Many Dems, me included, intensely dislike the brand of politics Terry McAuliffe is seen as representing. Brian Moran, a little-known state rep from northern Virginia who was the 3rd Dem candidate in the primary, never got much traction. Deeds had no previous visibility in vote-rich northern Virginia, whereas McDonnell claimed northern Virginia roots.

Even in endorsing Deeds, the WashPost noted--3 times!--that he was a poor campaigner.

I think that was true on both an optics/stylistic level and on a campaign-content level. Watching ads from McDonnell and Bolling I could not tell whether they were Democrats or Republicans. They emphasized transportation, class-size cuts, increasing teacher salary, and, oh, by the way, cutting taxes.

But tax cuts was never the lead theme on the TV ads I saw in northern Virginia, where transportation is a huge problem. It is important to bear in mind, in response to those claiming last night's results as a rebuke to Obama, that the Republican candidates did not lead in their general public audience pitches with tax cuts or other historically dominant Republican themes. I never saw a TV ad graphic or audio mention of Obama.

Contrast this campaign with the campaign run by the last Republican gubernatorial victor, Jim Gilmore, whose big issue was eliminating the car tax, pre-Warner. He proved to be a terrible governor.

I kept hoping the Deeds campaign would hammer McDonnell for offering a bunch of proposals which, combined, didn't come close to passing the smell test. One thing a lot of Virginians who aren't especially partisan have appreciated about both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, our two preceding Democratic governors, is that they've done a good job with the state's finances while protecting spending priorities important to the voters.

Deeds had little effective to say or offer on these issues or any other issues of importance to the voters. He was not a good communicator. So we're stuck with McDonnell, who is telegenic and a pretty good campaigner who succeeded in persuading most of the swing voters he wasn't scary as some of his past actions suggest he was, and may still be.

If anyone has links to exit poll or other data bearing on any of the above, or Jonathan's, interpretations, I'd appreciate those being posted.

Would you be so kind as to provide a source or two to support those statements?

Yahoo's home page now links to Politico's election night summary. It quotes numerous spinners on both sides without citing a single piece of data--exit polls, pre-Election polls, statements by non-spinner voters, whatever--to support the opinions its authors express. I'd expect better from John Harris, one of the co-authors of the piece.

Forcing people who don't have money to pay up front for premiums and herding the most expensive to insure people into the public plan would mean such a bill would not be a net improvement on the status quo, much as it is hard to believe we could do even worse than the dreadful status quo.

If something like that passes, I believe it would blow up in the faces of those who voted for it, and possibly even some incumbents who voted against it, as there will be a major backlash at the polls.

For elected officials who are planning on voting for such a bill and think it will automatically ingratiate them among many they've been hearing from on public option if something that is called "public option" is in a final bill...well, I think we ought to expect our elected officials to think things through more than that, and not fool themselves into thinking the affected public won't ultimately judge by the results they experience.

If the President had "tipped his hand" by saying he would insist on a public option before Senate Finance reported out, isn't it possible this would have led to the effort dying in that Committee?

I think many at the site realize that a bill has to get voted out on majority vote from each of the Committees to which it gets referred, otherwise it dies. Senate Finance could have been the graveyard for health care reform. It's unclear that there was anything the President might have said that was going to persuade Max Baucus to include a public option in the bill his Committee was going to mark up.

If that indeed was the case, then the WH's leadership imperative was to cut that Committee enough slack that they would report out a bill, any bill really, so as to keep the effort from dying outright in that Committee. Once a bill was reported out of Senate Finance, options that were not in the cards for that Committee would be viable for the effort as a whole.

That said, I continue to share destor's concerns re whether a public option provision in what is being put together will be strong or robust enough to be effective.

One might criticize him for not trying to explain to the public the importance of allowing a majority vote on the bill itself, making the case that use of the filibuster to prevent a majority vote is an abuse of the filibuster. (How many are on record now as saying they would oppose a filibuster? My understanding is all the Republicans, with the exception only of Snowe, and only if the bill is one people like you and me would find a bad compromise, are on record as in support of one.) I would think at least some in the White House would have raised this as a possibility and I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for any conversations that may have taken place on that.

If the President knew he only needed 51 votes in the Senate intead of 60, then I think we'd have a very clear indication of what his priorities are on this issue.

I am with you not only on assessing the quality of the public option, if one ends up being enacted, but on how satisfactorily, if at all, the issue of affordability at the time of premium payment for people of modest means is addressed. A future tax credit doesn't cut it for many people now living paycheck-to-paycheck.

These are the two key issues I am focused on as a measure of whether something that gets enacted is a step forward or a step backwards, on balance-- fully recognizing there are a number of very positive steps that are in at least some of the bills reported out by the Committees.

The Jim Carroll reference is helpful to me in understanding your mindset. If you were to ask Jim if he would be pleased or displeased if the effect of his work is to open up psychological space for non-Catholics as well as Catholics to criticize particular Church practices or doctrines, without being knee-jerk accused of being "anti-Catholic", what do you believe his response would be? My guess is: pleased. He would see that as doing a good deed.

As a Jewish American who has written, very infrequently, but once prominently some years back, criticizing Israeli settlements policies and the American response, or relative non-response, to those policies, I can tell you that part of my hope and intent was to open up space for non-Jews at the site to voice criticisms of Israel without being accused of being "anti-Israel" or "anti-Semitic" on that account.

This was partly because there was at least one cafe regular at the time, Jewish and with initials dg, who hasn't commented here for a long time under the name he used back then, who I felt *was* far too quick to accuse people criticizing such policies as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel on that account. He did sometimes have worthwhile substantive points to make, I thought.

Members of a particular "in" group can facilitate freer, more open and candid exchanges of views when they seek to legitimize and make it emotionally safer for members of "out" groups to voice criticisms, hopefully respectfully offered.

That was the spirit in which I wrote. I believe Bernard very much shares that mindset, where he wants to help make it "safe" for non-Jews as well as Jews to discuss issues candidly and contribute their best thinking.

Personally, I don't give a damn whether someone thinks I'm a good or a bad Jew. There isn't anyone who can mau mau me into taking any political line by telling me if I don't adopt it, then I'm a "bad Jew."

I try to think, rather, in terms of trying to be a decent person, and a contributing and constructive citizen. All of us being products of our experiences, I'm sure some of what the religious school teachers thought they were teaching that I wasn't learning, and some of the atmospherics, seeped in in ways I'll probably never understand. That seems a given for anyone exposed to one or more religious traditions.

Re Dan K's point about feeling excluded, I can certainly understand that. I am wondering if there are any of us who have not felt ignored or unwelcome in certain conversations, not understanding references or feeling as though those doing the talking care if we do or not? I hope the invited contributors and denizens alike will not inadvertently communicate that the views of non-Jews on any of these matters are somehow unwelcome.

As for the expressed desire for greater diversity of topics, sure, I would welcome that as well as an improvement. Even understanding that the factors that lead invited contributors to stick around are many and complicated, hopefully there would be success in expanding the ranks of invited folks writing on matters other than the ones referred to in this thread, at least on a trial basis.

Some invited contributors over the years who I thought were really thoughtful and interesting didn't draw much response and left after awhile. William Fletcher was one--I see he has an interesting book out now on the labor movement. There was a FP commentator whose name now escapes me who was soft-spoken in tone but I thought had good insights and he's no longer here. Maggie Mahar, of course, I wish she would come back. A self-conscious effort to identify more women and minorities, including religious minorities (or pluralities or majorities!) with interesting things to say (not saying there haven't been such efforts--I wouldn't know, and I think Josh is sympathetic but also probably way over-extended) might yield some interesting results.

Do you think passing anything on health care is necessarily better than not passing something?

Do you believe it is relevant if whatever gets voted on would--on balance, obviously, since there are going to be pluses and minuses in anything that will come to a vote--be a step forward or a step backward?

Would you think a provision which ends up leaving many individuals and families of modest means having to come up with up-front costs for insurance premiums that are truly onerous for them, or that penalize them if they do not come up with that money, a step in the right direction?

These are not meant to be rhetorical--or hostile--questions. I am paying you the respect of taking what you are saying seriously.

However, that seems to me to beg the question of whether what is being discussed now in Congress will, when the disagreements are hashed out and a final bill is voted on, represent a step forward or a step back.

One issue in particular is a focus of the questions some of us, me included, have. That's the issue of the mandate to purchase insurance.

My understanding is that the current notion is to help people pay these costs with tax credits.

Well, ok, obviously better that than no help at all, but that doesn't help people at the time they have to pay.

I am asking, and am trying to find out, if there is a precedent for forward-funding the tax credits so people will have the money to pay the premiums at the time they get the bill for the premiums instead of paying the bill with...exactly what money they don't have to spare?, I wonder.

Having served as a Congressional committee staffer some time ago and been involved with the passage of major legislation, I am constantly aware of how easy it is for members of Congress and even a WH to simply not put on the lens of "what will this bill mean in very concrete terms for the family making $30,000 a year?".

The people these folks are meeting with day-to-day probably all have health insurance themselves. The government officials nor the advocates they're talking to may not, or may no longer, have any practical ability to imagine what it is like trying to live on a family income of $30,000 or $20,000 or $40,000 a year in this country today.

One of the enduring lessons of the service of elected officials, it seems to me, is how many of them, somewhere along the way, even though they probably at some times during their lives have struggled to make ends meet, seem to forget what life is like for people of ordinary and below-ordinary means.

Or else remembering doesn't seem to be quite at the forefront of their considerations when they vote and lobby internally with their colleagues.

They don't all forget. I think of David Obey, a US Representative from Wisconsin who I think truly does "get it" and who acts accordingly. He is a giant.

I could be convinced that the WH and Congress both really understand how this will affect millions and millions of people the legislation is supposedly intended to benefit, and have a strong and bottom-line policy response to that concern.

I'm not--not yet, anyway.

If in fact a bill that passes turns out not to resolve in a satisfactory way this issue of ability-to-pay-at-time-premium-bill-is-due for people below median income, I think some of us might well conclude that, on balance, even with all of the important improvements that may be in the offing, such legislation might be a step backward.

Do you think that would be an entirely unreasonable or wrongheaded conclusion?

Congress can revisit legislation at any time. If something passes and there are major, major problems with it, you can bet they will, regardless of whether there is or is not a trigger provision in the legislation calling on them to do that. They don't need "permission."

Congress can force itself to revisit legislation with a provision in an enacted law, and this is the case with many laws that authorize funding only for a specified number of years. Congress has to extend the current law as is or revise it in order for funding to be continued.

Congress can also pass a separate law repealing provisions which would have forced it to revisit the existing law, with or without a whole lot of discussion.

Not saying any of this will happen with this legislation and I certainly hope not. But there was a huge outcry over Medicare legislation passed some years back (90's or 80s; it can start to blur together a bit when you get to be my age) that led to some seniors paying more out of pocket. There was a big hue and cry and Congress simply repealed the law, if memory serves.

My biggest concern in this regard is if the out-of-pocket costs for below median income families are experienced as onerous, it is possible there could be such a backlash as to force Congress to make changes to whatever is initially adopted. Obviously not a prospect the Congressional leadership or the White House would welcome.

True or false?

If true, would that be enough to have the desired effects of the public option? (I guess what Roger is saying in his post is: "yes!" I'd like to get at least one other, independent point of view on that)

In particular, what would be the projected composition of the public option pool under Massa's 5% assertion--would it be heavily weighted towards individuals with very high health care costs or would it be more reflective of the general population in the risk pool composition and therefore costs?

Even if the tax credits are generous, I confess to still feeling extremely uneasy about mandating people making $25,000 to spend 15% or maybe more, all up front and out-of-pocket, of their income on purchasing insurance. Are there any alternatives?

Is there a precedent for a forward-funded tax credit, contingent on providing proof of having purchased the insurance on the individual's subsequent tax return, and subject to small after-the-fact adjustments where the difference between the tax credit amount and the premium payment amount vary up or down from the projections? Would such an approach overwhelm the IRS's ability to monitor and enforce properly?

If anyone has answers to these questions or suggestions on best places to get them, I'd be most appreciative.

Oh...and when you have something on your chest I for one hope you won't shut up. Regards,AD

AD