I watched and listened enough to today's heath care "summit" to conclude who won the prize as A-hole of the day. And the answer is the smarmy House Republican Whip Eric Cantor.
Here he is at what is supposed to be bi-partisan round table during which one is supposed to at least pretend to want to seriously discuss whatever common ground both parties just might find on a crucial issue affecting us all and this asshole shows up with the 2400 page Senate bill stacked up on his desk. I don't like calling people assholes.
But I call them as I see them.
Three points for Obama for openly, physically scorning this little twerp and for denouncing the stack pf papers for what it is -- "a prop."
What the hell difference does it make how many pages the bill is? Should someone stack up 4,000 gold stars on their desk next time a rival who supported the war in Iraq speaks? That just might be a tad more relevant number than the length of a landmark legislative bill.
Second place for A-hole goes to a bitter and brittle John McCain for whom my pity has turned to disgust. I just loved the way McCain lied and lied some more, deliberately obscuring the legality and morality of a so-called "reconciliation" vote on the legislation -- a vote which in plain English is called a "MAJORITY VOTE," as the President scolded him.
So, here's what it seems is going to happen. The health care bill is NOT going to be passed by reconciliation. From what I can see tonight, the House will pass by a majority vote the Senate version of the bill that was already passed by 60 Senators. Then a second bill of "fixes," which broadly falls under the category of budget matters, will be passed by both houses, indeed, by a simple majority vote.
The Republicans will cry bloody murder but the deed will be done. Either that, or the Democratic Party can pack up its tatters and quietly disappear.
I'm traveling over the weekend to the usual sort of mind-numbing conference. Let me know how it all turns out.
Some of my students let me sit in as a guest on their Politically Indirect Podcast today. We talk health care summit. Give it a listen.
Check out my other blog of Reporter War Stories.
Also, follow me on Twitter.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 25th, 2010 at 9:11 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Veteran Cong. John Dingell, one of the last to speak – and whose father tried to get universal health care when Truman was President – had a great line about the attacks on the bill as too long, too “messy” or too compromised:
“The last perfect legislation that was presented to mankind was delivered to the Israelis at the base of Mt. Sinai. It was on stone tablets, written in fingers of God. Nothing like that has been presented to mankind since. What we are going to do is not perfect. But it sure will be better and it’s going to ease a huge amount of pain and suffering at a cost, which we can afford, which has been questioned out by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office says it’s budget-neutral. It in fact reduces the budget. I beg you, let us go forward on this great task.”
I take the purple rage around here as further evidence that the Republicans had a very good day. Leaving aside reg, that is, who’s always in a purple rage.
Or you could take it to mean that we’re really weary from listening to all of the shameless bullshit coming from the Repubs on this issue. You guys aren’t governing. You’re not even trying–this is all some kind of game where the fate of the nation is an afterthought.
Our President recalls how, even after decades of the finest education America offers, he still didn’t know the difference between collision insurance and liability insurance.
Yeah Bob — the Republicans had a very good day. About as good a day as the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry could have expected.
Marc — almost tempted to argue with you about the Ass Hat Award. Congr. Boehner, imho, was stinking up the place with his verbal butt vapors, but Cantor does look awesome in face paint, so I’ll give you that one…
On the flip side, here’s my “Three Stars” (in hockey parlance) of the Summit as I saw it on C-SPAN:
3rd Star — Steny Hoyer: 1 goal — Intelligent and plain spoken opening remarks about need for comprehensive reform and need to do it now.
2nd Star — Nancy Pelosi: “Gordie Howie Hat Trick” She scored, she assisted, and she dropped the gloves with Boehner & Camp. Scoop up the hats, Nancy!
1st Star — The President. As goalie, give him credit for a shut out. Ezra Klein’s probably right that this Summit thingy simply gave Nancy & Harry time to get the two chambers organized since the Scott Brown debacle in Mass. Also, I thought I saw Obama driving the zamboni, but I can’t confirm that, yet…
I just caught bits of the show rewound through Chris Matthews on Hardball. I was impressed with Obama’s patrician smack downs of all the Rethugs’ gratuitous jerking off for the insurance lobby. His condescension rocked!
Weiner, who was not let into the “summit”, was shown in the House repeatedly accusing the Republicans as being wholly owned by the insurance companies. He was wonderful. A real Capra moment.
“I take the purple rage around here as further evidence that the Republicans had a very good day.”
Only time will tell what kind of day it was for the Reichpublicans but it was clearly a good day for those whose agenda includes the further weakening of democracy and disillusionment of the general public.
The Pew Research poll results released Wednesday spell it the predicament of the Democrats quite clearly. The young, now clearly disappointed with Obama’s namby-pamby administration, will not be a factor in any future elections. A year ago 70% of the population favored a Medicare-for-All plan, but Obama jettisoned any hopes for even a watered-down public plan. Public dissatisfaction with the Dem’s plan is enormous though not for the reason’s the media is trumpeting.
The reform did not go far enough and the uninsured will be herded into the private insurance system. How is anyone supposed to get excited about that?
The Dem’s are in a lose-lose thanks to their own idiocy, and in their bumbling reform efforts lost a big chunk of their base.
You better get some ammunition for that argument. The Woodys and GMRopers don’t agree with you. Neither do the JimR’s. I’d also venture that folks like bob williams don’t agree with your claim, either. So instead of bemoaning forces outside of your control–monolithic parties and special interests–why don’t you expend that energy by actually trying to convince one of your fellow American neighbors that the reforms need to go “further”. Those Republicans weren’t just magically elected, you know.
Kyle:
All you have to do is look at the polls. The recent Rasmussen poll shows Obama’s plan opposed by 56%. Yet, every poll I’ve seen, from twenty years ago to the present, shows support for a more far-reaching reform, single-payer or Medicare-for-all, at 65% or better.
Even when the polls ask if the respondent would pay higher taxes in order to guarantee health care for all, a public option is strongly favored (64% approval. CNN Opinion Research Poll, May 2007). When the question is framed more broadly, as in the 2004 Gallup Poll, “do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health coverage to all U.S. citizens”, 69% agree.
The public is well to the left of what is portrayed as mainstream in the media – the same media that bombarded us with replays of isolated instances of unrest at the HC reform town hall meetings last year, and all the other biases that Marc Cooper has discussed at this site and elsewhere.
Obama’s plan is a loser because people hate health insurance corporations, which feeds in to the enormous distrust people have of corporations and the notion that big business controls our govt (agreement with this notion generally runs over 80% in polls).
The media always highlights the public’s mistrust of government but the truth is, when it comes to something as central to people’s well being and quality of life, the majority of people prefer a strong government role in health care.
Obama ignored that fact. Like most Dumbocrats, he wanted to have it both ways: as a populist AND a corporatist. As a result, he’s lost a very energized portion of his base as well as the hearts and minds of the country generally, at least on the issue of health care.
“Yet, every poll I’ve seen, from twenty years ago to the present, shows support for a more far-reaching reform, single-payer or Medicare-for-all, at 65% or better.”
Could you please show us a poll, as recent as you can find, of a poll showing that level of support?
I don’t know about every poll for 20 years showing 65% or better support but you can do a quick Google search and find plenty of polls that show significant support for Single Payer.
Personally I don’t decry Cantor at all using the physical bill as a prop. The entire meeting was just for show, so why not throw out a little fluff to try and discredit your opponent. Did anyone think the Republicans were going to listen to Obama’s reasoning and change their minds, or vice versa?
The truth is that the average voter’s opinions are influenced much more by emotion than reason, and Republicans are way better at manipulating emotion then Democrats. Calling HCR a “government takeover” or “death panel” resonates in the reptilian brain much better than the CBO’s estimate of deficit reduction as a result of HCR.
How do get a sizable percentage of union members to elect a union busting President? You find an actor and put him on a horse, stick a cowboy hat on his head and photograph him chopping wood. Hell, you’d have to be a dirty commie homo not to want to vote for that guy.
Rob Grocholski:
Here’s why you’re not aware of the hundreds of polls that show broad support for a single-payer system: in the reactionary form of capitalism that’s practiced here, the chief criteria of any solution to any problem is whether or not a sector of corporate America can make huge profits in it.
Single-payer falls way short in terms of the chief criteria so it is outside the bounds of debate. The media ignore it except for the occasional hatchet job which is always full of omissions, distortions and outright lies that are routinely debunked every time I talk to someone from a country that has single-payer.
Tales of rationing and waiting lines are exaggerated. Omitted is the fact that these things happen in our system, to those who are fortunate enough to have coverage.
There are few perfect systems in any area of modern life which are perfect. In terms of health outcomes, ours is about as imperfect as it gets – for the consumer that is. The health insurance corporations love it. It satisfies the chief criteria for them.
Regarding the Medicare for All/Single Payer Polls…
I skimmed the first 4 pages of the link Johnny H posted. The levels of support for Single Payer do seem encouraging. I actually support Single Payer as the best possible way to run health care. However, I disagree with edwatters’ analysis that the macroeconomic forces simply overwhelm the subject and control the media and the message. Perhaps it’s intellectually satisfying to discuss it this way, but that leaves the advocates of Single Payer off the hook from the tough part of selling the idea. This is why I’m skeptical about reading polls and then thinking about how support around an idea actually becomes policy. Even suspending any suspicions I might have about how the polling was done, I’ve got my doubts about Single Payer passing politically. And it’s not simply about blaming the composition of the Democratic Party. Chew on this: If the Single Payer idea is so popular, and has been for so long, how is that there isn’t even a single US state that has established Single Payer? There are 22 states that can go the direct democracy route. Surely one state would have passed it by now, no? California, a fairly blue state, had it on the ballot in 1994. The coalition and network of Prop 186 advocates (full disclosure: I was one of them) simply got creamed. The combined membership of all the unions supposedly backing Prop 186 had enough voters to pass the measure by over a million votes. Yet Prop 186 got 27% of the vote. 27%. That can’t be easily blamed on the Democratic Party. Or the media. Or Gov. Pete Wilson. It’s a problem of organizing. Building constituencies. The tough gritty stuff is really hard. In 2008, Single Payer was filed as ballot measure in Ohio. The backers of that effort failed to even get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, let alone run an advocacy campaign. Again, if the idea is so popular…
Where’s the connection between the idea and real political muscle?
No, I don’t find it intellectually satisfying to discuss the mechanisms by which big business controls the agenda in the US.
With the support for single-payer that you found while skimming the link that Johnny Holmes posted, do advocates of single-payer really need to sell it, or do they need to overcome the formidable, institutionalized obstacles to getting it enacted, either through referendum or legislatures?
Your argument seems to be, if single-payer is so popular why hasn’t it been adopted at the state level. Statewide referendums seem to be even more influenced by big money contributors than general elections. I wasn’t in California in ’94 but I would be surprised if Prop 186 wasn’t outspent on the order of five or ten to one with the biggest contributor having a name similar to ‘The Coalition to Save the Little Babies from the Big Bad Single-Payer Wolves’.
Your point regarding the need to mobilize and build constituencies is a good one, but to be in denial about the enormous road blocks facing meaningful reform is counterproductive.
You’re answering your own question. Of course the advocates of Single Payer have to sell it — both with the public and to overcome the “institutional obstacles.” Perhaps there is this support for SP, and it may even be quite broad. But if all it took was for the CA Chamber of Business to run about three weeks worth of ads calling Prop 186 “…the biggest tax hike in California History…” (the actual campaign against) to produce a landslide defeat for SP, then it shows, pretty convincingly, that pro-SP support is not very deep.
All in all, Obama’s best day yet. Not exactly everything he
promised in the campaign, but consistent with the spirit
and promise of the thing.
To give due to the thing, you have to imagine
W sitting down with such an event with the Democrats.
The arrogant pricks we saw shilling for the insurance
lobby are just W’s children, and they did only slightly
better than he could have.
Which means, even as as the likes of CNN trys
to dismiss it as meaningless, it was a good day for
the Country as well.
Rob G:
I doubt that “all it took was for the CA Chamber of [Commerce] to run about three weeks worth of ads”. Was there editorial support for the ‘No on Prop 186′ side? Could the editorials have been misleading (eg. emphasizing the increased taxation without mentioning that it would be largely offset by the elimination of insurance premiums to private insurers)? If splitting hairs is your passion, split away…
Third Charmer: Obama and the Dems did their share of shilling for the health insurers, just not as enthusiastically and completely as their opponents.
Ed — 73% VOTED AGAINST SINGLE PAYER in CA 1994. That’s not splitting hairs. That’s a scalping…
Look, I support single payer. You’re talking to the converted. But show us where SP is connected to some real political muscle…
FWIW, last summer I had the dumb luck of meeting Con. John Conyers in a coffee shop in Detroit. I actually got to talk to him for a few minutes about this problem. He was steadfast in his belief in SP, but pragmatic about moving reform forward. He voted for the House Bill last year. I’m glad he did.
One day, I hope we’ll eventually completely get rid of private health insurers. As you do. I’m willing to support the possible reforms we can get now. Anyways, I genuinely appreciate your stubborn support of SP. Go ahead and take the last word…
I’m thinking that given the nature of the current reform, what we could most likely move toward as we “re-reform” the presumably incoming “universal mandate” approach is something like these systems in Germany, Holland and Switzerland:
No doubt Watters, but the contrast of the event to anything
that occurred in the Bush years was striking; as was the total
lack of comment on the contrast.
Ed — 73% VOTED AGAINST SINGLE PAYER in CA 1994. That’s not splitting hairs. That’s a scalping…
Look, I support single payer. You’re talking to the converted. But show us where SP is connected to some real political muscle…
Are you always this grossly ignorant? Single payer has twice been passed by the California legislature, only to be vetoed both times by the governator.
No need to be snotty, b4… I’m sure you knew Arnold would veto it. It’s in fact entirely predictable that the Democrats wouldn’t have enough votes to override the veto. The bill Sheila Kuelh brought to the floor in ’06, everyone knew that bill wasn’t going to be signed.
I’m encouraged the CA Democrats are pushing SP, even if I’m more than slightly suspicious that there’s a calculated posturing going on here. It’s safe to vote for something you know will not be passed. Of course we’ll see how committed they really are when Jerry Brown wins the governorship. I’m not placing any bets, but I’m willing to be impressed.
You’re a real piece of work, b4. First off, I get tons of email traffic from the Dems from several states. I don’t recall Burton highlighting this… Second, read the damn bill yourself, or at the very least just this: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/ca-senate-singlepayer-health/
Sure, the Legislature passed SP — but doesn’t say how its going to be funded (kinda significant). What Leno’s Senate Bill asks for is $1 million for a commission to survey how SP would be paid for and ultimately that funding mechanism would have to be approved by the voters. Good start? Of course. But its still a long ways off and to think it’s gonna swim safely through if on the ballot while CA is billions of dollars in debt…not exactly a sure bet by any stretch.
Previously I had a few sharp but civil exchanges with Ed. I’d gladly continue if folks want to, but I’m sticking to my skepticism, even as a supporter of SP. However, its tiresome to deal with people like you who go all foul-mouthy. Please do us all a favor whenever an actually campaign kicks into gear to establish SP in California or any other state — just stay on the internet and pound out your little vicious snits from the safety of your keyboard. I’d hate to think of you trooping around precincts actually trying to persuade anyone. You’d only do more harm than good. You obviously loose your temper way to fast.
I watched and listened enough to today's heath care "summit" to conclude who won the prize as A-hole of the day. And the answer is the smarmy House Republican Whip Eric Cantor.
Here he is at what is supposed to be bi-partisan round table during which one is supposed to at least pretend to want to seriously discuss whatever common ground both parties just might find on a crucial issue affecting us all and this asshole shows up with the 2400 page Senate bill stacked up on his desk. I don't like calling people assholes.
But I call them as I see them.
Three points for Obama for openly, physically scorning this little twerp and for denouncing the stack pf papers for what it is -- "a prop."
What the hell difference does it make how many pages the bill is? Should someone stack up 4,000 gold stars on their desk next time a rival who supported the war in Iraq speaks? That just might be a tad more relevant number than the length of a landmark legislative bill.
Second place for A-hole goes to a bitter and brittle John McCain for whom my pity has turned to disgust. I just loved the way McCain lied and lied some more, deliberately obscuring the legality and morality of a so-called "reconciliation" vote on the legislation -- a vote which in plain English is called a "MAJORITY VOTE," as the President scolded him.
So, here's what it seems is going to happen. The health care bill is NOT going to be passed by reconciliation. From what I can see tonight, the House will pass by a majority vote the Senate version of the bill that was already passed by 60 Senators. Then a second bill of "fixes," which broadly falls under the category of budget matters, will be passed by both houses, indeed, by a simple majority vote.
The Republicans will cry bloody murder but the deed will be done. Either that, or the Democratic Party can pack up its tatters and quietly disappear.
I'm traveling over the weekend to the usual sort of mind-numbing conference. Let me know how it all turns out.
Some of my students let me sit in as a guest on their Politically Indirect Podcast today. We talk health care summit. Give it a listen.
Check out my other blog of Reporter War Stories.
Also, follow me on Twitter.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:30 am
All Republicans are lying scum.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:35 am
Veteran Cong. John Dingell, one of the last to speak – and whose father tried to get universal health care when Truman was President – had a great line about the attacks on the bill as too long, too “messy” or too compromised:
“The last perfect legislation that was presented to mankind was delivered to the Israelis at the base of Mt. Sinai. It was on stone tablets, written in fingers of God. Nothing like that has been presented to mankind since. What we are going to do is not perfect. But it sure will be better and it’s going to ease a huge amount of pain and suffering at a cost, which we can afford, which has been questioned out by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office says it’s budget-neutral. It in fact reduces the budget. I beg you, let us go forward on this great task.”
February 26th, 2010 at 2:37 am
“Eric Cantor reminds me of the Manager of the asshole store.” -Lewis Black.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:56 am
I take the purple rage around here as further evidence that the Republicans had a very good day. Leaving aside reg, that is, who’s always in a purple rage.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:45 am
Or you could take it to mean that we’re really weary from listening to all of the shameless bullshit coming from the Repubs on this issue. You guys aren’t governing. You’re not even trying–this is all some kind of game where the fate of the nation is an afterthought.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:53 am
This kind of bullshit: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/bunning-objects-over-and-over/?hp
February 26th, 2010 at 5:13 am
Our President recalls how, even after decades of the finest education America offers, he still didn’t know the difference between collision insurance and liability insurance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmo1rATDE00&feature=player_embedded
February 26th, 2010 at 5:41 am
The President was okay, but the Democrats were pathetic. Reid, Pelosi , and Harkin? Good grief.
Good day for the Republicans. GOP 1 Democrats 0.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:41 am
Yeah Bob — the Republicans had a very good day. About as good a day as the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry could have expected.
Marc — almost tempted to argue with you about the Ass Hat Award. Congr. Boehner, imho, was stinking up the place with his verbal butt vapors, but Cantor does look awesome in face paint, so I’ll give you that one…
On the flip side, here’s my “Three Stars” (in hockey parlance) of the Summit as I saw it on C-SPAN:
3rd Star — Steny Hoyer: 1 goal — Intelligent and plain spoken opening remarks about need for comprehensive reform and need to do it now.
2nd Star — Nancy Pelosi: “Gordie Howie Hat Trick” She scored, she assisted, and she dropped the gloves with Boehner & Camp. Scoop up the hats, Nancy!
1st Star — The President. As goalie, give him credit for a shut out. Ezra Klein’s probably right that this Summit thingy simply gave Nancy & Harry time to get the two chambers organized since the Scott Brown debacle in Mass. Also, I thought I saw Obama driving the zamboni, but I can’t confirm that, yet…
February 26th, 2010 at 6:37 am
reg, thanks for the two bits…
I just caught bits of the show rewound through Chris Matthews on Hardball. I was impressed with Obama’s patrician smack downs of all the Rethugs’ gratuitous jerking off for the insurance lobby. His condescension rocked!
February 26th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Weiner, who was not let into the “summit”, was shown in the House repeatedly accusing the Republicans as being wholly owned by the insurance companies. He was wonderful. A real Capra moment.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:09 am
“I take the purple rage around here as further evidence that the Republicans had a very good day.”
Only time will tell what kind of day it was for the Reichpublicans but it was clearly a good day for those whose agenda includes the further weakening of democracy and disillusionment of the general public.
The Pew Research poll results released Wednesday spell it the predicament of the Democrats quite clearly. The young, now clearly disappointed with Obama’s namby-pamby administration, will not be a factor in any future elections. A year ago 70% of the population favored a Medicare-for-All plan, but Obama jettisoned any hopes for even a watered-down public plan. Public dissatisfaction with the Dem’s plan is enormous though not for the reason’s the media is trumpeting.
The reform did not go far enough and the uninsured will be herded into the private insurance system. How is anyone supposed to get excited about that?
The Dem’s are in a lose-lose thanks to their own idiocy, and in their bumbling reform efforts lost a big chunk of their base.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:24 am
“The reform did not go far enough”
You better get some ammunition for that argument. The Woodys and GMRopers don’t agree with you. Neither do the JimR’s. I’d also venture that folks like bob williams don’t agree with your claim, either. So instead of bemoaning forces outside of your control–monolithic parties and special interests–why don’t you expend that energy by actually trying to convince one of your fellow American neighbors that the reforms need to go “further”. Those Republicans weren’t just magically elected, you know.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:46 am
CNN in yesterday’s news bites has resurrected the remarkable tale of the ‘Biblioburro’.
Here is a two year old NYT article on it–though updates show the library is now finished. UTube has wonderful clips…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/world/americas/20burro.html
Why put this in this thread?
To show what a load of ASSES Republicans and most politicians are and to demonstrate how things actually get done.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Actually, this shows that Republicans, et al give asses a bad name…
February 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Kyle:
All you have to do is look at the polls. The recent Rasmussen poll shows Obama’s plan opposed by 56%. Yet, every poll I’ve seen, from twenty years ago to the present, shows support for a more far-reaching reform, single-payer or Medicare-for-all, at 65% or better.
Even when the polls ask if the respondent would pay higher taxes in order to guarantee health care for all, a public option is strongly favored (64% approval. CNN Opinion Research Poll, May 2007). When the question is framed more broadly, as in the 2004 Gallup Poll, “do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health coverage to all U.S. citizens”, 69% agree.
The public is well to the left of what is portrayed as mainstream in the media – the same media that bombarded us with replays of isolated instances of unrest at the HC reform town hall meetings last year, and all the other biases that Marc Cooper has discussed at this site and elsewhere.
Obama’s plan is a loser because people hate health insurance corporations, which feeds in to the enormous distrust people have of corporations and the notion that big business controls our govt (agreement with this notion generally runs over 80% in polls).
The media always highlights the public’s mistrust of government but the truth is, when it comes to something as central to people’s well being and quality of life, the majority of people prefer a strong government role in health care.
Obama ignored that fact. Like most Dumbocrats, he wanted to have it both ways: as a populist AND a corporatist. As a result, he’s lost a very energized portion of his base as well as the hearts and minds of the country generally, at least on the issue of health care.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
edwatters — Q in re this sentence:
“Yet, every poll I’ve seen, from twenty years ago to the present, shows support for a more far-reaching reform, single-payer or Medicare-for-all, at 65% or better.”
Could you please show us a poll, as recent as you can find, of a poll showing that level of support?
February 26th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I don’t know about every poll for 20 years showing 65% or better support but you can do a quick Google search and find plenty of polls that show significant support for Single Payer.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=polls+for+medicare+for+all&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8
Now I’d like to see a poll that shows more support for the current Senate bill than Single Payer. Good luck.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Here’s Durbin using facts to put the beatdown on fear mongering and misdirection. Extremely well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHqhCbxu2wk
February 26th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Personally I don’t decry Cantor at all using the physical bill as a prop. The entire meeting was just for show, so why not throw out a little fluff to try and discredit your opponent. Did anyone think the Republicans were going to listen to Obama’s reasoning and change their minds, or vice versa?
The truth is that the average voter’s opinions are influenced much more by emotion than reason, and Republicans are way better at manipulating emotion then Democrats. Calling HCR a “government takeover” or “death panel” resonates in the reptilian brain much better than the CBO’s estimate of deficit reduction as a result of HCR.
How do get a sizable percentage of union members to elect a union busting President? You find an actor and put him on a horse, stick a cowboy hat on his head and photograph him chopping wood. Hell, you’d have to be a dirty commie homo not to want to vote for that guy.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Rob Grocholski:
Here’s why you’re not aware of the hundreds of polls that show broad support for a single-payer system: in the reactionary form of capitalism that’s practiced here, the chief criteria of any solution to any problem is whether or not a sector of corporate America can make huge profits in it.
Single-payer falls way short in terms of the chief criteria so it is outside the bounds of debate. The media ignore it except for the occasional hatchet job which is always full of omissions, distortions and outright lies that are routinely debunked every time I talk to someone from a country that has single-payer.
Tales of rationing and waiting lines are exaggerated. Omitted is the fact that these things happen in our system, to those who are fortunate enough to have coverage.
There are few perfect systems in any area of modern life which are perfect. In terms of health outcomes, ours is about as imperfect as it gets – for the consumer that is. The health insurance corporations love it. It satisfies the chief criteria for them.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Obama IS a corporate shill (albeit really well- spoken, nice and cheerful one).
Get used to it…
…and accept the coming death gracefully
February 26th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Regarding the Medicare for All/Single Payer Polls…
I skimmed the first 4 pages of the link Johnny H posted. The levels of support for Single Payer do seem encouraging. I actually support Single Payer as the best possible way to run health care. However, I disagree with edwatters’ analysis that the macroeconomic forces simply overwhelm the subject and control the media and the message. Perhaps it’s intellectually satisfying to discuss it this way, but that leaves the advocates of Single Payer off the hook from the tough part of selling the idea. This is why I’m skeptical about reading polls and then thinking about how support around an idea actually becomes policy. Even suspending any suspicions I might have about how the polling was done, I’ve got my doubts about Single Payer passing politically. And it’s not simply about blaming the composition of the Democratic Party. Chew on this: If the Single Payer idea is so popular, and has been for so long, how is that there isn’t even a single US state that has established Single Payer? There are 22 states that can go the direct democracy route. Surely one state would have passed it by now, no? California, a fairly blue state, had it on the ballot in 1994. The coalition and network of Prop 186 advocates (full disclosure: I was one of them) simply got creamed. The combined membership of all the unions supposedly backing Prop 186 had enough voters to pass the measure by over a million votes. Yet Prop 186 got 27% of the vote. 27%. That can’t be easily blamed on the Democratic Party. Or the media. Or Gov. Pete Wilson. It’s a problem of organizing. Building constituencies. The tough gritty stuff is really hard. In 2008, Single Payer was filed as ballot measure in Ohio. The backers of that effort failed to even get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, let alone run an advocacy campaign. Again, if the idea is so popular…
Where’s the connection between the idea and real political muscle?
February 27th, 2010 at 8:03 am
No, I don’t find it intellectually satisfying to discuss the mechanisms by which big business controls the agenda in the US.
With the support for single-payer that you found while skimming the link that Johnny Holmes posted, do advocates of single-payer really need to sell it, or do they need to overcome the formidable, institutionalized obstacles to getting it enacted, either through referendum or legislatures?
Your argument seems to be, if single-payer is so popular why hasn’t it been adopted at the state level. Statewide referendums seem to be even more influenced by big money contributors than general elections. I wasn’t in California in ’94 but I would be surprised if Prop 186 wasn’t outspent on the order of five or ten to one with the biggest contributor having a name similar to ‘The Coalition to Save the Little Babies from the Big Bad Single-Payer Wolves’.
Your point regarding the need to mobilize and build constituencies is a good one, but to be in denial about the enormous road blocks facing meaningful reform is counterproductive.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:39 am
You’re answering your own question. Of course the advocates of Single Payer have to sell it — both with the public and to overcome the “institutional obstacles.” Perhaps there is this support for SP, and it may even be quite broad. But if all it took was for the CA Chamber of Business to run about three weeks worth of ads calling Prop 186 “…the biggest tax hike in California History…” (the actual campaign against) to produce a landslide defeat for SP, then it shows, pretty convincingly, that pro-SP support is not very deep.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:41 am
correction, Chamber of Commerce
February 27th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
All in all, Obama’s best day yet. Not exactly everything he
promised in the campaign, but consistent with the spirit
and promise of the thing.
To give due to the thing, you have to imagine
W sitting down with such an event with the Democrats.
The arrogant pricks we saw shilling for the insurance
lobby are just W’s children, and they did only slightly
better than he could have.
Which means, even as as the likes of CNN trys
to dismiss it as meaningless, it was a good day for
the Country as well.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Good Rich column on the toxicity of the cesspool known as contemporary “conservatism” –
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html
February 28th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Rob G:
I doubt that “all it took was for the CA Chamber of [Commerce] to run about three weeks worth of ads”. Was there editorial support for the ‘No on Prop 186′ side? Could the editorials have been misleading (eg. emphasizing the increased taxation without mentioning that it would be largely offset by the elimination of insurance premiums to private insurers)? If splitting hairs is your passion, split away…
Third Charmer: Obama and the Dems did their share of shilling for the health insurers, just not as enthusiastically and completely as their opponents.
February 28th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Ed — 73% VOTED AGAINST SINGLE PAYER in CA 1994. That’s not splitting hairs. That’s a scalping…
Look, I support single payer. You’re talking to the converted. But show us where SP is connected to some real political muscle…
FWIW, last summer I had the dumb luck of meeting Con. John Conyers in a coffee shop in Detroit. I actually got to talk to him for a few minutes about this problem. He was steadfast in his belief in SP, but pragmatic about moving reform forward. He voted for the House Bill last year. I’m glad he did.
One day, I hope we’ll eventually completely get rid of private health insurers. As you do. I’m willing to support the possible reforms we can get now. Anyways, I genuinely appreciate your stubborn support of SP. Go ahead and take the last word…
February 28th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I’m thinking that given the nature of the current reform, what we could most likely move toward as we “re-reform” the presumably incoming “universal mandate” approach is something like these systems in Germany, Holland and Switzerland:
March 1st, 2010 at 11:46 am
No doubt Watters, but the contrast of the event to anything
that occurred in the Bush years was striking; as was the total
lack of comment on the contrast.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:57 am
Ed — 73% VOTED AGAINST SINGLE PAYER in CA 1994. That’s not splitting hairs. That’s a scalping…
Look, I support single payer. You’re talking to the converted. But show us where SP is connected to some real political muscle…
Are you always this grossly ignorant? Single payer has twice been passed by the California legislature, only to be vetoed both times by the governator.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:26 am
No need to be snotty, b4… I’m sure you knew Arnold would veto it. It’s in fact entirely predictable that the Democrats wouldn’t have enough votes to override the veto. The bill Sheila Kuelh brought to the floor in ’06, everyone knew that bill wasn’t going to be signed.
I’m encouraged the CA Democrats are pushing SP, even if I’m more than slightly suspicious that there’s a calculated posturing going on here. It’s safe to vote for something you know will not be passed. Of course we’ll see how committed they really are when Jerry Brown wins the governorship. I’m not placing any bets, but I’m willing to be impressed.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Look, asshole, you asked to show where SP is connected to some real political muscle and I did.
I’m more than slightly suspicious that there’s a calculated posturing going on here
I’m more than slightly suspicious that you are thoroughly lacking in intellectual honesty.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:53 pm
You’re a real piece of work, b4. First off, I get tons of email traffic from the Dems from several states. I don’t recall Burton highlighting this… Second, read the damn bill yourself, or at the very least just this: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/ca-senate-singlepayer-health/
Sure, the Legislature passed SP — but doesn’t say how its going to be funded (kinda significant). What Leno’s Senate Bill asks for is $1 million for a commission to survey how SP would be paid for and ultimately that funding mechanism would have to be approved by the voters. Good start? Of course. But its still a long ways off and to think it’s gonna swim safely through if on the ballot while CA is billions of dollars in debt…not exactly a sure bet by any stretch.
Previously I had a few sharp but civil exchanges with Ed. I’d gladly continue if folks want to, but I’m sticking to my skepticism, even as a supporter of SP. However, its tiresome to deal with people like you who go all foul-mouthy. Please do us all a favor whenever an actually campaign kicks into gear to establish SP in California or any other state — just stay on the internet and pound out your little vicious snits from the safety of your keyboard. I’d hate to think of you trooping around precincts actually trying to persuade anyone. You’d only do more harm than good. You obviously loose your temper way to fast.
I’m done with you now. Have a nice life.
December 16th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
That was a good read and informative. You obviously know your stuff!
January 21st, 2011 at 8:50 am
“Ghettoization” is a word in my sociology book! OMG! And I was using it surfing today…lol…
June 6th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
It’d be great to find out more