Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

We've already had it this last summer, and they proved just how counterproductive they are to reforming health care, especially at the town hall meetings. We don't need another "food fight" with conservatives who are only trying to stop the process.

No, it isn't. But that's the reality of where things are at.

That's great news. The Baucus bill, while it has some good things in it, is a complete bonanza for the insurance companies. Essentially, we are just paying them off to play fair and nice with their customers (more corporate welfare). I noticed that all their lackies are touting it (like CPR), and that the insurance companies are getting behind it, but you have to figure that with Baucus. But Max could be just putting on a show for them, and in the end I suspect he might vote for a public option, maybe, once the vote is out of his committee and on the floor. I say this because historically he has been for a public option. I think that to play against the insurance companies, one has to be as sneaky as they are.

 

There are still moderate Republicans out there, and even the inclusion of a few of them would reduce both problems noticably. It's no cure or proof, but it would help.

 

Been there, done that...same results.

 

With regard to the first point, the past few months have pretty well ensured that any conservative uproar about anything will be taken with a grain of salt the size of Manhattan. Have you see the approval ratings for the GOP in Congress?

As what'shisface said, if Obama had a BLT, tomorrow the GOP would vote to ban bacon.

To the second point, sure. But the GOP is currently the part of crazy people. Excluding them is a lesser evil.

 

So, I just saw an add on TV backing the Bacucus bill. Are people seriously supporting this?

 

Usually 'people' don't buy ads. Lobbyists do.

 

Many politicians do, too. I don't know who funded it or anything, I was just asking if anyone knew the actual public opinion on it (if there is one)?

 

There are certainly moderate Republicans out there, but I don't think any of them are willing to vote for health care reform. Considering five different bills have come out of committees, and considering every single one of those committees consisted of about 40% Republican Congressmen/women, and considering absolutely ZERO of said Republicans voted for ANY of the Committee bills even though many of their proposed amendments were adopted, suggests that this is going to have to be a Democratic effort. The problem isn't with moderate Republicans - it's with moderate Republicans willing to vote for reform.

 

Or, in turn, if moderation expresses itself in votes, are these Republicans really moderate? Or doesn't the party's climate allow for such a stance?

 

I'd say it's the latter. Economic times are tight right now, and in a year, these Congressmen/women are going to be up for re-election. With unemployment near 10% (and expected to go higher after the Christmas season) there are major fund raising concerns for both parties in the re-election efforts. Many incumbents are going to rely on the Republican (or Democrat as the case may be) National Committee to foot the bill for a sizable chunk of their campaign costs.

However, it's not like the National Committees have unlimited financial resources either. When resources are limited, and you cannot fund everyone, you can bet that the first ones the RNC will cut out will be the ones who voted for health care reform - because they aren't "real" Republicans. And it goes without saying that a lot of these Republicans won't be given their normal campaign contributions from the health care companies either...

 

I took that last part to mean "moderate democrats," and you are absolutely right. As Ragusa commented, those "moderate" Democrats are really tied to the lobbyists, so it's not even an issue of voters, but special interests. Oylmpia Snowe is really in a hard place, because the insurance companies are really screwing the people in her state and the state of Maine is fighting back. So she's really in a bad place with her own party poltically on this issue.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925829,00.html

---------- Added 2 hours, 52 minutes and 2 seconds later... ----------

Well, I guess there will be at least one Republican. That means that more than likely the PO will be used as a trigger in the final bill, instead of a real option. I think that will be an option just about everyone can live with (for the moment), but I doubt they will ever use it, regardless of what the insurance companies do. Nevertheless, the handwriting is on the wall for them. Their time is gonna come.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33290417/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

 

I'm unconvinced her voting for the Baucus bill will get her in the room for reconciliation. Especially since the article you quote claims no one knew how she was going to vote until she announced it, which means she couldn't have made a deal for access.

Oh, the health insurance industry: I hope it collectively dies in a fire

 

Hangin's too good for them:

 

Hmm, so non-profit companies also deny coverage for insipid reasons. At least I suppose they can be easier to negotiate with.

 

That sounds like a textbook case of some low-level pencil pusher following a general rule (i.e. if you weigh X% more than average for your age and height, you are obese; a good rule for the vast majority of people) instead of thinking for 5 seconds.

 

Actually, those tables that they use to figure premiums and coverage are not put together by "low level pencil pushers" but by some of the most important people to the insurance companies. Those tables are to insurance companies, what a barrel of oil is to Exxon....

Low level employees at large corporations are not paid to "think" but to execute company policy. The CEO of the company in question said that the company policy was "flawed," and so it was being changed.

 

Die. In. A. Fire.

Oh, amusing fact: the insurance companies' memo of talking points regarding reform includes the gem that reform might, like, dismantle employer-based coverage. Apparently tying health insurance to employment is a good thing.

 

I saw an interesting piece regarding health care last night. As most are aware, the Republicans will be unable to filibuster any type of health care reform without the help of at least one Democrat. There are 40 Republicans in the Seante, and you would need 41 to maintain the filibuster. However, there has been talk that one or more Blue Dog Democrats who are not in favor of sweeping health care reform legislation may in fact side with the Republicans and not vote to end the filibuster.

The point made in the news program was that such notions should not be taken overly seriously. If the Blue Dogs actually voted with Republicans, that wouldn't just be unlikely - it would be unprecedented. Never in the history of American politics have you had a president and a filibuster-proof majority of the same party in the Senate be unable to get a major piece of their legislation through because some of the party members voted with the opposition party. This is true whether we're talking about Democrats or Republicans.

That's because doing so is considered political suicide - and self preservation is definitely an attribute nearly all politicians have in abundance. As I pointed out a bit earlier in this thread (but did not make this connection directly) is that donations to political parties are way down, with the economy no doubt a major cause. Every election, politicians from both parties depend heavily on the national committees (either the DNC or RNC) for help when they are in a tight race. A Senatorial candidate, who is only getting funds from the people of his state, cannot hope to put together a war chest like a presidential candidate. If the race is tight, they go to the national committee for the additional money.

It goes without saying that all of the Blue Dogs are from the so-called "purple" states. States that are neither strongly Democrat nor Republican. In presidential elections, these are the swing states. In state elections, these are the states where the incumbent has far less job security than the incumbent usually enjoys. Because of this, these are typically very close races, and the Blue Dogs will be going to the DNC for money.

However, the DNC is in the same financial fix as the candidates are themselves. Not only will candidates have a hard time raising enough money, but donations to the DNC are down as well. The DNC will have to make some tough choices next fall during the mid-term elections as to how to allocate limited resources, because there isn't going to be enough to go around.

In a situation where health care reform fails because of the Blue Dogs, whose names do you think are going to be at the top of the list to get their funding cut? Conversely, if you were on the fence, but cast a pivotal vote to end the filibuster to get the reform through, you can pretty much count on your name being moved to the bottom of that list.

It should come as no surprised to anyone, that Senators have pretty good jobs: A six-figure income, tons of perks, three to four months paid vacation time every year, a great pension plan, and an entire staff to help you get your work done that you don't have to pay for. And that's before you get to the power and prestige you get from holding such a position. It's a pretty sweet deal. Do you really think the Blue Dogs will risk gambling that away by opposing health care reform? I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Good points Aldeth. Some of these democrats are from red states though. The anti-Bush swing will come back the other way during the next few elections. Showing a more moderate stance and a willingness to work with both sides could reap benefits as well. I really think it comes down to the constituents -- so the answer is 'maybe.' But I wouldn't bet on it either.

 

This is where grassroots organizations are useful. For example, MoveOn has already started targeting those conservative Democrats who are bringing down the health care bill. While it's great that everyone worries about the general election, it's in the primaries, where just Democrats are voting, that these guys have to sweat it out. We all know that the Republicans have some very effective groups as well, as we saw this last summer.

Here's a different take on the conservative Democrats: