Noone in the Dem side would be willing to hang on to abortion as an issue related to health care long enough such that you could just reintroduce it after reform is passed?
They have to deal with abortion because they have to decide whether and how it would be covered.
If they include language that exempts abortion from coverage, then not only does that screw women who need abortions, but it's doubtful that they'll be able to ram something through later specifically to reverse it.
Doesn't federal law already prohibit federal funds from paying for abortions? The amendments were inserted just applications of said law (one much more narrowly than the other). I'm fairly certain, they have to exempt abortion from coverage in so far as it cannot be paid for with federal funds (although, it could be included as a patron-paid-for rider to plans offered in the exchange without violating this requirement--which introduces the difference b/w the House and Senate amendments.).
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
Speaker on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I'm not sure media narratives ever have a real effect on anything.
Noone in the Dem side would be willing to hang on to abortion as an issue related to health care long enough such that you could just reintroduce it after reform is passed?
They have to deal with abortion because they have to decide whether and how it would be covered.
If they include language that exempts abortion from coverage, then not only does that screw women who need abortions, but it's doubtful that they'll be able to ram something through later specifically to reverse it.
Doesn't federal law already prohibit federal funds from paying for abortions? The amendments were inserted just applications of said law (one much more narrowly than the other). I'm fairly certain, they have to exempt abortion from coverage in so far as it cannot be paid for with federal funds (although, it could be included as a patron-paid-for rider to plans offered in the exchange without violating this requirement--which introduces the difference b/w the House and Senate amendments.).
No, the amendments don't do that because it would already be barred without Stupak thanks to the Hyde Amendment which has been the law of the land for going on 40 years now. Stupak means that anyone who receives federal subsidies will be prevented from using their own money to pay for abortions. Because money is fungible and therefore...I don't really follow it from there.
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I'm not sure media narratives ever have a real effect on anything.
Had we not ridden the conventional wisdom into Baghdad I might be inclined to entertain such uncertainties.
But it seems to me that the CW, unintelligently interpretted, has a pretty good heft within D.C.
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I'm not sure media narratives ever have a real effect on anything.
No, they do because people in politics are idiots and still believe that campaigning is what decides elections instead of macro-economic factors. I just don't think liberals have any real effect on media narratives outside of driving it 3 points to the right of whatever they propose; because they're damn hippies, and hippies must be punched.
Noone in the Dem side would be willing to hang on to abortion as an issue related to health care long enough such that you could just reintroduce it after reform is passed?
They have to deal with abortion because they have to decide whether and how it would be covered.
If they include language that exempts abortion from coverage, then not only does that screw women who need abortions, but it's doubtful that they'll be able to ram something through later specifically to reverse it.
Doesn't federal law already prohibit federal funds from paying for abortions? The amendments were inserted just applications of said law (one much more narrowly than the other). I'm fairly certain, they have to exempt abortion from coverage in so far as it cannot be paid for with federal funds (although, it could be included as a patron-paid-for rider to plans offered in the exchange without violating this requirement--which introduces the difference b/w the House and Senate amendments.).
No, the amendments don't do that because it would already be barred without Stupak thanks to the Hyde Amendment which has been the law of the land for going on 40 years now. Stupak means that anyone who receives federal subsidies will be prevented from using their own money to pay for abortions. Because money is fungible and therefore...I don't really follow it from there.
Right. That's what I was trying to say. I guess I wasn't clear since I couldn't remember which one Stupak was. I knew it was unwarrantably narrow when it came to applying the Hyde Amendment to health coverage subsidies.
Noone in the Dem side would be willing to hang on to abortion as an issue related to health care long enough such that you could just reintroduce it after reform is passed?
They have to deal with abortion because they have to decide whether and how it would be covered.
If they include language that exempts abortion from coverage, then not only does that screw women who need abortions, but it's doubtful that they'll be able to ram something through later specifically to reverse it.
Doesn't federal law already prohibit federal funds from paying for abortions? The amendments were inserted just applications of said law (one much more narrowly than the other). I'm fairly certain, they have to exempt abortion from coverage in so far as it cannot be paid for with federal funds (although, it could be included as a patron-paid-for rider to plans offered in the exchange without violating this requirement--which introduces the difference b/w the House and Senate amendments.).
No, the amendments don't do that because it would already be barred without Stupak thanks to the Hyde Amendment which has been the law of the land for going on 40 years now. Stupak means that anyone who receives federal subsidies will be prevented from using their own money to pay for abortions. Because money is fungible and therefore...I don't really follow it from there.
Right. That's what I was trying to say. I guess I wasn't clear since I couldn't remember which one Stupak was. I knew it was unwarrantably narrow when it came to applying the Hyde Amendment to health coverage subsidies.
That's not applying Hyde. If Stupak didn't exist, that would be applying Hyde, because Hyde is the law of the land.
Noone in the Dem side would be willing to hang on to abortion as an issue related to health care long enough such that you could just reintroduce it after reform is passed?
They have to deal with abortion because they have to decide whether and how it would be covered.
If they include language that exempts abortion from coverage, then not only does that screw women who need abortions, but it's doubtful that they'll be able to ram something through later specifically to reverse it.
Doesn't federal law already prohibit federal funds from paying for abortions? The amendments were inserted just applications of said law (one much more narrowly than the other). I'm fairly certain, they have to exempt abortion from coverage in so far as it cannot be paid for with federal funds (although, it could be included as a patron-paid-for rider to plans offered in the exchange without violating this requirement--which introduces the difference b/w the House and Senate amendments.).
No, the amendments don't do that because it would already be barred without Stupak thanks to the Hyde Amendment which has been the law of the land for going on 40 years now. Stupak means that anyone who receives federal subsidies will be prevented from using their own money to pay for abortions. Because money is fungible and therefore...I don't really follow it from there.
Right. That's what I was trying to say. I guess I wasn't clear since I couldn't remember which one Stupak was. I knew it was unwarrantably narrow when it came to applying the Hyde Amendment to health coverage subsidies.
That's not applying Hyde. If Stupak didn't exist, that would be applying Hyde, because Hyde is the law of the land.
I'm clearly not communicating what I mean. Never mind. haha.
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
I predict that somehow the Republicans again attempt to bring up some small ideas to the table for the bill. Just so that they can get to the table again. It might be stuff that even has us scratching our heads, like suddenly they suggest support for it but only if they get involved. Only then, after this meeting, do they delay the whole project again, as much as possible, until once again the democrats are forced to temp drop it to pass some other bills. This will continue until election time later in the year. They will play the long ball hoping that reconciliation will not be used by keeping the moderate democrats in check with promises that will never get fulfilled.
I predict that somehow the Republicans again attempt to bring up some small ideas to the table for the bill. Just so that they can get to the table again. It might be stuff that even has us scratching our heads, like suddenly they suggest support for it but only if they get involved. Only then, after this meeting, do they delay the whole project again, as much as possible, until once again the democrats are forced to temp drop it to pass some other bills. This will continue until election time later in the year. They will play the long ball hoping that reconciliation will not be used by keeping the moderate democrats in check with promises that will never get fulfilled.
Judd Gregg is playing their side with a little skill.
He wants to scrap the thing and start over by passing a number of smaller bills, point by point, upon which there is supposedly bipartisan agreement.
It's a rather transparent ploy, but only if you are someone who spends more than fifteen minutes a day reading about politics.
Speaker on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
i cant say ive seen one hint of anyone scrapping the bill... beyond Lieberman maybe
I predict that somehow the Republicans again attempt to bring up some small ideas to the table for the bill. Just so that they can get to the table again. It might be stuff that even has us scratching our heads, like suddenly they suggest support for it but only if they get involved. Only then, after this meeting, do they delay the whole project again, as much as possible, until once again the democrats are forced to temp drop it to pass some other bills. This will continue until election time later in the year. They will play the long ball hoping that reconciliation will not be used by keeping the moderate democrats in check with promises that will never get fulfilled.
Judd Gregg is playing their side with a little skill.
He wants to scrap the thing and start over by passing a number of smaller bills, point by point, upon which there is supposedly bipartisan agreement.
It's a rather transparent ploy, but only if you are someone who spends more than fifteen minutes a day reading about politics.
Which, ironically, most people who write about politics don't seem to do.
moniker on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
i cant say ive seen one hint of anyone scrapping the bill... beyond Lieberman maybe
It was one of Scott Brown's campaign themes on the subject.
"Scrap it and start over" has about 55% support in current polls.
Dropping it all together isn't very popular.
So delaying by saying you are starting over is the Republican's best bet currently to kill the bill in a popular fashion.
And it lets them seem all constructive at the healthcare summit.
So what is the democrats best strategy to beat this issue? Just go ahead and use reconciliation anyway? The democrats have to see this strategy of bait and switch bills coming, one would hope.
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I will blindly support the Democrats even if they are failing miserably, just like the Republicans did with Bush! Oh wait, no. I have political opinions and when the Democrats repeatedly are ineffectual and give away things I would like to see happen and get absolutely jack shit in return, I'm going to be angry.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I will blindly support the Democrats even if they are failing miserably, just like the Republicans did with Bush! Oh wait, no. I have political opinions and when the Democrats repeatedly are ineffectual and give away things I would like to see happen and get absolutely jack shit in return, I'm going to be angry.
The Republicans who supported Bush no matter what weren't wrong because they stuck with their party.
They were wrong because the things their party stood for were stupid, and Bush was stupid.
I agree with Speaker. It is completely irresponsible to stop supporting the Democratic party because they disappoint you. It is cutting your nose to spite your face.
I would think the Massachusetts election would have made this clear. Lots of liberals were upset about how watered down health care was, and apparently Coakley wasn't perfect ... so they didn't come out to vote. And a Republican won instead. And now health care is going to get even more watered down.
But at least progressive liberals showed the Democratic party that they won't be pushed around! Oh wait, nevermind. The Democratic Party now believes they need to move further to the center.
If you are a progressive, your duty is to support the most progressive political option available. Even if they're ineffectual, or hypocritical, or fiscally conservative, or stupid. Those are still better than Republicans.
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I will blindly support the Democrats even if they are failing miserably, just like the Republicans did with Bush! Oh wait, no. I have political opinions and when the Democrats repeatedly are ineffectual and give away things I would like to see happen and get absolutely jack shit in return, I'm going to be angry.
The Republicans who supported Bush no matter what weren't wrong because they stuck with their party.
They were wrong because the things their party stood for were stupid, and Bush was stupid.
I agree with Speaker. It is completely irresponsible to stop supporting the Democratic party because they disappoint you. It is cutting your nose to spite your face.
I would think the Massachusetts election would have made this clear. Lots of liberals were upset about how watered down health care was, and apparently Coakley wasn't perfect ... so they didn't come out to vote. And a Republican won instead. And now health care is going to get even more watered down.
But at least progressive liberals showed the Democratic party that they won't be pushed around! Oh wait, nevermind. The Democratic Party now believes they need to move further to the center.
If you are a progressive, your duty is to support the most progressive political option available. Even if they're ineffectual, or hypocritical, or fiscally conservative, or stupid. Those are still better than Republicans.
Even if you don't support the democratic party, saying that the Republicans not showing up was the "one chance for this to end well" I just don't understand. What exactly do you think is going to happen here that's so bad?
The way I see it, most likely Republicans will recite talking points for a while and then it'll be all over. Aside from all the noise, the White House and the Senate have both sent signals that they're willing to use reconciliation.
If you focus only on the PR gimmicks, yeah it all looks like a PR gimmick.
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I will blindly support the Democrats even if they are failing miserably, just like the Republicans did with Bush! Oh wait, no. I have political opinions and when the Democrats repeatedly are ineffectual and give away things I would like to see happen and get absolutely jack shit in return, I'm going to be angry.
The Republicans who supported Bush no matter what weren't wrong because they stuck with their party.
They were wrong because the things their party stood for were stupid, and Bush was stupid.
I agree with Speaker. It is completely irresponsible to stop supporting the Democratic party because they disappoint you. It is cutting your nose to spite your face.
I would think the Massachusetts election would have made this clear. Lots of liberals were upset about how watered down health care was, and apparently Coakley wasn't perfect ... so they didn't come out to vote. And a Republican won instead. And now health care is going to get even more watered down.
But at least progressive liberals showed the Democratic party that they won't be pushed around! Oh wait, nevermind. The Democratic Party now believes they need to move further to the center.
If you are a progressive, your duty is to support the most progressive political option available. Even if they're ineffectual, or hypocritical, or fiscally conservative, or stupid. Those are still better than Republicans.
I agree with the anti-doomsaying tone, but it may be, against all odds, that Massachusetts may have the overall effect of giving us a better bill, especially if the public option goes through.
Not that Mass. democrats staying home should be credited with that development though. Remember that Scott Brown's campaign stance on health care was "let's start over," which is GOP for "let's delay delay delay forever."
Republicans are going to show up (DKos link, but they have some behind a login screen text from Roll Call) thus ending the one chance this had to end well. Republicans don't show up, Dems have the meeting anyway, pointedly aim cameras at empty chairs.
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I will blindly support the Democrats even if they are failing miserably, just like the Republicans did with Bush! Oh wait, no. I have political opinions and when the Democrats repeatedly are ineffectual and give away things I would like to see happen and get absolutely jack shit in return, I'm going to be angry.
Yes, self-destructive anger is all the rage at the moment. It's where the broader public seems to be.
Even if you don't support the democratic party, saying that the Republicans not showing up was the "one chance for this to end well" I just don't understand. What exactly do you think is going to happen here that's so bad?
The way I see it, most likely Republicans will recite talking points for a while and then it'll be all over. Aside from all the noise, the White House and the Senate have both sent signals that they're willing to use reconciliation.
If you focus only on the PR gimmicks, yeah it all looks like a PR gimmick.
It's a meaningless PR gimmick that delays action even further, which is why we're in this mess in the first place.
Somebody needs to actually do some fucking leading.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I agree with the anti-doomsaying tone, but it may be, against all odds, that Massachusetts may have the overall effect of giving us a better bill, especially if the public option goes through.
Somebody needs to actually do some fucking leading.
Pfffft.
Sorry one of the hardest reforms in American politics which has been defeated repeatedly for a century isn't being accomplished on your time table.
The whole thing you have going here is just deeply unserious.
Really? That's a lovely way to dismiss me, but:
Explain to me why the Democrats allowed Baucus to waste what, four months pursuing the votes of Snowe, Enzi, and Grassley when anyone with half a brain knew they were never going to get those votes?
Explain why the most popular and best policy in the plan was unceremoniously drop kicked into the ocean, only to be half heartedly revived when the Democrats realized their base hates them for giving away the farm.
Explain the White House's general muddle over the last year. It must have a public plan! We're dropping the plan! We want it done by June! August! We need Snowe's vote to make it bi-partisan!
Then of course they finally bought the damn deal with an obvious kickback to Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson that was obviously going to be reported and used to make the bill look awful.
I was fine with compromise, I even begrudgingly accepted the Senate bill even though it's not nearly as good as the House bill. What I'm tired of is the crap ass politics and the lack of leadership. And now, having spiked the ball on the one yard line and then failing to notice that elections aren't decided a month before election day but on election day (which you'd think the friggin' Obama team would understand) they lost the Massachusetts Senate race by celebrating that early as well. It's been political malpractice after being handed the largest majorities in 40 years. And don't say "filibuster" because the Republicans were doing this last term as well. It was an entirely predictable strategy, which they had the chance to counter when they agreed to the new Senate rules.
I'm tired of Democrats failing and then being rewarded with our support because the Republicans suck. Make an affirmative case.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Somebody needs to actually do some fucking leading.
Pfffft.
Sorry one of the hardest reforms in American politics which has been defeated repeatedly for a century isn't being accomplished on your time table.
The whole thing you have going here is just deeply unserious.
I don't blame elightenedbum for being cynical, seeing how we all got burned on the PO once already, and it was getting about the same (less, actually) amount of vocal and committed support as the current push for the PO is getting now. I don't think it means that progressives and liberals should abandon the party if they fail, but I suggest that it does mean that we should be doing everything in our power to primary the offending congressmen. If the problem with Democratic officials is that they're taking the wrong message and intend to head right, the best way to disabuse them of this notion is to make them see how much power the activist left can leverage.
Somebody needs to actually do some fucking leading.
Pfffft.
Sorry one of the hardest reforms in American politics which has been defeated repeatedly for a century isn't being accomplished on your time table.
The whole thing you have going here is just deeply unserious.
Really? That's a lovely way to dismiss me, but:
Explain to me why the Democrats allowed Baucus to waste what, four months pursuing the votes of Snowe, Enzi, and Grassley when anyone with half a brain knew they were never going to get those votes?
Explain why the most popular and best policy in the plan was unceremoniously drop kicked into the ocean, only to be half heartedly revived when the Democrats realized their base hates them for giving away the farm.
Explain the White House's general muddle over the last year. It must have a public plan! We're dropping the plan! We want it done by June! August! We need Snowe's vote to make it bi-partisan!
Then of course they finally bought the damn deal with an obvious kickback to Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson that was obviously going to be reported and used to make the bill look awful.
I was fine with compromise, I even begrudgingly accepted the Senate bill even though it's not nearly as good as the House bill. What I'm tired of is the crap ass politics and the lack of leadership. And now, having spiked the ball on the one yard line and then failing to notice that elections aren't decided a month before election day but on election day (which you'd think the friggin' Obama team would understand) they lost the Massachusetts Senate race by celebrating that early as well. It's been political malpractice after being handed the largest majorities in 40 years. And don't say "filibuster" because the Republicans were doing this last term as well. It was an entirely predictable strategy, which they had the chance to counter when they agreed to the new Senate rules.
I'm tired of Democrats failing and then being rewarded with our support because the Republicans suck. Make an affirmative case.
Yes, but I don't see how handing the reins of power to the Republicans makes it any better. If you're left leaning, you have the Democrats or you have nothing. Withdrawing your support from the only team that's going to even halfway care about liberal issues isn't very smart.
Yes, but I don't see how handing the reins of power to the Republicans makes it any better. If you're left leaning, you have the Democrats or you have nothing. Withdrawing your support from the only team that's going to even halfway care about liberal issues isn't very smart.
Fortunately, it doesn't actually matter, as I'm not in a swing state or district.
Somebody needs to make the affirmative case for liberalism and stop working from Reagan's frame. At a bare minimum, that's what I want. I could maybe even tolerate failure if they would at least try to swing the country's mindset from the Reagan's idiocy.
In the meantime, I'm going to be cynical as all hell about a PR gimmick like getting the leadership of two intractable sides together in a room to discuss their "plans." Best case is nothing changes. Worst case, the Dems give away yet more to the Republican who (surprise!) don't vote for the bill.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Nobody follows a leader that won't lead and it okay to be disillusioned by a party that controlls Congress, Senate and the White house, yet still can't pass their agenda.
All that time invested, money donated. Expecting them to give their base something is not extreme. They got a mandate not a blank check.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Nobody follows a leader that won't lead and it okay to be disillusioned by a party that controlls Congress, Senate and the White house, yet still can't pass their agenda.
All that time invested, money donated. Expecting them to give their base something is not extreme. They got a mandate not a blank check.
They can't pass any part of their agenda is the thing. House Democrats (except for Stupak) I'm mostly fine with. The Blue Dogs can die in a fire and are going to in November, but most of the Democrats are good.
Senate Dems? Especially votes 42-59? Awful.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm tired of Democrats failing and then being rewarded with our support because the Republicans suck. Make an affirmative case.
My aunt has brain cancer. Insurance is tough for them. Her treatment has not been what it could be.
My wife's uncle is a self-insured farmer with three kids. His family health insurance payments went up more than 25% last year.
Tens of millions of people have these problems, and beyond that the unreformed system is indirectly darkening the fiscal picture for our country and hurting my daughter's future.
Your attitude hurts, rather than helps this situation.
I don't care what has happened this past year. It's in the past. It's beyond recall.
Do the Democrats deserve my support? I couldn't care less the answer to that question. The only question that matters is what should I do and support right now that has the greatest chance of realizing the policy goals that I think are vital.
My answer to that question is not to derride and weaken the politicians and political groups that are continuing to work toward the realization of those policy goals.
Why I'm angry is because they can't pass the bill to help those people! Even the watered down thing that wouldn't help those people nearly enough! And the current "bi-partisan" summit idea isn't going to move the passage of the bill forward, because the Republicans are never going to vote for it. The Democrats NEED to focus on putting together a reconciliation package together that can get 50 votes + Biden in the Senate and will mollify House Dems into voting for that + the current Senate bill.
They're wasting time, and the longer they wait, the longer those millions of people with those problems will be shit out of luck.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Somebody needs to actually do some fucking leading.
Pfffft.
Sorry one of the hardest reforms in American politics which has been defeated repeatedly for a century isn't being accomplished on your time table.
The whole thing you have going here is just deeply unserious.
I don't blame elightenedbum for being cynical, seeing how we all got burned on the PO once already, and it was getting about the same (less, actually) amount of vocal and committed support as the current push for the PO is getting now. I don't think it means that progressives and liberals should abandon the party if they fail, but I suggest that it does mean that we should be doing everything in our power to primary the offending congressmen. If the problem with Democratic officials is that they're taking the wrong message and intend to head right, the best way to disabuse them of this notion is to make them see how much power the activist left can leverage.
Actually I think at this point the best thing would be for the Democrats not to take substantial losses in the midterms, regardless of the composition of their membership.
It's no use picking up a few more liberal members if the lesson everyone takes away is that Bill Clinton tried to pass healthcare reform, failed, and lost Congress and Obama tried to pass healthcare reform, failed and lost Congress.
It'll become a radioactive third rail that nobody wants to touch.
I'm tired of Democrats failing and then being rewarded with our support because the Republicans suck. Make an affirmative case.
My aunt has brain cancer. Insurance is tough for them. Her treatment has not been what it could be.
My wife's uncle is a self-insured farmer with three kids. His family health insurance payments went up more than 25% last year.
Tens of millions of people have these problems, and beyond that the unreformed system is indirectly darkening the fiscal picture for our country and hurting my daughter's future.
Your attitude hurts, rather than helps this situation.
I don't care what has happened this past year. It's in the past. It's beyond recall.
Do the Democrats deserve my support? I couldn't care less the answer to that question. The only question that matters is what should I do and support right now that has the greatest chance of realizing the policy goals that I think are vital.
My answer to that question is not to derride and weaken the politicians and political groups that are continuing to work toward the realization of those policy goals.
If you don't hold them accountable they won't do anything. Voting blindly the straight party ticket can be as bad as not voting.
I mean thats what we hate about the GOP base. That they vote for anybody with the R next to the name, no matter how terrible.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Why I'm angry is because they can't pass the bill to help those people!
What does it matter why you are angry?
There are people who are still struggling to get the thing through and you are standing on the sideline sneering at them. What do you want a trophy? It's reprehensible!
I'm tired of Democrats failing and then being rewarded with our support because the Republicans suck. Make an affirmative case.
My aunt has brain cancer. Insurance is tough for them. Her treatment has not been what it could be.
My wife's uncle is a self-insured farmer with three kids. His family health insurance payments went up more than 25% last year.
Tens of millions of people have these problems, and beyond that the unreformed system is indirectly darkening the fiscal picture for our country and hurting my daughter's future.
Your attitude hurts, rather than helps this situation.
I don't care what has happened this past year. It's in the past. It's beyond recall.
Do the Democrats deserve my support? I couldn't care less the answer to that question. The only question that matters is what should I do and support right now that has the greatest chance of realizing the policy goals that I think are vital.
My answer to that question is not to derride and weaken the politicians and political groups that are continuing to work toward the realization of those policy goals.
If you don't hold them accountable they won't do anything. Voting blindly the straight party ticket can be as bad as not voting.
I mean thats what we hate about the GOP base. That they vote for anybody with the R next to the name, no matter how terrible.
That's not what I hate about the GOP base. In fact, that's not even true; see NY-23.
GeorgeWashingtonPlunkitt on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
How important is it to have any regulation of the private monopolies if the public option is there? Couldnt they do whatever they wanted if screwed people could leave?
What I'm saying is, if its harder to pass a bill with a ton of stuff vs a few things, then the few things should be a strong public option.
Why I'm angry is because they can't pass the bill to help those people!
What does it matter why you are angry?
There are people who are still struggling to get the thing through and you are standing on the sideline sneering at them. What do you want a trophy? It's reprehensible!
Because you're attacking me for being angry.
And no, the things they are doing are not trying to get the thing through. If they were, they'd hammer it through without the kabuki bullshit trying to get Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe's vote. The votes they need are Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Mark Begich, etc.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Doesn't federal law already prohibit federal funds from paying for abortions? The amendments were inserted just applications of said law (one much more narrowly than the other). I'm fairly certain, they have to exempt abortion from coverage in so far as it cannot be paid for with federal funds (although, it could be included as a patron-paid-for rider to plans offered in the exchange without violating this requirement--which introduces the difference b/w the House and Senate amendments.).
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
You know, this whole thing is rather tricky.
While it's super awesome to have you around to point out how stupid the Democrats are while they attempt it and making such clever thread titles, maybe you could lighten up a bit, because it is partially liberals who are pissed at the Democrats like yourself pulling down poll numbers and feeding into the narrative that the Democrats are doomed this fall. Which is making them even more risk averse.
I'm not sure media narratives ever have a real effect on anything.
No, the amendments don't do that because it would already be barred without Stupak thanks to the Hyde Amendment which has been the law of the land for going on 40 years now. Stupak means that anyone who receives federal subsidies will be prevented from using their own money to pay for abortions. Because money is fungible and therefore...I don't really follow it from there.
Had we not ridden the conventional wisdom into Baghdad I might be inclined to entertain such uncertainties.
But it seems to me that the CW, unintelligently interpretted, has a pretty good heft within D.C.
No, they do because people in politics are idiots and still believe that campaigning is what decides elections instead of macro-economic factors. I just don't think liberals have any real effect on media narratives outside of driving it 3 points to the right of whatever they propose; because they're damn hippies, and hippies must be punched.
Right. That's what I was trying to say. I guess I wasn't clear since I couldn't remember which one Stupak was. I knew it was unwarrantably narrow when it came to applying the Hyde Amendment to health coverage subsidies.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
That's not applying Hyde. If Stupak didn't exist, that would be applying Hyde, because Hyde is the law of the land.
I'm clearly not communicating what I mean. Never mind. haha.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Judd Gregg is playing their side with a little skill.
He wants to scrap the thing and start over by passing a number of smaller bills, point by point, upon which there is supposedly bipartisan agreement.
It's a rather transparent ploy, but only if you are someone who spends more than fifteen minutes a day reading about politics.
It was one of Scott Brown's campaign themes on the subject.
"Scrap it and start over" has about 55% support in current polls.
Dropping it all together isn't very popular.
So delaying by saying you are starting over is the Republican's best bet currently to kill the bill in a popular fashion.
And it lets them seem all constructive at the healthcare summit.
Which, ironically, most people who write about politics don't seem to do.
So what is the democrats best strategy to beat this issue? Just go ahead and use reconciliation anyway? The democrats have to see this strategy of bait and switch bills coming, one would hope.
I will blindly support the Democrats even if they are failing miserably, just like the Republicans did with Bush! Oh wait, no. I have political opinions and when the Democrats repeatedly are ineffectual and give away things I would like to see happen and get absolutely jack shit in return, I'm going to be angry.
Export our fossil fuel surplus and use the revenue to fund generous social service programs?
They were wrong because the things their party stood for were stupid, and Bush was stupid.
I agree with Speaker. It is completely irresponsible to stop supporting the Democratic party because they disappoint you. It is cutting your nose to spite your face.
I would think the Massachusetts election would have made this clear. Lots of liberals were upset about how watered down health care was, and apparently Coakley wasn't perfect ... so they didn't come out to vote. And a Republican won instead. And now health care is going to get even more watered down.
But at least progressive liberals showed the Democratic party that they won't be pushed around! Oh wait, nevermind. The Democratic Party now believes they need to move further to the center.
If you are a progressive, your duty is to support the most progressive political option available. Even if they're ineffectual, or hypocritical, or fiscally conservative, or stupid. Those are still better than Republicans.
100% agree with this.
The way I see it, most likely Republicans will recite talking points for a while and then it'll be all over. Aside from all the noise, the White House and the Senate have both sent signals that they're willing to use reconciliation.
If you focus only on the PR gimmicks, yeah it all looks like a PR gimmick.
I agree with the anti-doomsaying tone, but it may be, against all odds, that Massachusetts may have the overall effect of giving us a better bill, especially if the public option goes through.
Not that Mass. democrats staying home should be credited with that development though. Remember that Scott Brown's campaign stance on health care was "let's start over," which is GOP for "let's delay delay delay forever."
Yes, self-destructive anger is all the rage at the moment. It's where the broader public seems to be.
Not very rational though.
It's a meaningless PR gimmick that delays action even further, which is why we're in this mess in the first place.
Somebody needs to actually do some fucking leading.
I hope so.
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on etc.
Pfffft.
Sorry one of the hardest reforms in American politics which has been defeated repeatedly for a century isn't being accomplished on your time table.
The whole thing you have going here is just deeply unserious.
Really? That's a lovely way to dismiss me, but:
Explain to me why the Democrats allowed Baucus to waste what, four months pursuing the votes of Snowe, Enzi, and Grassley when anyone with half a brain knew they were never going to get those votes?
Explain why the most popular and best policy in the plan was unceremoniously drop kicked into the ocean, only to be half heartedly revived when the Democrats realized their base hates them for giving away the farm.
Explain the White House's general muddle over the last year. It must have a public plan! We're dropping the plan! We want it done by June! August! We need Snowe's vote to make it bi-partisan!
Then of course they finally bought the damn deal with an obvious kickback to Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson that was obviously going to be reported and used to make the bill look awful.
I was fine with compromise, I even begrudgingly accepted the Senate bill even though it's not nearly as good as the House bill. What I'm tired of is the crap ass politics and the lack of leadership. And now, having spiked the ball on the one yard line and then failing to notice that elections aren't decided a month before election day but on election day (which you'd think the friggin' Obama team would understand) they lost the Massachusetts Senate race by celebrating that early as well. It's been political malpractice after being handed the largest majorities in 40 years. And don't say "filibuster" because the Republicans were doing this last term as well. It was an entirely predictable strategy, which they had the chance to counter when they agreed to the new Senate rules.
I'm tired of Democrats failing and then being rewarded with our support because the Republicans suck. Make an affirmative case.
I don't blame elightenedbum for being cynical, seeing how we all got burned on the PO once already, and it was getting about the same (less, actually) amount of vocal and committed support as the current push for the PO is getting now. I don't think it means that progressives and liberals should abandon the party if they fail, but I suggest that it does mean that we should be doing everything in our power to primary the offending congressmen. If the problem with Democratic officials is that they're taking the wrong message and intend to head right, the best way to disabuse them of this notion is to make them see how much power the activist left can leverage.
Yes, but I don't see how handing the reins of power to the Republicans makes it any better. If you're left leaning, you have the Democrats or you have nothing. Withdrawing your support from the only team that's going to even halfway care about liberal issues isn't very smart.
Fortunately, it doesn't actually matter, as I'm not in a swing state or district.
Somebody needs to make the affirmative case for liberalism and stop working from Reagan's frame. At a bare minimum, that's what I want. I could maybe even tolerate failure if they would at least try to swing the country's mindset from the Reagan's idiocy.
In the meantime, I'm going to be cynical as all hell about a PR gimmick like getting the leadership of two intractable sides together in a room to discuss their "plans." Best case is nothing changes. Worst case, the Dems give away yet more to the Republican who (surprise!) don't vote for the bill.
Nobody follows a leader that won't lead and it okay to be disillusioned by a party that controlls Congress, Senate and the White house, yet still can't pass their agenda.
All that time invested, money donated. Expecting them to give their base something is not extreme. They got a mandate not a blank check.
They can't pass any part of their agenda is the thing. House Democrats (except for Stupak) I'm mostly fine with. The Blue Dogs can die in a fire and are going to in November, but most of the Democrats are good.
Senate Dems? Especially votes 42-59? Awful.
My aunt has brain cancer. Insurance is tough for them. Her treatment has not been what it could be.
My wife's uncle is a self-insured farmer with three kids. His family health insurance payments went up more than 25% last year.
Tens of millions of people have these problems, and beyond that the unreformed system is indirectly darkening the fiscal picture for our country and hurting my daughter's future.
Your attitude hurts, rather than helps this situation.
I don't care what has happened this past year. It's in the past. It's beyond recall.
Do the Democrats deserve my support? I couldn't care less the answer to that question. The only question that matters is what should I do and support right now that has the greatest chance of realizing the policy goals that I think are vital.
My answer to that question is not to derride and weaken the politicians and political groups that are continuing to work toward the realization of those policy goals.
They're wasting time, and the longer they wait, the longer those millions of people with those problems will be shit out of luck.
Actually I think at this point the best thing would be for the Democrats not to take substantial losses in the midterms, regardless of the composition of their membership.
It's no use picking up a few more liberal members if the lesson everyone takes away is that Bill Clinton tried to pass healthcare reform, failed, and lost Congress and Obama tried to pass healthcare reform, failed and lost Congress.
It'll become a radioactive third rail that nobody wants to touch.
If you don't hold them accountable they won't do anything. Voting blindly the straight party ticket can be as bad as not voting.
I mean thats what we hate about the GOP base. That they vote for anybody with the R next to the name, no matter how terrible.
What does it matter why you are angry?
There are people who are still struggling to get the thing through and you are standing on the sideline sneering at them. What do you want a trophy? It's reprehensible!
What I'm saying is, if its harder to pass a bill with a ton of stuff vs a few things, then the few things should be a strong public option.
Because you're attacking me for being angry.
And no, the things they are doing are not trying to get the thing through. If they were, they'd hammer it through without the kabuki bullshit trying to get Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe's vote. The votes they need are Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Mark Begich, etc.