Democrats Prepare Xmas Suicide Pact

Congratulations are in order -- to the Republicans.

They got the health care bill they wanted.

Their strategy was ingenious.

They forced the administration to concede and compromise, got much of what they demanded and they still get to complain when it fails. Brilliant.

But wait a minute; Obama and his supporters are celebrating! They say it's a first step. They say these things take time. They're calling it a monumental achievement. That's a stroke of genius on the part of the Democrats. They have the base so conditioned to defeat that any lip service motion will come off as a victory.

In fact, I believe the Dems have a new victory motto. "It's better than nothing."

We've been thrown a bone with no meat, been asked to pay for it, and are expected to say "thank you."

So what do we have in regard to health reform? I'll break it down in 5 simple terms.

#1: The bill is estimated to cost over a trillion dollars. That means higher taxes. Okay, so far so good because taxes for a good cause is money well spent. Right? Well, let's see.

#2: Health cost is yet undetermined but to many people, the estimates are still too much. Of course, the poor will need subsidies. So we're right back to instilling Medicaid in one form or another.

#3: The insurance companies hold the cards and their job is not to provide care; it's to prevent us from cashing in on getting care since it costs them money, and this is a business after all. They will decide what you can get and how much it will cost.

#4: Since payment is not contingent on income it won't matter if you make $150,000 a year or $50,000 a year. The cost will be the same. Again, the lower middle class, (i.e. those who need health care the most) will take the hardest hit.

#5: More small businesses will not provide health care, mainly since they won't be able to afford it. Besides, they're sure to realize that people will be mandated to get it anyway, so why bother?

How many of our fellow citizens now realize that what we really need is an option of a government run system that would provide for those who can't afford to deal with the insurance companies?

Health care never has been, and never should be a "scored point" for one side or the other. It must be a program that cares for the people.

In a word, what the people got with this Congressional win was a defeat.

And the crowd cheers.

The political risk that the Democrats are taking if they pass the Senate version of the health care reform bill contrasts with the popularity of the public option, which could have made all the difference between a good bill and a fundamentally flawed one.

If the Democrats with a new President and large majorities in both Houses couldn't get the public option and solid consumer protections - most of which in practice depend on having a public option - passed in a package that gives huge benefits to the insurance monopolies, they certainly aren't going to later find the courage ahd be willing to do so after they've given the insurance companies the enormous gift of a guaranteed expanded market.

If the Democratic members of Congress were serious about doing any such thing, they would insist on stripping out the individual mandates from the Obama Senate bill. After all, they don't start for four years, so why give away all your leverage with the insurance companies if you have some intention for going back for improvements?

What makes this bill worse than nothing - both policy-wise and in terms of wrecking the Democrats' political position to carry through on those already-empty promises of future improvements:

The lack of regulation, of cost control, an uninhibited insurance and pharmaceutical industry with a direct, legally-enforceable line to every American's bank account [the individual mandates]; these are not theoretical concerns from high minded liberal elite, as the administration's allies are trying to pass them off as. These are practical realities that will hit everyone and will hand control of our government right back to the Republicans in the quite understandable political backlash.

David Axelrod says that Obama's mandate won't got above 8% of anyone's income if they can't afford it, as if thats spare change. Democrats are simply clueless about what the middle class are experiencing financially. The current Senate health care bill proves it beyond any doubts.

The limited individual mandate was always problematic in itself. But there would be a whole different context if people knew they had a solid public option alternative with reasonable deductibles that didn't have a business incentive to cut off the insured as soon as they got sick or find other tricks to deny them coverage. The presence of the public option would then put real pressure on insurers to provide affordable coverage and good service.

But we're about to get an Obama version instead: individuals required to pay up to 8% of their incomes directly to insurance companies with no effective protection against exorbitantly high deductibles, rescission of coverage when people get sick, or even against all forms of denial of coverage for "prior conditions."

Is THIS the kind of CHANGE youve been HOPING for?

Everyone really (especially the delusional fanboys) should go read this next piece at HuffPo. Its by Drew Weston, a man who is considered quite brilliant in understanding the mood of the modern electorate. Weston is very angry at Obama and all but predicts that his Presidency is alread doomed to failure...a failure that all Democrats may be paying for for many, many years to come.

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/leadership-obama-style-an_b_398813.html Drew Westen (author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation)

As the president's job performance numbers and ratings on his handling of virtually every domestic issue have fallen below 50 percent, the Democratic base has become demoralized, and Independents have gone from his source of strength to his Achilles Heel, it's time to reflect on why.

The conventional wisdom from the White House is those "pesky leftists" -- those bloggers and Vermont Governors and Senators who keep wanting real health reform, real financial reform, immigration reform not preceded by a year or two of raids that leave children without parents, and all the other changes we were supposed to believe in.

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry).

In fact, the president's leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress's penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn't a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

The problem is not that his record is being distorted. It's that all three have more than a grain of truth. And I say this not as one of those pesky "leftists." I say this as someone who has spent much of the last three years studying what moves voters in the middle, the Undecideds who will hear whichever side speaks to them with moral clarty.

btw Obama Disapprove 56.0%, Approve 44.0% Dec. 21 / Rasmussen

Tags: health care sell out, obama (all tags)

Comments

34 Comments

Re: Democrats

Liberals have a new motto:

"We want to get voted out of the majority even faster then the Bush Republicans."

by RichardFlatts 2009-12-22 03:29PM | 0 recs
Ducon, you have no clue what Richard

wrote, do you? Again, read carefully.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-22 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: palin was 1 point behind Obama 2 weeks ago

Um No...    

IF you can find it, post it.   I have been googling and it doesn't exist.  What you are referring to is a CNN/Gallup favorability poll with Obama at 47 and Palin at 46.   Obama has since risen 4 points.    The only matchup poll recently was from shill rassmussen and Obama wins by 6 points.   And given just how vapid and stupid that woman is, there is NO WAY she can survive a vicious GOP primary and then a general with no McCain to protect her.   Obama will win 350 EVs on his head.

by FUJA 2009-12-22 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: palin was 1 point behind Obama 2 weeks ago

don't be a fool.  She protected McCain.  She is the most popular republican in the nation right now. She is even popular with Democratic women and other democrats have no clue why.

by TeresaInPa 2009-12-23 03:29AM | 0 recs
More precisely...

... she's popular with a few dozen "democratic" women who choose candidates purely by looking in their pants.  Back to the Riverdaughter's Effluence with ya, PUMA!

by TexasDarling 2009-12-23 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: childish

Perhaps you can model maturity for us by attacking someone's mother or employment situation once again.  Or you can invent lies about their past out of your fabled "memory" and then absolve yourself of the responsibility to either substantiate your lie or desist and apologize as an honorable person would do.

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: oh look

Please define "OWN."

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: we are just at the beginning

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL  ROTFLMAO....

You are as funny as you are stupid.

by FUJA 2009-12-22 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats Prepare Xmas Suicide Pact

See what Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake.com says about the Health Care Bill:

"Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill"

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not.

2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.                       

3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can't afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.

4. Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.

6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits -- like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions -- until 2014 when the program begins.

7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.

8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.

9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.

10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, your family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

by trixta 2009-12-22 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats Prepare Xmas Suicide Pact

Or better yet, read someone who actually knows what the heck he is talking about as he tears apart a woman who made some GOD AWFUL movies.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl ein/2009/12/jane_hamshers_10_reaons_to_k il.html

by FUJA 2009-12-22 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats Prepare Xmas Suicide Pact

ezra klein?  No one takes him seriously.  Even BTD makes fun of the guy.

Accept it, you bought the whole crap cake when you believed a democratic majority and a democrat in the oval office would bring you anything other than crappy republican legislation. Obama has no particular driving ideals except one.. he can bring people together to get shit done... and I do mean shit.

by TeresaInPa 2009-12-23 03:35AM | 0 recs
"even BTD?"

Ah, Armando, famous for his thoughtfulness and moderation...

by TexasDarling 2009-12-23 03:43AM | 0 recs
Wal-Mart Armando

is your buddy now?  I thought you pretended to be a labor guy.

by JJE 2009-12-23 05:04AM | 0 recs
are you a script?

by JJE 2009-12-23 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: are you a script?

Nope, a teleprompter! 

BTW, why are PUMAs so comfortable adopting Ann Coulter's slurs?  And is it sexist to accuse Ann Coulter of being a right-wing-slur-monger?

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 05:43AM | 0 recs
What you fail to grasp

is that not everyone identifies according to Obama.  Supporting a politician at this or that time, or on this or that issue or set of issues is not how everyone constitutes their political identities.  Inability to grasp that such modes of affiliative political identification are unnecessary and far from universal is the critical PUMA mistake.  It's what drives you to judge everyone according to a dichotomous view of their relationships to the figure of Obama, to automatically dismiss people as fanboys, and to absolve yourself of interacting productively and honorably.  But it doesn't for a second justify your insult and lie driven mode of "debate." To reference your recent cultivation of a rhetoric of possession, no political figure or interlocutor "OWNS" me.  But Obama seems to "OWN" you.

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: mu stalker is back!

You do realize that repeating these cliches has no effect on the credibility of my arguments, don't you?  Remember, on a blog we hold discussions that engage a wider range of participants than just one another.  I don't think you are helping yourself with them.  It's your choice, but a little silly.

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: this wack job

Clearly, I make you uncomfortable.  But calling me names does not refute anything I have written.

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: stalker cant stay away

Hmm.  Let's see.  Which of us appears disturbed or distressed here?  Anyone care to weigh in on this question?  Has ludwigvan refuted anything I have raised?

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: TOLD YA SO!

This could only hold if I wanted or needed to stay away.  I don't know on what you base that determination.  But I get that my arguments are inconvenient for you and this is much easier.

Actually, you swore a solemn oath to cease responding to me.  Yet you seem unable to keep that promise.  So there is more evidence that you lack self-control.  Of course, unlike you, I have no interest in imagining the emotional and/or psychological constitutions of others.  I respond to what they write, not who I want them to be.

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 06:57AM | 0 recs
for someone

who claims not to read his comments, you sure are diligent about replying to each and every one of them.  Irony lives.

by JJE 2009-12-23 06:59AM | 0 recs
reading and responding vs. replying

One cannot know whether lv reads my comments or not.  He certainly replies, although pointing out that he pledged not to do this as well seems to have discouraged him.  But he has never responded.  These replies are virtually identical to earlier cliche filled rants that contained no evidence whatsoever that he read a single one.  It's all the same.  He used to yell FANBOY, now he yells STALKER.  Who knows what he has ever read.

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 09:52AM | 0 recs
BTD is a clown

I can't believe he still blogs.  Anyone with an ounce of self-awareness would retire in shame:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=13776

by JJE 2009-12-23 05:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats Prepare Xmas Suicide Pact

fuja...l does that happen to stand for f*ck you Jerome Armstrong?

by TeresaInPa 2009-12-23 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats Prepare Xmas Suicide Pact

1) Whomever wrote that comic... don't quit your day job... you suck ass.

2) Gallup Job approval -  51 approve to 43 disapprove

3) CNN - 54 Approval / 44 disapprove

4)  Rassumussen is way off from every other polling outfit, leading to a questionable party breakdown model.    

5)  Really Ludwig, still trolling here.  Go back to red state or whatever shit hole you are from.

by FUJA 2009-12-22 09:01PM | 0 recs
The Ras poll is inaccurate, and wrong

Ras is a pure republican outliet.

Also, that's the push poll two question. When the other approval questions are asked, the approval rate is far higher.

For those reading along at home, they ask to rate the President's performance on an A-F scale. A-B are approve, C-F are disapprove.

Oh look, Obama's up in Gallup again today. 51%? I'll take it.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-23 07:21AM | 0 recs
Why do you hate Obama?

Please, tell us so.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-23 09:25AM | 0 recs
because he is hateboy.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-23 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: because he is hateboy.

But he is oh so respectful of other people's mothers...

He also exhibits profound compassion for the unemployed.

Oh wait.  Actually he insults other people's mothers and mocks the unemployed.  I guess he is a hateboy.

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 03:33PM | 0 recs
That is all true but....

it was more a play on his reference to Obama supporters as fanboys whereas his hate for Obama is way too pervasive not to be called hateboy..

by louisprandtl 2009-12-23 05:00PM | 0 recs
PUMAs live in caves...

Go back to red state or whatever shit hole you are from.
...Not holes :)
by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-23 07:23AM | 0 recs
You are very tauntworthy

I have a pretty good idea how much bitterness you must feel waking up each morning to see Barack Hussein Obama in the White House, knowing that he won and your girl lost, and that you got beat, and badly badly. And all those Obama supporters who taunted you in the primary, we get to sleep at night knowing we beat you. And that every attack you tried on him just doesn't stick, and that if he succeeds, they will be mentioning his name in the same sentence as FDR, Lincoln, and JFK. Hey, they may even put him on Mount Rushmore. Imagine looking at that for the rest of your life!

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-23 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: oh my...

Why is Obama so much prettier than the others?

by Strummerson 2009-12-23 03:34PM | 0 recs
Pretti-boy!

by louisprandtl 2009-12-23 06:25PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads