 2010? With the legislative plate already jammed, healthcare reform probably polling in the mid 30s, and midterms coming up? 2011? After Republicans have gained a bunch of seats in both the House and Senate thanks to public disgust with Democratic disarray? 2012? A presidential election year? 2013? 2014?

I usually don't say much about legislative tactics because I figure you need some serious ground level knowledge before you mouth off about what's possible and what's not on Capitol Hill. But the fate of failed major initiatives is so obvious that I can't believe anyone is taking this seriously. When big legislative efforts go down in flames, they almost never spring back onto the calendar anytime soon — and that's especially true when big healthcare bills fail. It didn't happen in 1936, it didn't happen in 1949, it didn't happen in 1974, and it didn't happen in 1995. What makes anyone think it will happen in 2010?

If healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time. Say what you will about the Democratic leadership, but Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer all know this perfectly well. So do John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. (Boy do they know it.) But if it passes, here's what we get:

 

  • Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
  • Community rating. Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.
  • Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.
  • A significant expansion of Medicaid.
  • Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.
  • Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.
  • Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.
  • A broad range of cost-containment measures.
  • A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.

What's more, for the first time we get a national commitment to providing healthcare coverage for everyone. It won't be universal to start, unfortunately, but it's going to be a lot easier to get there once the marker is laid down. That's how every other country has done it, and that's how we did it with Social Security and Medicare, both of which had big gaps in coverage when they were first passed.

But if we don't pass it, we don't get any of this. Not now, and not for a long time. Instead of being actual liberals, we'll just be playing ones on TV.

 

 

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/12/starting-over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sure. but the context is people who aren't looking closely

 

I actually think Brett's got it right though. People who don't pay attention to politics are the most likely to just think that politicians don't care about "them," and only work in the interest of the wealthy, connected etc.

 

This is definitely echoed in every study I've seen about why lower income/lower education people tend to have such low turnout rates. Bascially, the sentiment is that voting doesn't change anything because politicians don't work for people like them

 

Sad to say, there is truth to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will say the current form looks like exactly the parts I liked least (mandated coverage)

 

No one likes mandated coverage. But I've said this before, there is no economic way to make the exchange work without mandated coverage. I can relink to those analysis if you want.

 

with none of the parts that make it seem like it could lower costs (public option, expand Medicare, etc.) Is this just a giant payoff to insurance companies?

 

Hardly. Coverage will expand to millions of people. Millions of people that insurance companies don't want to insure. Furthermore, insurance companies make most of their money by (a) not competing in a marketplace and (B) figuring out ways to deny you coverage if you have insurance. Both of those will be radically shifted under the bill.

 

As far as lowering costs, there are all sorts of ways it will lower costs. First, just look at the CBO scores. Second, those scores don't include all of the pilot programs and other measures that will experiment with moving us away from a pay for service system to a comprehensive delivery system. Long term, that is the only game changer that matters for cost control. Look around globally. Choose whatever country you think has the best system. You'll see that all of them are struggling with bending the curve of costs. The only way to change that is to change the reimbursement system. Not only is that the only way to lower costs long term, that is also one of the main ways to improve actual health care.

 

So, immediately we get expanded coverage which means thousands of less deaths a year, and it also means less people going bankrupt because of health care costs. It immediately means that people people will not be losing insurance when they need it the most through annual or lifetime caps, bouncing people for pre-existing conditions. It will immediately mean the creation of exchanges that will allow us to have a structure for future reforms, and it means the creation of a private non-profit insurance company in order to create more competition (remember, several systems like Germany's depends upon private non-profit insurance companies rather than public ones. The important part is a non-profit element, rather than a public one).

 

 

Long term, we set in place a series of things that will fundamentally change the way medicine is delivered, and that is so necessary I cannot overemphasize it enough. I'd like to see us be able to experiment and gather data now, before it reaches crises levels.

 

 

Another question, is it possible the reconciliation process makes this vote meaningless? I mean, stopping the filibuster is critical, I understand. But once that is done and this reconciles with the House bill, it just takes 51 votes, n'est pas? So if they include some of the more favorable parts of the house bill, and lose Lieberman, that allows him to go back to the insurance industry and say "I held out for ya, and I didn't vote for the final bill."

 

Reconciliation, or conference?

 

Reconciliation has several issues, no one knows how it will work out.

 

Conference, on the other hand, requires that the final vote in the senate needs a cloture vote, so is also subject to the filibuster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...