Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 6







Post#126 at 08-03-2009 10:38 AM by SVE-KRD [at joined Apr 2007 #posts 1,097]
---
08-03-2009, 10:38 AM #126
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
1,097

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
Washington and Oregon both. I vaguely remember a proposal (semi-serious?) that the parts of both states east of the Cascades split off and join each other in a new state, to be called Jefferson. I've been there; culturally and ecologically, they're part of the Rocky Mountain West. You can't really tell them from Utah, Idaho, or Nevada. Or for that matter, parts of New Mexico.

West of the Cascades is an entirely different country.
An alternate name I've read of for that suggerstion is to call said proposed state 'Lincoln'. (Except that Lincoln was to be made up of eastern Washington and the Idaho panhandle.)







Post#127 at 08-03-2009 10:43 AM by SVE-KRD [at joined Apr 2007 #posts 1,097]
---
08-03-2009, 10:43 AM #127
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
1,097

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
However, there's a reason to have small states represented equally with large ones in the Senate. That is to *prevent" total urban dominance and large state dominance pf the national government. Anyone who has ever lived in a state where the state's largest city or cities overrides the interests of the farmers and ranchers with cowboy boots and spurs knows precisely what I'm talking about.

Not to mention that New Mexico has had its share of the urban East imposing laws that make total sense in the urban East on a rural Western state. The experiment with the national speed limit comes to mind.

Farmers, ranchers, and people in remote areas have rights, too.
I suspect that some of your 'more progressive voices' here would beg to differ, in that they'd be all for ignoring the 'rights' of said 'people in rural areas' - especially since a disproportionate percentage of said group are conservative Whites, who therefore obviously need to have progressive ways and ideals shoved down their throats - at gunpoint, if need be.

And to state that said group has rights, too, is to identify yourself as a RACIST, at least in their book - whether you really are, or not.
Last edited by SVE-KRD; 08-03-2009 at 10:48 AM.







Post#128 at 08-03-2009 12:22 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
08-03-2009, 12:22 PM #128
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by SVE-KRD View Post
I suspect that some of your 'more progressive voices' here would beg to differ, in that they'd be all for ignoring the 'rights' of said 'people in rural areas' - especially since a disproportionate percentage of said group are conservative Whites, who therefore obviously need to have progressive ways and ideals shoved down their throats - at gunpoint, if need be.
You obviously have a problem with the concept of "one-person, one-vote."

You've hit the nail-on-the-head that Conservative Whites are increasingly becoming not only rural but more and more a minority - nationally as well as in most states. There are checks and balances put in the system to protect minorities including the minority living in rural and/or low population states.

I think most regard the checks-and-balances of two Senators per state as being reasonable in our representative government - to a point. That point may be exceeded if it becomes clear that this disproportionate power share provided to rural White Conservatives becomes the primary reason 4T crisis issues are not addressed.

But the politics are changing in these rural or low-populaiton states - for example, much of the West, as evident in last election. One of the great myths of the American West is that it is primarily made up of folks living on ranches; the reality is that the West, on a population basis, is actually more urbanized than the rest of the country. Cities like Denver, Salt Lake, Albuquerque contain disproportionate shares of those states' populations than the East does (it’s because of water scarcity more than anything else). Increasinlgy, US Senators as well as state govenors that do not take into account the needs of their urban areas are going to become increasingly less politically viable.

And as much as the West has/will be changing, the South, through immigration alone, is transformng more so.

What the Conservatives have as a last line of defense is the US Senate (and to some extent the Supreme Court); from a political point, what they must fear most is for Progressive legislation to pass that is shown to work well for vast majority of Americans ergo their big effort to kill real health care reform. What they have to bank on is American voters remaining fixed in 3T stupefaction.

These are worth a re-post -

'08 Election based on population -



Counties where Repub vote increased in '08 -



Combined factor analysis of relative strengths -




Notice how the South is moving to toss-up and the West, other than the Mormon belt (and how enthusiastic will they be after the Southern GOPer eat Romney in 2012?) it is just about over for the GOP. Where this will be most dramatically felt is not in coming Presidential elections but in the Senate dwindling down to less than a dozen conservatives (and, they will likely be seen as ultra conservatives) Repubs. Other states may have Repub senators but they are going to look a lot more like Crist than a DeMint.

On health care reform, what you are now seeing played out in the Senate (and, to some extent in the House with the Blue dogs) is the vestiges of a political map that was before the realities of these more recent maps. They get a lot of attention from the media because it makes for conflict and it sells. That builds on itself and causes folks to become more confused about an already confusing and complex issue. In the meantime, life goes on including things like 14000 people losing their employer-based health care every day. That, and other 4T realities, means that people can only be hoodwinked by the 3T bullshit of the GOP for only so long.

With 18 of the 34 Senate seats up for election in 2010 being Repubs and 5 (perhaps six) of those being 'open seats' (none for Dems), there is potential for a shift in the Senate that will continue the trend of better reflecting where the country is actually at today and where it is going.

Rural conservative Whites would do well with checking in with their brethren in their state's urban areas and see if there isn’t any potential for some good horse trading if not some outright commonalities.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#129 at 08-03-2009 02:15 PM by stab1969 [at Albuquerque, NM joined May 2007 #posts 532]
---
08-03-2009, 02:15 PM #129
Join Date
May 2007
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
532

Quote Originally Posted by SVE-KRD View Post
An alternate name I've read of for that suggerstion is to call said proposed state 'Lincoln'. (Except that Lincoln was to be made up of eastern Washington and the Idaho panhandle.)
From what I recall learning in school, was that when New Mexico was about to be given statehood, "Lincoln" was one of the two final choices for the name of the new state that was to become New Mexico







Post#130 at 08-03-2009 05:31 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
08-03-2009, 05:31 PM #130
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

Mixed trends

Mixed trends are being sent in regards to this issue. You have those who have been crying for years that health care needs to be reformed, and others that are so adamantly opposed to anything even closely resembling single payer that they claim that if it goes through it will be the damnation of our world as we know it. They will argue that it will lead us into socialism, if not outright communism. Power comes from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in massive doses, and unless these lobbies are reigned in any reform bill will have, IMO, a near zero chance of passage. I believe that only six months into his presidency, Obama is already finding out that it is not as easily to change the culture in Washington as he thought it would be upon assuming office. Yet his enhanced ability to communicate in a powerful and articulate manner can be of assistance in most areas in trying to get his ideas across. Some on the farther left are unhappy that he hasn't moved in a more populist direction than he has. Right now I believe he is trying to be the Great Compromiser, ala Henry Clay prior to the civil war.(And I believe HC did run for President once). That may not be enough once the chips are down. It may delay the harshest elements of the 4T for a while, but if previous history is as accurate a guide as most on this forum will claim, the smelly brown stuff will eventually hit the fan, and then all bet will be off. The health care reform issue is likely to be debated by politicians, lecturers, and group leaders for some time to come. A restrictive influence could delay action, but just as the same socialism outcries were head before Social Security passed, there will come a day when when they will no doubt accept whatever is happening and make the best of the situation.







Post#131 at 08-04-2009 05:57 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
08-04-2009, 05:57 PM #131
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
You obviously have a problem with the concept of "one-person, one-vote."

You've hit the nail-on-the-head that Conservative Whites are increasingly becoming not only rural but more and more a minority - nationally as well as in most states. There are checks and balances put in the system to protect minorities including the minority living in rural and/or low population states.

I think most regard the checks-and-balances of two Senators per state as being reasonable in our representative government - to a point. That point may be exceeded if it becomes clear that this disproportionate power share provided to rural White Conservatives becomes the primary reason 4T crisis issues are not addressed.

But the politics are changing in these rural or low-populaiton states - for example, much of the West, as evident in last election. One of the great myths of the American West is that it is primarily made up of folks living on ranches; the reality is that the West, on a population basis, is actually more urbanized than the rest of the country. Cities like Denver, Salt Lake, Albuquerque contain disproportionate shares of those states' populations than the East does (it’s because of water scarcity more than anything else). Increasinlgy, US Senators as well as state govenors that do not take into account the needs of their urban areas are going to become increasingly less politically viable.

And as much as the West has/will be changing, the South, through immigration alone, is transformng more so.

What the Conservatives have as a last line of defense is the US Senate (and to some extent the Supreme Court); from a political point, what they must fear most is for Progressive legislation to pass that is shown to work well for vast majority of Americans ergo their big effort to kill real health care reform. What they have to bank on is American voters remaining fixed in 3T stupefaction.

These are worth a re-post -

'08 Election based on population -



Counties where Repub vote increased in '08 -



Combined factor analysis of relative strengths -




Notice how the South is moving to toss-up and the West, other than the Mormon belt (and how enthusiastic will they be after the Southern GOPer eat Romney in 2012?) it is just about over for the GOP. Where this will be most dramatically felt is not in coming Presidential elections but in the Senate dwindling down to less than a dozen conservatives (and, they will likely be seen as ultra conservatives) Repubs. Other states may have Repub senators but they are going to look a lot more like Crist than a DeMint.

On health care reform, what you are now seeing played out in the Senate (and, to some extent in the House with the Blue dogs) is the vestiges of a political map that was before the realities of these more recent maps. They get a lot of attention from the media because it makes for conflict and it sells. That builds on itself and causes folks to become more confused about an already confusing and complex issue. In the meantime, life goes on including things like 14000 people losing their employer-based health care every day. That, and other 4T realities, means that people can only be hoodwinked by the 3T bullshit of the GOP for only so long.

With 18 of the 34 Senate seats up for election in 2010 being Repubs and 5 (perhaps six) of those being 'open seats' (none for Dems), there is potential for a shift in the Senate that will continue the trend of better reflecting where the country is actually at today and where it is going.

Rural conservative Whites would do well with checking in with their brethren in their state's urban areas and see if there isn’t any potential for some good horse trading if not some outright commonalities.
I think your gloating has the smell of a passed expiration date.

The problem is that Democrats lie about what they're going to do to get elected, and then think they can do whatever they want once they get power because the "little people" out there won't catch on. Unfortunately for them, it's not the 1930s anymore. People are informed, aware and empowered.

I think I posted here a few months ago that there were two issues that would destroy the Democrats' brief days of glory: health care and cap and trade. I was right. We are now essentially seeing a repeat of the first two years of the Clinton presidency. Republicans will sweep the few elections there are in November, and make significant gains in 2010. After that it will be a question of whether Obama adjusts as Clinton did, or lashes himself to the mast of the far left's sinking ship and becomes Jimmy Carter II.

Political discussions on the internet increasingly seem to be a fantasy word where the far left goes to suck its thumb, shut out reality and tell itself what it wants to hear. The reality is that the Democrats lied to get where they are, and now that they have to actually expose their intentions, they're feeling the heat. Not only because the American people do not want single-payer socialized health care, but because they know they were lied to about it. They thought there was just going to be a modest expansion of existing safety nets combined with cost cutting. They didn't realize the Democrats intended to destroy the private coverage that 85% of Americans already have. I seem to remember using the phrase "there will be hell to pay".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0

Oh my.







Post#132 at 08-04-2009 08:12 PM by jamesdglick [at Clarksville, TN joined Mar 2007 #posts 2,007]
---
08-04-2009, 08:12 PM #132
Join Date
Mar 2007
Location
Clarksville, TN
Posts
2,007

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I can't get You Tube to play, but does this have anything to do with Playwrite's re-found rage against Teabaggers?







Post#133 at 08-04-2009 08:45 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
08-04-2009, 08:45 PM #133
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think your gloating has the smell of a passed expiration date.

The problem is that Democrats lie about what they're going to do to get elected, and then think they can do whatever they want once they get power because the "little people" out there won't catch on. Unfortunately for them, it's not the 1930s anymore. People are informed, aware and empowered.

I think I posted here a few months ago that there were two issues that would destroy the Democrats' brief days of glory: health care and cap and trade. I was right. We are now essentially seeing a repeat of the first two years of the Clinton presidency. Republicans will sweep the few elections there are in November, and make significant gains in 2010. After that it will be a question of whether Obama adjusts as Clinton did, or lashes himself to the mast of the far left's sinking ship and becomes Jimmy Carter II.

Political discussions on the internet increasingly seem to be a fantasy word where the far left goes to suck its thumb, shut out reality and tell itself what it wants to hear. The reality is that the Democrats lied to get where they are, and now that they have to actually expose their intentions, they're feeling the heat. Not only because the American people do not want single-payer socialized health care, but because they know they were lied to about it. They thought there was just going to be a modest expansion of existing safety nets combined with cost cutting. They didn't realize the Democrats intended to destroy the private coverage that 85% of Americans already have. I seem to remember using the phrase "there will be hell to pay".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0

Oh my.
Dream on, bro.

You've heard of "dead cat bounce" haven't ya? The polls that show Obama coming down from the stratosphere to something more normal but still healthy, also show the Repugants going even lower in the disgusted eyes of the voters.

This new info age cuts both ways and the teabaggers showing up at these home district meetings are clearly being orchestrated by the key lobby firm that is getting millions from the insurance companies.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/...ts-teaparties/

Just like Olberman ripped a new one for Repugs and Blue Dogs last night -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o

we're going to do the same to these moronic teabaggers.

For normal people, the facts, the truth, should shame you into STFU, but after 30 years of 3T, you guys are beyond shame.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#134 at 08-04-2009 10:59 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
08-04-2009, 10:59 PM #134
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Dream on, bro.

You've heard of "dead cat bounce" haven't ya? The polls that show Obama coming down from the stratosphere to something more normal but still healthy, also show the Repugants going even lower in the disgusted eyes of the voters.

This new info age cuts both ways and the teabaggers showing up at these home district meetings are clearly being orchestrated by the key lobby firm that is getting millions from the insurance companies.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/...ts-teaparties/

Just like Olberman ripped a new one for Repugs and Blue Dogs last night -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o

we're going to do the same to these moronic teabaggers.

For normal people, the facts, the truth, should shame you into STFU, but after 30 years of 3T, you guys are beyond shame.
Yeah.

I think the biggest problem the left has is that they don't just lie to others, they lie to themselves. They will never admit to themselves the simple fact that the American people do not want their policy. It's always the Republicans (with their filibuster-less minority), or evil corporate money, or some other nefarious plot that's thwarting them.

The ideas the left touts as "progressive" and "modern" are almost 100 years old. They are stuck in the past of FDR and LBJ, still trying to "finish what they started" when the rest of the world has moved on.

If they were genuinely interested in "health care reform", it could have happened at any time in recent years. They could have put together a truly bi-partisan bill that included Republican positions on tort reform, portability and opening up competition for insurance. But what they want is not health care reform. They want one-party, government-run health care built entirely around the ideological dogma of the far left. And that's why they're going to fail.

85% of Americans are covered, and they want to take it away and force everyone onto a single-payer system. There is no reality-based reason for it. It is pure socialist ideological dogma. It's insane, and utterly stupid.







Post#135 at 08-04-2009 11:03 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-04-2009, 11:03 PM #135
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think your gloating has the smell of a passed expiration date.

The problem is that Democrats lie about what they're going to do to get elected, and then think they can do whatever they want once they get power because the "little people" out there won't catch on. Unfortunately for them, it's not the 1930s anymore. People are informed, aware and empowered.

I think I posted here a few months ago that there were two issues that would destroy the Democrats' brief days of glory: health care and cap and trade. I was right. We are now essentially seeing a repeat of the first two years of the Clinton presidency. Republicans will sweep the few elections there are in November, and make significant gains in 2010. After that it will be a question of whether Obama adjusts as Clinton did, or lashes himself to the mast of the far left's sinking ship and becomes Jimmy Carter II.

Political discussions on the internet increasingly seem to be a fantasy word where the far left goes to suck its thumb, shut out reality and tell itself what it wants to hear. The reality is that the Democrats lied to get where they are, and now that they have to actually expose their intentions, they're feeling the heat. Not only because the American people do not want single-payer socialized health care, but because they know they were lied to about it. They thought there was just going to be a modest expansion of existing safety nets combined with cost cutting. They didn't realize the Democrats intended to destroy the private coverage that 85% of Americans already have. I seem to remember using the phrase "there will be hell to pay".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0

Oh my.
This is not a "dead cat bounce":

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...topic=100143.0

The youngest voters from 2004-2008

State 2004 Margin 2008 Margin Swing

The Mid-Atlantic

PA 60-39 Kerry 66-34 Obama D + 6
DE 54-45 Kerry 71-25 Obama D + 17
NY 72-25 Kerry 76-21 Obama D + 4
NJ 64-35 Kerry 67-32 Obama D + 3
MD 62-35 Kerry 70-26 Obama D + 8
DC 90-8 Kerry 95-5 Obama D + 5

New England

CT 70-29 Kerry 79-18 Obama D + 9
ME 50-48 Bush 67-30 Obama D + 19
NH 57-43 Kerry 61-37 Obama D + 4
VT 71-27 Kerry 81-18 Obama D + 10
MA 72-26 Kerry 78-20 Obama D + 6
RI 68-30 Kerry 68-25 Obama D + 0

The Midwest

OH 56-42 Kerry 61-38 Obama D + 5
IN 52-47 Bush 63-35 Obama D + 16
MO 51-48 Kerry 59-39 Obama D + 8
IA 53-46 Kerry 63-34 Obama D + 10
MI 55-43 Kerry 68-29 Obama D + 13
MN 57-41 Kerry 66-32 Obama D + 9
WI 57-41 Kerry 64-35 Obama D + 7
IL 64-35 Kerry 71-27 Obama D + 7

The Coastal South

VA 54-46 Kerry 63-34 Obama D + 9
NC 56-43 Kerry 74-26 Obama D + 18
SC 51-48 Bush 57-42 Obama D + 9
GA 52-47 Bush 51-48 McCain D + 1
FL 58-41 Kerry 61-37 Obama D + 3

The Deep and Inland South

AL 57-41 Bush 51-49 Obama D + 10
MS 63-37 Kerry 56-43 Obama R + 6
TN 53-46 Bush 59-40 Obama D + 13
KY 54-45 Bush 51-48 Obama D + 6
WV 52-48 Bush 50-50 Tie D + 2
AR 51-47 Bush 49-49 Tie D + 2
LA 53-45 Bush 49-48 McCain D + 4 (but won 18-24 by 53-45)
TX 59-41 Bush 54-45 Obama D + 13

The Plains States

KS 55-44 Bush 51-47 Obama D + 7
ND 68-32 Bush 51-47 Obama D + 19
SD 55-43 Bush 50-48 Obama D + 7
NE 60-38 Bush 54-43 Obama D + 16
OK 62-38 Bush 60-40 McCain D + 2

The Rockies and the Southwest

AZ 50-48 Bush 52-48 Obama D + 4
NV 56-42 Kerry 70-29 Obama D + 14
NM 50-49 Bush 77-21 Obama D + 27
CO 51-47 Kerry No result N/A
UT 77-18 Bush 62-33 McCain D + 15
WY 72-25 Bush 63-35 McCain D + 10
MT 52-43 Bush 61-37 Obama D + 18
ID 65-35 Bush 56-42 McCain D + 7

The West

CA 58-39 Kerry 76-23 Obama D + 18 (80% of 18-24 for Obama)
OR 62-37 Kerry No result N/A
WA 50-47 Kerry No result N/A
AK 59-37 Bush 61-37 Bush R + 2
HI 61-39 Kerry 82-18 Obama D + 21
With the possible exceptions of Colorado, Oregon, and Washington (no data), the young-adult vote was stronger for Obama than the vote for persons over 30. Such applies in states that Obama won by large margins, in close states, and those in which he lost by large margins alike.

In 2012 the chances for the Republican Party in winning "back" the White House get even bleaker. The relevant age group that voted so strongly in 2008 (essentially the Millennial Generation) for Barack Obama expands from 18-30 to 18-34. So if the Republicans field a candidate as attractive as John McCain in 2012, then they will have to fight to hold onto Texas. They will lose a couple of states (Missouri, Montana) that they barely won in 2008; the age-structure of the electorate will swing those states to Obama. States like Indiana and North Carolina that Obama barely won in 2008 won't be quite as close.

An illustration of the mathematics behind such a projection. I will use Virginia because the relevant mathematics is simple. Figure that voters generally range from 18 to 82, a 64-year spread, with the oldest voters in significant numbers aged 82 (a simplification because that is the typical age at which people quit voting and it allows for a gradual drop-off from about age 70).

If you figure that the voters in a state like Virginia (which voted about 53-46 for Obama) had young voters going 63-34 for Obama. So the youngest 16 years of voters (under 34) in Virginia voted 63-34 for Obama, then the rest of the electorate voted about 50-50 for Obama.

The math:

(1/4)x(63%) + (3/4) N = 53%

N =49.7%.

which means that voters over 34 voted about 50-50 for Obama (in view of third parties, 49.7% is enough to win in a squeaker).

Next time with nothing more than the appearance of new young voters and the disappearance of older voters to death or senility, (round up 49.7% to 50%)

(20/64) x 63% + (44/64) x 50% = 54.1%

With no other change than new voters supplanting older voters, such suggests that Obama will win Virginia about 54-44-2. That's roughly a 1.5% change in favor of Obama without doing much.

... That's the age effect alone. On Election Night in 2012, the State of Virginia isn't going to offer much suspense; Obama will likely win the state by a 10% margin. In 2008, Virginia still voted more for John McCain than the average, but more for Obama than any other state that did so, suggesting that Virginia was the so-called Victory Line of 2008. It will probably be such again in 2012. If you are a Republican, you have no satisfaction that some state that in the Blue Firewall (let's say Pennsylvania) is drifting away from Obama

Note the assumption that the GOP will field a candidate about as attractive as John McCain in 2012. That is a very cautious assumption.

********

Of course the Age Effect isn't the whole story. The personalities of politicians matter greatly, and so will the political culture of any Presidential candidate. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney will win very different groups of States should they run against Obama. For an incumbent President, much of his success or failure will hinge upon economic results and legislative achievements. Note well that for Obama a "good" economy is one that shows decisive improvement from the one that Dubya left behind. Note also that legislative success does not imply that he gets everything that he wants; no President has ever gotten everything that he wanted passed -- not even FDR.

Can Obama fail? Sure. He has plenty of time for catastrophic events to strike -- events that overwhelm his capacities as a leader. Can the Republicans come up with someone firmly conservative (to attract the funds from right-wing special interests) yet be able to display the common touch while showing more charisma than Obama? Time seems to be running out for that.

Obama is one of the most astute politicians that we have ever known. He remains a superb speaker. He had one of the most masterful of campaign apparatuses that America has ever known, and that will be revived in 2012 if necessary. Should hings get a bit rough, then he will make appeals that he never made in states that he couldn't win fast enough in 2008 (let's say, Texas).
Last edited by pbrower2a; 08-05-2009 at 08:39 AM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#136 at 08-05-2009 07:00 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
08-05-2009, 07:00 PM #136
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

If the Democrats put up real people with real stories about how easy it is to fall through the cracks (i.e. lost job, cancelled insurance occurring upon the dianosis of a costly disease) then they can win.
We are post Katrina. Too many people know that they are just one bad break away from destitution. It will be a fight. This is one of the key fights of domestic reform in this 4T.
The bullyboy type tatics of the last few days will continue. One side knows that it has lost the battle of ideas. All they have left is brute force.

Welcome to the 4T.







Post#137 at 08-05-2009 07:27 PM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
08-05-2009, 07:27 PM #137
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Yeah.

I think the biggest problem the left has is that they don't just lie to others, they lie to themselves. They will never admit to themselves the simple fact that the American people do not want their policy. It's always the Republicans (with their filibuster-less minority), or evil corporate money, or some other nefarious plot that's thwarting them.

The ideas the left touts as "progressive" and "modern" are almost 100 years old. They are stuck in the past of FDR and LBJ, still trying to "finish what they started" when the rest of the world has moved on.

If they were genuinely interested in "health care reform", it could have happened at any time in recent years. They could have put together a truly bi-partisan bill that included Republican positions on tort reform, portability and opening up competition for insurance. But what they want is not health care reform. They want one-party, government-run health care built entirely around the ideological dogma of the far left. And that's why they're going to fail.

85% of Americans are covered, and they want to take it away and force everyone onto a single-payer system. There is no reality-based reason for it. It is pure socialist ideological dogma. It's insane, and utterly stupid.
Agree. Apparently the liberals do not understand that mob rule may be concerned citizens who's voices are not being heard. But then again, we are not Community Organizers.
Last edited by wtrg8; 08-05-2009 at 07:32 PM.







Post#138 at 08-05-2009 08:40 PM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
08-05-2009, 08:40 PM #138
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Echo View Post
It was supposed to be an issue on providing HC for those who couldn't afford it. Somewhere along the line it became supposedly a battle for who will control everyone's HC in general. The debate has been so twisted that I'm afraid that those who can't afford it will be villified. Thus even the emergency room, free clinics, and catastophic stablization care that's been available (by law) for the poor will be yanked out by the mob shouting, get out of my pocket bum!
No disagreement there. Public Option in the House and more Competitive base in the Senate.

Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Echo View Post
One simple way of diffusing the "Obama is going to destroy private HC and take mine away" argument is to limit this public option to those who need it.
It has not taken that approach in the House version. I just hope they link up the newer version soon to dispel these valid arguments of losing private health care insurance and how the coverage will be paid for in the public option.

Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Echo View Post
If you're lucky enough to have a decent private insurance plan then by all means keep it. But allow me like a more reasonable priced option please!
Agree completely.

The administration can bitch all they want about protesters but they need to outline what they want the final product to be. They have failed at that.







Post#139 at 08-05-2009 10:40 PM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
08-05-2009, 10:40 PM #139
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

not just about the 15%

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Yeah.
85% of Americans are covered, and they want to take it away and force everyone onto a single-payer system. There is no reality-based reason for it. It is pure socialist ideological dogma. It's insane, and utterly stupid.

I think you are missing the point, as many are! You say that 85% are covered... What percentage of those people have coverage that won't bankrupt them in the event that they get very sick? What percentage are confident the would be able to keep their insurance should they lose their job in this difficult economy? People rightly feel vulnerable with the current system.. They see family or friends unable to pay their medical bills.. They hear about people declaring bankruptcy who worked and had insurance throughout their entire lives. The hear about people who in good faith obtained insurance then lost it will very sick as a result of an omission of some minor medical condition they may have had many years ago that they had forgotten or had not even been informed of. The read their own policy and realize how vulnerable they are to having the same sorts of things happen to them.

People want security! They want to know their coverage will help them if they get sick. They want to know they could keep it if they lose their job. They want to know they won't have to fight over claims while in the hospital.

The democrats are proposing to create a plan that fixes these things, the republicans are offering no solution what so ever! They are trying to distract us into believing it is mainly about those who have no insurance at all who they claim are undeserving as they either don't work, don't prioritize insurance, etc etc. What they don't realize is that rhetoric won't work because many of those with insurance are one event away from catastrophe!







Post#140 at 08-05-2009 10:45 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
08-05-2009, 10:45 PM #140
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by wtrg8 View Post
Agree. Apparently the liberals do not understand that mob rule may be concerned citizens who's voices are not being heard. But then again, we are not Community Organizers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtTBk...layer_embedded

They lost the election. They lost on the Recovery Act, the budget and children's health care. They've lost the confidence of the American people after eight years of failed policies that ruined our economy and cost millions of jobs.

Now, desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs - just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November.

This mob activity is straight from the play book of high level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob.

Call the Republican party. Tell them you've had enough of the mob.
Or, should we wait for this?



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-care-bill.php

Dem Congressman's Office: His Life Has Been Threatened Over Health Care Bill
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#141 at 08-06-2009 02:13 AM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
08-06-2009, 02:13 AM #141
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

I am in no way excusing these dumb shits, so stop placing all conservatives in the same basket with the conservative extremists. Could say the same thing in 2001-2009 about Liberal extremists. I act in a rational way when I am getting rolled by a politician. By voting for the the other guy in the next election.







Post#142 at 08-06-2009 01:15 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-06-2009, 01:15 PM #142
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
85% of Americans are covered, and they want to take it away and force everyone onto a single-payer system. There is no reality-based reason for it. It is pure socialist ideological dogma. It's insane, and utterly stupid.
Untrue, though I know it won't stop you from repeating it.







Post#143 at 08-06-2009 01:16 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-06-2009, 01:16 PM #143
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by wtrg8 View Post
Agree. Apparently the liberals do not understand that mob rule may be concerned citizens who's voices are not being heard. But then again, we are not Community Organizers.
Oh, how clever.







Post#144 at 08-06-2009 01:16 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-06-2009, 01:16 PM #144
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by scotths View Post
I think you are missing the point, as many are! You say that 85% are covered... What percentage of those people have coverage that won't bankrupt them in the event that they get very sick? What percentage are confident the would be able to keep their insurance should they lose their job in this difficult economy? People rightly feel vulnerable with the current system.. They see family or friends unable to pay their medical bills.. They hear about people declaring bankruptcy who worked and had insurance throughout their entire lives. The hear about people who in good faith obtained insurance then lost it will very sick as a result of an omission of some minor medical condition they may have had many years ago that they had forgotten or had not even been informed of. The read their own policy and realize how vulnerable they are to having the same sorts of things happen to them.

People want security! They want to know their coverage will help them if they get sick. They want to know they could keep it if they lose their job. They want to know they won't have to fight over claims while in the hospital.

The democrats are proposing to create a plan that fixes these things, the republicans are offering no solution what so ever! They are trying to distract us into believing it is mainly about those who have no insurance at all who they claim are undeserving as they either don't work, don't prioritize insurance, etc etc. What they don't realize is that rhetoric won't work because many of those with insurance are one event away from catastrophe!
Someone who's speaking sense! Thank you!







Post#145 at 08-06-2009 09:12 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
08-06-2009, 09:12 PM #145
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

Split decision

There is definitely a split decision on this issue. So far it seems to be about 50-50, and it would have to get to at least 60-40 in favor, IMHO, in order for it to pass easily. Expect Obama to be faced with a lot more issues before his first term is up, or perhaps even before this year is up. There is a split decision here as well, and we are now at the end of his second 100 days, as his ratings have fallen a bit. Not everyone will agree with his way of doing things. However, if he continues to use his natural charismatic personality to full advantage it shouldn't take long before other people concur with his plans or at least take another look at his ideas. I believe health care as such a vital issue is in need of reform, and some form of the bill will pass, but Obama no doubt will not get all that he is asking for. Didn't know this until a year or so ago, but universal health care was something that FDR asked for in the New Deal, and he didn't get that. And it no doubt would have been easier at that time because the population was considerably less.







Post#146 at 08-06-2009 09:50 PM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
08-06-2009, 09:50 PM #146
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

healthcare...

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher View Post
There is definitely a split decision on this issue. So far it seems to be about 50-50, and it would have to get to at least 60-40 in favor, IMHO, in order for it to pass easily. Expect Obama to be faced with a lot more issues before his first term is up, or perhaps even before this year is up. There is a split decision here as well, and we are now at the end of his second 100 days, as his ratings have fallen a bit. Not everyone will agree with his way of doing things. However, if he continues to use his natural charismatic personality to full advantage it shouldn't take long before other people concur with his plans or at least take another look at his ideas. I believe health care as such a vital issue is in need of reform, and some form of the bill will pass, but Obama no doubt will not get all that he is asking for. Didn't know this until a year or so ago, but universal health care was something that FDR asked for in the New Deal, and he didn't get that. And it no doubt would have been easier at that time because the population was considerably less.
Why does it matter if the population was less? We already pay more of our health care bills with medicare and other government programs than we do with private insurance. (Not quite a majority of payments as some payments are made independently of insurance, but a plurality).

I'm not sure what to make of your assertion that Obama's charismatic personality is key in implementing his policies... I think his policies tend to stand on their own merit as good ideas.

Regarding FDR... Keep in mind that he had a southern dominated democratic party at the time. A significant part of the opposition to universal health care came from southern democrats who were concerned that it would require desegregating hospitals. The descendants of those folks are now making an awful lot of noise in opposition to Obama's plan.. However, note that those are now the core of the Republican party and thus lack influence.

This is a solvable problem. We have doctors, nurses, PA's etc and the ability to train new ones. We have patients. It is simply a matter of re-engineering the system so that people can receive care at a reasonable cost. Perhaps most significantly, this has been done in every first world country! This is an easy problem... The hard problems are yet to come and include climate change, peak oil, water and other resource depletion, and restructuring the entire economy such that people can lead prosperous and happy lives despite the above problems. This will require technical and social innovation and a likely structure to our society that has never been seen before. Healthcare is both trivial and essential in light of this. How can we expect to win the battles to come if we can't even take care of the health of our citizens?







Post#147 at 08-07-2009 12:44 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-07-2009, 12:44 AM #147
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher View Post
There is definitely a split decision on this issue. So far it seems to be about 50-50, and it would have to get to at least 60-40 in favor, IMHO, in order for it to pass easily. Expect Obama to be faced with a lot more issues before his first term is up, or perhaps even before this year is up. There is a split decision here as well, and we are now at the end of his second 100 days, as his ratings have fallen a bit. Not everyone will agree with his way of doing things. However, if he continues to use his natural charismatic personality to full advantage it shouldn't take long before other people concur with his plans or at least take another look at his ideas. I believe health care as such a vital issue is in need of reform, and some form of the bill will pass, but Obama no doubt will not get all that he is asking for. Didn't know this until a year or so ago, but universal health care was something that FDR asked for in the New Deal, and he didn't get that. And it no doubt would have been easier at that time because the population was considerably less.
The 60-40 margin is necessary for stopping a Senate filibuster.

Barack Obama will have difficulties in enacting any visionary legislation because most of the GOP remains mired in the 3T paradigm of economics and politics, the paradigm that holds that so long as the Right People own the wealth, grab the income, and wield the power then all is well. One must admit that "Tara", the plantation of Gone With the Wind was a delightful place so long as one was part of the ownership family. Much can be said of the top dogs of the pre-revolutionary era in Doctor Zhivago, too.

We are 4T because that 3T paradigm is no longer tenable. Because of the new process of obstruction -- the so-called "Astroturfing" that offers political theater as a substitute for popularity and the public interest -- the President will pay a political price at first for failing to go along with the GOP Right. Of course We the People fail should Obama fail. Failure will result in a healthcare system that does more to enrich corporate bureaucrats than to do medicine, and a system that will literally price people into the graveyard.

Any new system of healthcare funding is going to take new or increases in existing taxes to support it. We can no longer trust Big Business to cover all people through its largesse as perquisites of the job -- especially as Big Business hemorrhages jobs through offshoring and mass firings. More people are obliged to work for companies that can't offer any benefits whatsoever.

The likely tax is a VAT or a GST. In essence, the more that one participates in the American economy, the more that one will pay in the tax. It's a sales tax, really, but it is how other countries pay for national healthcare. As a tax it will hurt, and it will put cost-containment on the agenda. We can't rely upon healthcare as a fringe benefit for working for a large corporation.

One positive effect will be on our balance-of-payments. We will be able to export more because American consumers will be paying for healthcare, and we won't build it into the cost of doing business.

We fail badly if we don't get national healthcare. As it is our system literally kills people who must choose between necessary treatment and such things as food and rent.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#148 at 08-07-2009 10:19 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
08-07-2009, 10:19 AM #148
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

This sucker is going to past. Even without the Dogs in the House, the Dems have enough votes. In the Senate, they can pass it with a simple (and easy) majority through the reconciliation process, completely by-passing cloture/filibuster - and they can pass something much more progressive that the crap coming out of the Finance Committee; key amendments are already being circulated.

Its all about posturing at this point. The Repugs are going to have to hold together completely or the members of their caucus that are in districts trending Blue will have to peel off and thereby dissolve the partisan nature of the bill. Blue Dogs are really going to have to poll this at their district level to see what the trend is - Dems can afford to loss a number of the Dogs and keep their House majority but have much tighter unity without them (Progressive net-roots are going to hammer these guys next year).

When the venom settles down, I think this will be the general sense of the majority of folks -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080603854.html

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform

By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, August 7, 2009

As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy

There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won't be able to piggy-back on Medicare. So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business -- the Republican nightmare scenario -- is approximately zero.

By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.

First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.

Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.

The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy.

While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.

When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly.

Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it, according to the GOP's Dr. No. Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing.

Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.
From a Turnings perspective, that last two paragraphs says it all - we are at one of the 4T turning points. Either we move ahead toward a 1T culture of pragmatic problem-solving or we stay mired in 3T culture war crap. The same folks who took us into the 3T to a 4T crisis are the same folks that now want to keep us mired in their crap. Gotta luv em, hey?

If one has some belief in the S&H Generational Theory and the Turnings, one can sense the inevitability of the above author's last sentence. However, those infatuated with the 3T can keep us mired in our 4T for some time. The scenario of a negative reaction to Obama (Limbaugh's call for seeking failure) and a resurgence of drown-the-government idiocy and hypocrisy could return at either the 2012 or 2016 elections. Those that keep us mired can then make the damage they've already done look like just the down-payment on a new shiny sub-prime loan.
Last edited by playwrite; 08-07-2009 at 10:50 AM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#149 at 08-07-2009 10:40 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
08-07-2009, 10:40 AM #149
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

I love that article, PW. I'm going to print out a copy and carry it with me to counter those lying sacks of stale tea.







Post#150 at 08-07-2009 10:49 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
08-07-2009, 10:49 AM #150
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
I love that article, PW. I'm going to print out a copy and carry it with me to counter those lying sacks of stale tea.
Me too. I'm going to a town meeting in south NJ.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
-----------------------------------------