« Does the Obama Plan for Reforming Wall Street Measure Up? | Robert Reich's Blog | Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong »
Memo to the President: What You Must Do To Save Universal Health Care
Mr. President:
Momentum for universal health care is slowing dramatically on Capitol Hill. Moderates are worried, Republicans are digging in, and the medical-industrial complex is firing up its lobbying and propaganda machine.
But, as you know, the worst news came days ago when the Congressional Budget Office weighed in with awful projections about how much the leading healthcare plans would cost and how many Americans would still be left out in the cold. Yet these projections didn't include the savings that a public option would generate by negotiating lower drug prices, doctor fees, and hospital costs, and forcing private insurers to be more competitive. Projecting the future costs of universal health care without including the public option is like predicting the number of people who will get sunburns this summer if nobody is allowed to buy sun lotion. Of course the costs of universal health care will be huge if the most important way of controlling them is left out of the calculation.
If you want to save universal health care, you must do several things, and soon:
1. Go to the nation. You must build public support by forcefully making the case for universal health care everywhere around the country. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows that three out of four Americans want universal health care. But the vast majority don't know what's happening on the Hill, don't know how much money the medical-industrial lobbies are spending to defeat it, and have no idea how much demagoguery they're about to be exposed to. You must tell them. And don't be reluctant to take on those vested interests directly. Name names. They've decided to fight you. You must fight them.
2. Be LBJ. So far, Lyndon Johnson has been the only president to defeat American Medical Association and the rest of the medical-industrial complex. He got Medicare and Medicaid enacted despite their cries of "socialized medicine" because he knocked heads on the Hill. He told Congress exactly what he wanted, cajoled and threatened those who resisted, and counted noses every hour until he had the votes he needed. When you're not on the road, you need to be twisting congressional arms and drawing a line in the sand. Be tough.
3. Forget the Republicans. Forget bipartisanship. Universal health care can pass with 51 votes. You can get 51 votes if you give up on trying to persuade a handful of Republicans to cross over. Eight year ago George W. Bush passed his huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy, by wrapping it in an all-or-nothing reconciliation measure and daring Democrats to vote against it. You should do the same with health care.
4. Insist on a real public option. It's the lynchpin of universal health care. Don't accept Kent Conrad's ersatz public option masquerading as a "healthcare cooperative." Cooperatives won't have the authority, scale, or leverage to negotiate low prices and keep private insurers honest.
5. Demand that taxes be raised on the wealthy to ensure that all Americans get affordable health care. At the rate healthcare costs are rising, not even a real public option will hold down costs enough to make health care affordable to most American families in years to come. So you'll need to tax the wealthy. Don't back down on your original proposal to limit their deductions. And support a cap on how much employee-provided health care can be provided tax free. (Yes, you opposed this during your campaign. But you have no choice but to reverse yourself on this.) These are the only two big pots of money.
6. Put everything else on hold. As important as they are, your other agenda items -- financial reform, home mortgage mitigation, cap-and-trade legislation -- pale in significance relative to universal health care. By pushing everything at once, you take the public's mind off the biggest goal, diffuse your energies, blur your public message, and fuel the demagogues who say you're trying to take over the private sector.
You have to win this.
Your obedient servant, RBR
Momentum for universal health care is slowing dramatically on Capitol Hill. Moderates are worried, Republicans are digging in, and the medical-industrial complex is firing up its lobbying and propaganda machine.
But, as you know, the worst news came days ago when the Congressional Budget Office weighed in with awful projections about how much the leading healthcare plans would cost and how many Americans would still be left out in the cold. Yet these projections didn't include the savings that a public option would generate by negotiating lower drug prices, doctor fees, and hospital costs, and forcing private insurers to be more competitive. Projecting the future costs of universal health care without including the public option is like predicting the number of people who will get sunburns this summer if nobody is allowed to buy sun lotion. Of course the costs of universal health care will be huge if the most important way of controlling them is left out of the calculation.
If you want to save universal health care, you must do several things, and soon:
1. Go to the nation. You must build public support by forcefully making the case for universal health care everywhere around the country. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows that three out of four Americans want universal health care. But the vast majority don't know what's happening on the Hill, don't know how much money the medical-industrial lobbies are spending to defeat it, and have no idea how much demagoguery they're about to be exposed to. You must tell them. And don't be reluctant to take on those vested interests directly. Name names. They've decided to fight you. You must fight them.
2. Be LBJ. So far, Lyndon Johnson has been the only president to defeat American Medical Association and the rest of the medical-industrial complex. He got Medicare and Medicaid enacted despite their cries of "socialized medicine" because he knocked heads on the Hill. He told Congress exactly what he wanted, cajoled and threatened those who resisted, and counted noses every hour until he had the votes he needed. When you're not on the road, you need to be twisting congressional arms and drawing a line in the sand. Be tough.
3. Forget the Republicans. Forget bipartisanship. Universal health care can pass with 51 votes. You can get 51 votes if you give up on trying to persuade a handful of Republicans to cross over. Eight year ago George W. Bush passed his huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy, by wrapping it in an all-or-nothing reconciliation measure and daring Democrats to vote against it. You should do the same with health care.
4. Insist on a real public option. It's the lynchpin of universal health care. Don't accept Kent Conrad's ersatz public option masquerading as a "healthcare cooperative." Cooperatives won't have the authority, scale, or leverage to negotiate low prices and keep private insurers honest.
5. Demand that taxes be raised on the wealthy to ensure that all Americans get affordable health care. At the rate healthcare costs are rising, not even a real public option will hold down costs enough to make health care affordable to most American families in years to come. So you'll need to tax the wealthy. Don't back down on your original proposal to limit their deductions. And support a cap on how much employee-provided health care can be provided tax free. (Yes, you opposed this during your campaign. But you have no choice but to reverse yourself on this.) These are the only two big pots of money.
6. Put everything else on hold. As important as they are, your other agenda items -- financial reform, home mortgage mitigation, cap-and-trade legislation -- pale in significance relative to universal health care. By pushing everything at once, you take the public's mind off the biggest goal, diffuse your energies, blur your public message, and fuel the demagogues who say you're trying to take over the private sector.
You have to win this.
Your obedient servant, RBR
Advertisement
Dear RBR:
Thanks for the advice; I know your heart is in the right place. But seriously ---
Health care is sooo boring -- mine eyes glaze over every time one of those briefing books gets shoved in my hands. I've decided to leave the whole thing to Rahm.
Best regards,
Your President
June 19, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, if I get all passionate about this war and healthcare stuff I might start to feel accountable and look what happened to LBJ when that happened! Rahm wants a second term too.
June 19, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob,
The thing is, I see my job as to serve my owners. Big financial interests on Wall Street, insurance companies, defense contractors. All the stuff about change you can believe in was just a bunch of campaign bullshit.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm basically a traditional, pre-Reagan Republican, like most federal officials who call themselves Democrats.
Br,
BHO
June 20, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a silly meme, that Obama has "owners." It's also passing racist. Yes, speaking to him with a racist tilt will sure get through to the man!
Here's how it really works, as he's shown in his financial strategy: Obama recognizes that some of us are far smarter, far saner than others - and that that's a reasonably small proportion of the population. We need as much of that small proportion in management as possible. Although it is not in the majority even in management, still there's a better representation of it in management than, say, among the general population.
So you can't just wholesale fire all the management of a sector of the economy and replace it overnight by recruiting from the general population. Neither you nor I know how to run a Wall Street or Greenwich trading house; nor a hospital or medical clinic.
So Obama's an evolutionary, not a revolutionary. That will displease those who think there's some class of "owners" out there to whom the rest of us are "slaves." Too bad. That's a silly meme. We should be very worried about any of our leaders who buy into it. A few Republicans do, and fancy themselves with the "owners." Democrats should - and largely do - know better. You should.
Small deflections in the course of large institutions accomplish compound change over the course of years. If a ship hits the rocks, it doesn't mean you abandon ships altogether, but that you'd better learn to navigate them better. That's where we are with health care - and the overall economy. "Fire all the experienced captains and navigators" isn't a sane first step.
June 20, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The time has long passed for this sort of incrementalist tinkering. It will not work anymore. We need real change.
June 20, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bit naive on the influence of money, aren't we?
75% of the people want public healthcare . This OECD report says our government, and we the tax payers, are already paying for it (see graph, top of page 13):
(http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000B6A/$FILE/JT03259332.PDF)
What's more 50 million people are without insurance and roughly 20,000 people will needlessly die this year because of our insurance current insurance scheme. -Thats six times as many people who died on 9/11-.
It is not to hard to argue that the current system is mass theft and mass murder performed for the sake of wellfare for billionaires.
Can we have public healthcare? Yes we can. Unless, of course, the billionaires that funded Obama's campaign are against it. Then, its "No, We Can't."
June 21, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wyt's tragedy is that He/She/It was born 700 years too late. Sounds like a natural born Vassal to me, one of natures Serfs.
June 21, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh, Obama's actually smart. I think you are thinking about the guy before him, you know that Bush guy.
June 20, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can President Obama "go to the American Public" when he's already made himself overexposed on TV? Killing flies... White House Cribs w/ Brian Williams. He's losing his potency, and I've lost my hope on Health Care. Sadly... Even you said On Moyers last week "We can't get there from here" re: Universal Health Care. If the oligarchs can't give up a little bit of compensation to fix the whole system, then we're doomed to suffer through half-measures. Our civic leaders and upper class are absent.
""... At every given moment where this country has had a choice - its governments, institutions, corporations, its social framework - to exalt the value of individuals over the value of the shared price, we have chosen raw unencumbered capitalism. Capitalism has become our god. ..... Capitalism has to be attended to. And that has to be a conscious calculation on the part of society, if that is going to succeed... At some point, either more of us are going to find our conscience or we're not."" --DAVID SIMON
Obama hasn't worked toward that conscious calculation on Health Care, and if he can't do it now, we're going to have to wait another 16 years. [Sorry for being pessimistic...]
June 19, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - Legalize pot.
June 19, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, I knew I liked you.
June 19, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
:) I don't touch the stuff these days, but we shouldn't lock up non-violent drug offenders anymore. I'm so over it after watching The Wire... And I'm psyched the argument is gaining traction.
Anyway, I've been a huge fan of you, Chicken, since you said: "I can haz pitchfork now?" That line killed me... :D
June 19, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking of adding a pitchfork to my avatar. But will it make my beak look too big?
June 19, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever I wear a pitchfork it makes my butt look big.
June 20, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That too!!!?
Ack!
June 20, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Yeah, that too.
June 19, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
(cough) (Passes peace pipe)
June 19, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
RR - You're finally on to something. This issue needs a lot more passion and a lot fewer Senators with the souls (if not the skills) of accountants. You can't do it right without it costing a ton of money and if you aren't willing to risk that better not mess with it at all.
June 19, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just false. The U.S. health care system is 30-50% more expensive that the systems of countries that have national health insurance. And it delivers inferior care on virtually every statistical measure.
June 20, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great wonky point but it won't sell. Besides, it's going to cost plenty up front before the cost structure can be turned around.
June 20, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's also false. Overpriced for inferior results? Not a tough point to make. As for costs, just pay Medicare rates.
June 21, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. What the man said.
June 19, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the President needs to come to grips with is that his entire approach is not only faulty, but desinted to lose. He must switch gears entirely and go on an all out assualt for Single Payer. It is the best, most efficient and affordable option and most beneficial to the American people and our health.
What the President needs to do is:
1: Yes, go to the people, but go to the people and admit that you were wrong about being able to keep the current rotten system in tact. The nation cannot afford to continue feeding the insurance and pharma parasites. We have to have a single payer plan and it must be passed this year.
2. Fight hard for it and attack those who keep calling you a socialist (they hate your guts and will never cooperate with you except when you want to do illegal things and kill and torture foreigners and cover it up). You have nothing to lose in actually fighting them. God knows you have given them ever chance.
3. If you lose fighting for single payer you are a hero and you have done what is right and can come back in 2010 when the weakling Democrats and the Republican swine have to face voters (a huge number of whom favor single payer). The numbers in support of your position will grow as you exhort the nation to make the big leap, do the right thing and save our health and our economy at the same time.
4. Don't stop fighting those who stand in the way of all progress. They are never going to get on your naive bipartisan bandwagon unless it means you completely give in to all their demands. Stand up. Lead! Fight for the people and for what is right!
June 19, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also.
June 19, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes.
June 19, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, oleeb...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
(202) 456-1111 [9-5pm, M-F]
June 19, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link Sox. I just copied and pasted Oleebs comment into the text box and sent it to them.
Great comment Oleeb. I am saving that one :)
June 20, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
June 20, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Above all else, work on being president, and leave the bipartisanship nonsense to the shrinks.
June 20, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, also.
June 20, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"6. Put everything else on hold. As important as they are, your other agenda items -- financial reform, home mortgage mitigation, cap-and-trade legislation -- pale in significance relative to universal health care."
I concur that they may be less urgent, but not less significant. In the long run, the threat of unmitigated climate change driven by anthropogenic carbon emissions probably dwarfs all the other issues combined in terms of its ultimate impact on human welfare. A U.S. failure to lead on this issue portends a potentially catastrophic disparity between what the international community is willing to do and what is truly needed.
Even so, I support your appeal to the President to pursue health care reform with energy and passion. The only reason for bringing climate change into the discussion is that Waxman- will require 60 votes (including at least a few Republican votes) to pass, and so the President can't afford to show too much disrespect for Republican views on health care reform, even if his program would only require 51 votes.
Proceeding without significant Republican support on health care may ultimately be necessary, but before he does that, it will important in terms of public perception for Obama to show that he has gone the extra mile in search of bipartisanship. That doesn't mean a willingness to compromise essential principles, but it does require a perceived willingness to listen to the other side.
June 19, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction - Waxman-Markey
June 19, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. We elect a president to act as president, which means to get things done. We don't care if every single measure passes with zero repub votes, as long as they pass.
While we are at it, the president gets only a limited number of hours of prime time TV to talk to us. Wasting a single second of that time talking about secondary stuff should stop. No one can work effectively on a dozen things at once. That is why the word "prioritizing" was invented.
As far as the insurance/pharmaceutical industries owned senators are concerned - grab their balls and squeeze. If that doesn't work, squeeze harder.
June 20, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats fetishize "bipartisan support" while Republicans laugh at it.
June 20, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because Democratic elected officials are basically cowards who don't have any convictions they are willing to stand and fight for. If nothing else, that has become crystal clear in the past 10 years. The Republicans laugh it is true, but they laugh at the pusilanimous Democrats vascilating and cowering despite holding all the power in Congress and the White House. The laughter is the laughter of derision and contempt and deservedly so unless and until the Democrats (including Obama) grow a pair.
June 20, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! This is perfect. I hope Obama gets the msg.
June 19, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when are we going to start buying Fire Department insurance? I sure am tired of these government bureaucrats having so much control over my ability to get my house doused with water. We need to get some good old-fashioned profit motive into the fire fighting industry. Will I get to choose my own firefighter?
June 19, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right you are!
And how about those socialist police departments huh?
June 19, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
wickning1: When it comes time to choose your fire coverage, make sure you pay the extra premiums for "15,000-15,000 Gallons", and "Cat in Tree" coverage. You don't want to learn the hard way...
June 19, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I recall reading that situation, private fire companies, once being the standard in New York City. It proved so calamitous that it was replaced w the per se present system of "universal fire coverage".
June 20, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
and i believe the private fire brigades paid themselves by looting anything of value from the structures they 'saved'.
June 20, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the Shock Doctrine, that's exactly the concept behind Friedman's free market ideology - turn all government provided services over to free enterprise. Of course, free enterprise isn't gonna provide the service for free - they're in the business to make money. And that's what all those retarded repu.glians don't understand about tax cuts. The more taxes are cut, the more you have to shell out of your pocket if you want, need or desire the service.
June 20, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans have no pride. For them, money is the only incentive to do a good job.
It doesn't occur to them that other people might do a good job out of a sense of pride or professionalism. That's why they believe that for-profit, private enterprise is always more efficient than non-profit, government programs.
June 20, 2009 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican party is about standing aside for the wealthy so they can become super wealthy. Nothing else matters to that party. If money can be made by slaughtering Americans in the street, count on the Repub party to get behind a law permitting that to be done, and a nice big tax cut for the wealthy so they won't have to give up any of what they make doing it.
June 20, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy, that is patently false! Republicans only want ot slaughter UN-Americans. Fortunately, until they are able to do that, they can slaughter Iraqis, although business is slowing dow n over there, so maybe Afghani's...well, that market is pretty weak too. There are not so many of those and the population is all spread out for inefficient return on investments. Maybe Iran...?
June 20, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the push for at least a halfway decent version of whatever public option means this week, can't they come up with a better talking point in response to the the accusation that it is a backdoor attempt to get single payer.
For an adminstration whose campaign was famous for being good at strategic jujitsu and the verbal pivot, both HHS Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have been giving the kneejerk, simplistic and wrong answer when asked if "public options" is just a trojan horse to get to "single payer."
Instead of just "No" and pointing out how upset the single payer supporters are (~60% back in December 2007, but never mind), a stronger rhetorical and negotiating pivot for the administration would be:
"Of course not single payer. Unless of course the private insurance companies fail us all, again!"
Put the onus where it belongs!
June 19, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like how you think Steve.
The left ALWAYS plays some form of defensive word game (usually given birth in some fascist focus group) that frames any movement left as crazy talk and movement right as good old common sense. The Prez needs to mess with this big time. Try sometime when you are accused of socializing healthcare to accuse them of profiteering on human suffering ..... oops... that is literally true. We could try accusing them of a slippery slope on the way to private police and fire/rescue. !!! Accuse Republicans and Blue Dogs of wanting to leave 50 million people "too poor" to pay for private police and fire to the "free market" of chaos and death. Why shouldn't police and fire be profitable private businesses? Let the Republicans explain, that way you have them making your healthcare argument for you.
But, but, but .....
June 20, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it is a backdoor attempt to introduce a singly payer system. That's well known. The problem with this is that public option should have been the compromise. Had Obama and his timid advisors come out strong for single payer, this would be the fall back for the forces of reaction. Instead, they gave away the store before negotiations even began and now have to fight to keep even a remnant of a "public option" alive. Typical of DC Democrats and their failure to have any courage---even the courage to fight for something as important as the people's health.
June 20, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually climate change matters more. Not that he's going to do anything about THAT either but it doesn't matter if half the planet is executed brutally if that's what it takes to pass the laws needed to avert human extinction.
June 19, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't say he is not going to do anything about climate change, because he has already taken significant steps. These include:
1. The appointment of Steve Chu as energy secretary.
2. The appointment of John Holdren as Science Advisor.
3. The appointment of Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator and Carol Browner as energy advisor.
4. The EPA endangerment finding on greenhouse gases that Obama can wield as an alternative to Congressional legislation, thereby enhancing the prospects for meaningful legislation.
5. New CAFE standards to reduce tailpipe carbon emissions.
6. Substantial stimulus money poured into alternative energy development.
7. Initiation of a major effort to upgrade the electricity grid - something that will be essential for distribution of wind, solar, and other alternative energy resources.
Congress rather than the President will ultimately shape legislative approaches. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade proposal is already under attack and will prove only a minimal step forward if it passes. I expect, however, that after pouring enormous effort into promoting his health care reform package, the President will at some point be very vigorous in promoting climate change mitigation, because the need for it is something he sincerely believes in.
June 20, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, the human race is too big to fail.
June 20, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
health care is doomed because obama has shown he is not willing to fight for anything.
the republicans dig in because they know he will back down.
the moderates will run for cover because obama appears weak and there is no price to pay for breaking with the party.
failure here will doom obama to a failed presidency as the republicans realize he can be pushed around and the dems need not alienate their corporate cash cows.
i hope everyone is waking up to the reality i have commented on before.
obama is only a status-quo guy.
actions, not words .
June 20, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
Obama has yet to show any understanding of what it would take to get meaningful legislation passed. His background in Illinois has hardly prepared him at all for learning how to deal with Republicans. He knows how to defend himself against the personal attacks, but we've yet to see him stand up for any position that is remotely controversial.
June 20, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Reich,
I concur wholeheartedly with your assessment of the mob's mood and your appeal to the president. This apparently is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to restructure a badly dysfunctional health care system. I've been alive nearly 50 years and I don't expect to see such a window of opportunity again. Your blog entry is spot on.
June 20, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it time for another post from Flower-child telling us all how Obama is ready to do his gthing (sign a bill if it comes to him) and how we are all busting our asses on this and why doesn't Reich get busy himself. Then we can get a few "you go girl" and "word". I Love trenchant political discussions.
June 20, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a snotty, holier-than-thou, and useless comment.
June 20, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might have been a bit harsh. I am pretty tired of hearing everyone blamed from Pelosi, Reid, to yes Reich (who has campaigned relentlessly to get a half-decent health program passed) by Flower-child and others who excuse Obama for being essentially a no-show in this and most of the other crucial policies being decided now...like Af-Pak, bank bailout, don't ask don't tell, very little has changed in Iraq, on accountability for torture, on even a truth commission on torture. Now I know you are itching to get out one of your clever "go support McCain if you are so unhappy with Obama" retorts that you have brandished so effectively and surely we all understand that such retorts are not "snotty, holier-than-thou, and useless" nor dismissive. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagre.
June 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut & paste such a comment from me, please.
June 20, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 19, 2009,7:41PM:
"Yeah, too bad it's not McCain/Palin. They would make you so much happier." CVilleDem
Of course, no one could say that that is snotty or useless or holier than thou...not if YOU say it.
Look I am a little amused you get so hot and bothered by behavior you patented yourself. But I am going to let you have the last word here...it serves no useful purpose to continue this.
I think it might be more useful if you addressed what was my original poorly expressed thought. In my opinion Obama has been the invisible man in this battle. He was, I am told by friends who defend Obama, saving his political capital in the other issues in order to get a genuine health reform bill. This seems to be totally wrong. I remain upset that the target of fire by flower child, applauded by her fans, is Robert Reich (she did post repeatedly on this) who seems to me to be genuinely fighting, while giving a pass to Obama (because if I remember correctly
Obama is doing his part willing to sign a good bill if it comes to him. My God!!). One has to contort all reason, to come to that conclusion.
June 20, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone please send your version of this message to all three of your representatives in Congress NOW, or forever hold your peace.
June 20, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Done. and cosigned.
June 20, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
One word: FIGHT!
June 20, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
lots of good comments here.
IMO, Obama doesn't feel as strongly as Americans do about an unadulterated public option or single payer. Remember, he was going to put Daschle in the HHS spot.
Actually, I'm not sure Obama feels as strongly as most Democratic Americans do about any policy.
Most Americans don't want an endless and ever expanding war in the middle east. Yet that's precisely what is happening now.
Most Americans want full disclosure and accountability for war crimes. That is not what is happening.
Obama has opportunities to take a stand. And while it's true he can't do it alone--he needs a party with a backbone, he may not be leading by example on that. I don't know. I keep giving him opportunities and time. I really do wish one of these days he'd make a speech on one policy, health care, energy, transparency, DODT, you name it, and say what he said in his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination last summer:
"ENOUGH!"
To the bank lobby.
To the health insurance lobby.
To the defense lobby.
To the oil and gas lobby.
Pick one.
He's better than McCain would have been. But that's not enough.
June 20, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate when people, either the left of the right say "most Americans" when they mean themseleves. Some of your points were actually correct, others.......not so much.
June 20, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
you know, you're right about that. Thanks for pointing it out.
June 20, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check the polls; tpmgary is absolutely right.
I've been repeating this, it's been all over the news and at TPM: 76% of Americans support a public option if not more (single-payer). A commenter repeats it above (3 out of 4 support a public option).
Obama's speech today was about credit card reform (a good thing but a distraction right now as HC plans become cemented), while McConnell replied with a blistering criticism of the public option. Our HC is seemingly being decided by Baucus and Grassly, in consultation with insurance, AMA, big pharma, and in spite of the House insistence on a real public plan. Any President with his Party controlling congress and almost 80% of the public behind him or her would have little problem marshaling votes to pass this if that was their priority.
June 20, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are on target. I've never sensed any passion at all from Obama on healthcare. He's a cool guy all right but cool is not the emotional quality that sells major change. You can't do bipartisan on major change unless you have already made the sale to the public so their buy in is what motivates the other side to compromise.
Obama has never bothered to sell healthcare reform. He's the perfect DLC tool. They love little, wonky, nuanced, focused grouped policy tweaks micro-targeted to slivers of the electorate. That is not how you do major change.
June 20, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we don't have a public health care option in the next year I will have to conclude that our democracy has failed. We are no longer ruled by the will of the people who so clearly yearn for a public option. We are ruled by the billions spent on lobbying. The sole motivation for insurance companies is profit. Given that motivation, they will devote whatever is necessary to maintain their profits at the expense of our health. Please Please Please people be aware of the truth in this, and urge your representatives to support a public option.
June 20, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, wrong on every account.
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/41_favor_public_sector_health_care_option_41_disagree
I'm pretty sure that 41% does not make most of the nation. Kinda funny how 43% of people in the US have either no federal income tax liability or a negative liability, and 41% want socialized medicine!
June 20, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are slippery things to interpret. In this particular poll 18% of the 1000 respondents 'were not sure' whether it "Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?". On this topic Rasmussen has reported results that at least on the surface appear to be biased in that they consistently report results that are "consistently and predictably different" than other leading polls, in this particular case regarding a lower than normal approval rating regarding BHO. This is what's referred to as house effects There are just as many or more polls showing the opposite is true for what it's worth.
June 20, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point still stands: If there's disagreement with polling numbers, then it's obvious that there's not a majority consensus.
June 20, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it doesn't mean that at all.
June 20, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I forgot that logic and reason aren't allowed in liberal think tanks.
June 20, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your logic is deficient.
June 20, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
All working Americans pay tax. They pay FICA tax, at the very least. Which keeps on going up because taxes for the rich and corporations keep going down.
The rich pay a lower percentage of their income to FICA, because they pay nothing on wages above 100K.
The GAO found that 2/3rds of American corporations paid zero in taxes over the course of the last decade. Most foreign corps in America has zero in tax liabilities as well.
90% of American corporations pay 5% or less, according to the GAO.
The wealthy in America have one of the lowest tax burdens in the world.
Those are the facts.
Read Bruce Barlett, a conservative economist, for a pretty good perspective:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/16/tax-tea-party-opinions-columnists-protest.html
June 20, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a moron. The top 5% of income earners pay more than 60% of the nation's tax bill. The top 50% pay 99.7% of the nation's tax bill. Want proof?
irs.gov
Wow, that was amazingly easy.
June 20, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're ignorant beyond measure, Mr Galt. You've shown that to everyone here with your posts. Each time you post, you make that more and more clear.
The wealthy pay less in taxes than their share of the wealth pie. They own more of that pie as a percentage than they give back in taxes. They need to pay far more. They used to. I provided you links that prove how low their tax burden really is compared with the rest of the world, and with our own recent past.
The GAO showed how MOST corporations skate on their taxes. MOST corporations pay zero. 90% of them pay 5% or less. They used to pay far more, and when taxes were higher, our economy thrived. It did better. From 1947 - 1973, we had our longest period of economic expansion, the top rate was never under 70%. It was 91% for most of that time. And wages went up for the middle class. Since that time, wages have stagnated or declined for the middle class. As taxes have been cut for the rich, wages for the middle have declined, our national debt has skyrocketed, along with corporate profits and CEO salaries.
Our productivity keeps going up, year after year, profits for corporations keep going up (until 2008), salaries and perks keep going up for corporate officers, while wages stagnate or decline for everyone else.
You've been brainwashed, Galt Jr. If you aren't one of the rich, why on earth are you defending them?
If you aren't one of the rich, then you're even more ignorant than I thought for defending them. But that's the wingnut way. Being congenitally stupid about the economy, taxes, health care and just about every issue under the sun. You idiots consistently stick up for rapacious corporations, rapacious rich folks, polluters, religious zealots, warmongers, anti-science neanderthals and the like.
You don't have anything to offer. You have nothing. No facts or evidence to support your bat-shit crazy ideas or ideology. No logical or rational stances on the issues. Why do you even bother to get out from under your rocks? You KNOW you can't compete in the market place of ideas. You KNOW we progressives are a thousand times smarter than you can ever hope to be.
Why do you come out from under your rocks? Do you ENJOY embarrassing yourselves.
June 21, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to summarize your argument for the sake of saving my valuable time:
> I can't stand that I'm not smart enough to make money like those wealthy bastards. If only I could make the government give me their money!
They worked for it. The tax burden should be equally distributed, not arbitrarily set to diminish wealth. After all, those wealthy bastards are more than likely providing your job. Nevermind, you're probably on welfare thinking like you do.
> If you aren't one of the rich, then you're even more ignorant than I thought for defending them.
I will always be willing to defend against tyranny.
> You don't have anything to offer. You have nothing. No facts or evidence to support your bat-shit crazy ideas or ideology.
My facts come from a really biased website! IRS.gov
> You KNOW you can't compete in the market place of ideas.
I know, excuse me, KNOW that you've offered no evidence to the contrary, only completely meaningless opinions based off of your hatred for anyone that is smarter and/or wealthier than you are.
Show me one example where the government taxing me to provide others with healthcare promotes liberty and private property. You can't, because it doesn't. Your arguments have been defeated, and all you have left to offer are half-witted insults.
June 21, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
CMN,
Thanks for confirming my earlier opinion. Do you wingnuts gather in one room and pass around the same brain? You all sound alike. And you certainly don't have any independent thoughts beyond your wingnut bubble. Doesn't that embarrass you to use the same narrow, illogical, incredibly limited set of ideas all the time?
You, just like all Galt Juniors, make this bizarre non-sequitur argument, that because we progressives want a fairer, smarter, more efficient and less costly system, that means we're jealous of rich people.
Huh?
You make this bizarre assumption that because we want to help the poor, and are sick and tired of rich people stacking the deck in their own favor, that must mean WE need help, too. Or that we're jealous?
Huh?
Your synapses aren't firing, buddy.
On issue after issue, we're fighting for a healthier, safer, more peaceful and fairer world, and the best wingnuts can come up with is that we just want the government to do everything for us.
You folks are completely bankrupt. Morally, mentally, philosophically.
Again, what planet do you come from? How did you learn to make such RIDICULOUS and illogical connections?
The present system was created by the wealthy to serve the wealthy. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. What part of that DON'T you understand? We progressives want to close that gap. And you think that's because we're jealous or want the government to do everything for us?
Sheeesh, you're an idiot.
June 21, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
> You all sound alike. And you certainly don't have any independent thoughts beyond your wingnut bubble. Doesn't that embarrass you to use the same narrow, illogical, incredibly limited set of ideas all the time?
It is never embarrassing to be right.
> that because we progressives want a fairer, smarter, more efficient and less costly system, that means we're jealous of rich people.
If it costs me life and property, and I gain no benefit from sacrificing said life and property, then no, I do not want any part of it.
> nd the best wingnuts can come up with is that we just want the government to do everything for us.
You have submitted no evidence to the contrary.
> The present system was created by the wealthy to serve the wealthy.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers set up the constitution as perfectly as a man could. Only through amendments and the Supreme Court making shit up have we come to the dilemmas we face today.
> The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. What part of that DON'T you understand? We progressives want to close that gap.
As I've said many of times before, who cares? Your "closing" of that gap ENSLAVES people. Slavery is evil, no matter how you look at it.
June 21, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In short, you're in favor of the system CREATING AND PROMOTING that increasing, escalating gap, but you're against the idea that that same system should work to close it.
Using your own logic of "enslavement", the current system promotes the "enslavement" of the working poor and the middle. You are fine with that. You're just against that same system reversing course to close that gap IT HELPED TO CREATE.
Interesting.
Obviously, you side with the rich and against the poor and the middle. You side with an establishment that keeps the poor poor and the middle stagnant. You don't want anything to get in the way of that runaway INCREASE in the gap between the rich and the poor, or the rich and the middle. You think it's perfect acceptable for the government to INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE RICH, but you don't want it to intervene on behalf of the poor or the middle.
Thanks for clearing that up.
June 21, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
> Using your own logic of "enslavement", the current system promotes the "enslavement" of the working poor and the middle.
Nobody is forcing them to give up their money so that it can be redistributed.
> Obviously, you side with the rich and against the poor and the middle.
Same class warfare argument. Still invalid.
> You side with an establishment that keeps the poor poor and the middle stagnant.
Apathy keeps the poor poor and the middle stagnant. I'd also now like to interject the argument that nobody in America is poor; we all have our primary needs taken care of. The only reason that people consider theirselves poor is because they desire that which someone else has. It is not my job to supply everyone with everything they desire. If you want something that you desire, go out and earn it. Quit trying to get Government to give it to you from my wallet.
> You think it's perfect acceptable for the government to INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE RICH
I never said this. You Made This Shit Up.
June 21, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
CMN,
Again, falling back on your incredibly unoriginal and bogus fallacies.
That, supposedly, those of us who want to build a better society, do so because we want the government to hand us something (or everything).
Wrong. We want the government to advocate on behalf of the voiceless, those without power and resources. The rich don't need advocates. They're already rich and powerful. But the government all too often advocates for the already rich and powerful, and ignores everyone else.
Your second fallacy is even more absurd and offensive. That people are poor because of some kind of moral failing or lack of trying. And, that people are rich because they deserve it, are morally superior or work harder.
You have zero proof to support that. The stats are against you as well. Again, most Americans stay in the same economic strata they were born into. Most rich people were born to rich people. Most poor people were born into poor households.
Why do you think rich people "earned" their wealth when MOST of them inherited it or were blessed with tremendous advantages over everyone else?
Why do you fault the poor when MOST of them were given tremendous DISADVANTAGES to overcome? They had to work far, far harder to overcome them than the vast majority of rich people who remain wealthy or get wealthier.
It doesn't take hard work to turn hundreds of millions into billions. It doesn't take hard work to go from rich to richer.
It DOES take hard work to dig ditches, build homes, work in steel mills, work the lines, do masonry work and carpentry work, etc. etc. It does take hard work to overcome poverty all around you.
But you seem to admire JUST those country club types who might overcome such obstacles as having to wait an extra day for their yacht or their BMW to be fixed.
Oh, I feel sooooo sorry for them.
In short, and to end our dialogue, I find your views repellent, disgusting, incredibly ignorant, incredibly stupid and incredibly dangerous. Even though our power structure is closer to your far right outlook than my progressive views -- the power structure is center-right -- if they ever go further right into your camp, this country is finished. It's dead. It's lost its soul forever.
June 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
> In short, and to end our dialogue, I find your views repellent, disgusting, incredibly ignorant, incredibly stupid and incredibly dangerous. Even though our power structure is closer to your far right outlook than my progressive views -- the power structure is center-right -- if they ever go further right into your camp, this country is finished. It's dead. It's lost its soul forever.
This one paragraph sums it up - the only thing you want to progress towards is communism. While I believe all men are created equal, it is absurd to claim that all men are equal.
All you democrats have done is gone from enslaving the blacks to enslaving the rich. When will you learn that with as inherently evil as slavery is, it will never prevail?
> And, that people are rich because they deserve it, are morally superior or work harder.
Or smarter. Either way, intelligence determines how successful (or how successful you perceive yourself) in life. No amount of government spending will ever lift anyone out of poverty, because the reason those people are impoverished is from lack of ambition, willpower, or intelligence.
> Most rich people were born to rich people. Most poor people were born into poor households.
Amazing! Wealthy people instill values on their children that cause that child to go out and be somebody, and welfare mommy doesn't instill those values. Go figure.
> MOST of them inherited it or were blessed with tremendous advantages over everyone else?
Like intelligence.
> Why do you fault the poor when MOST of them were given tremendous DISADVANTAGES to overcome?
Like lack of intelligence.
> It doesn't take hard work to turn hundreds of millions into billions.
If this were true, there wouldn't be millionaires anymore, there'd only be billionaires. Why do lottery winners always wind up filing bankruptcy after winning the lotto? Oh yeah, let me say it again: Intelligence.
> It DOES take hard work to dig ditches, build homes, work in steel mills, work the lines, do masonry work and carpentry work, etc. etc.
Physical labor may be physically hard, but anyone can do it. There aren't many ... get this ... intelligent people.
June 21, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow.
stupid.
June 23, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Facts are never stupid, they're simply facts.
June 23, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone read the new Harper's cover story "Barack Hoover Obama"? Well, that's exactly how I feel about the guy. I'm embarrassed that I not only canvassed for him, but actually gave the guy money. And honestly, I think my case is a fairly typical one for a late-20s progressive.
He could pass health care reform. 50+Biden. Hell, he could probably get Stark's bill through via reconciliation (or, as RR said, via LBJ-esque skull-thumping). But he won't. Because the guy is Establishment-to-the-bone, Wall Street to the core.
I know it's been said a million times, but...
Right now, the 'pragmatic' option, the 'moderate' option, even the most 'conservative' option (Burkean, that is), in almost every crisis, happens to be the most progressive option, the leftist option. But for Obama, pragmatism means 'watching the sink ship.' Unemployment could hit 15% and the guy would still refuse a WPA.
June 20, 2009 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too true.
June 20, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
NFW he does any of this. He's bought and paid for. So dissapointing. He isn't even saying the right things concerning healthcare. Usually he will say something decent before doing the opposite.
Political expediency personified. Remember FISA. I wonder if he remembers his mother and all of her worries? Did that even happen?
Hew could lead on this. He could educate.
Pussy.
June 20, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I had the Presidents ear I'd tell him NOT to listen to things like:
"IMO, Obama doesn't feel as strongly as Americans do about an unadulterated public option or single payer." - WHY? Because Americans don't have enough information about either to be passionate about it. All they know is that it's cheaper. You see, some people have a hard time believing that if you are not screaming expletives from the mountain tops then you just don't care.
OR:
"Obama has yet to show any understanding of what it would take to get meaningful legislation passed. His background in Illinois has hardly prepared him at all for learning how to deal with Republicans. He knows how to defend himself against the personal attacks, but we've yet to see him stand up for any position that is remotely controversial." - WHY? - I know you know straight bullshit when you see it so I don't need to explain this to you
AND THIS:
"health care is doomed because obama has shown he is not willing to fight for anything." -- HA! This one probably said that you were unelectable.
ALSO:
"For an adminstration whose campaign was famous for being good at strategic jujitsu and the verbal pivot, both HHS Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have been giving the kneejerk, simplistic and wrong answer when asked if "public options" is just a trojan horse to get to "single payer." - WHY? This one acknowledges your skills while at the same time calling you ineffective. I'm sure you get a lot of these.
ONE OF MY FAVORITES:
"Thank you! This is perfect. I hope Obama gets the msg." - yeah, because you haven't heard any advice whatsoever on how to get health care passed.
I'm sure I'll be called an Obama worshipper/kool-aid drinker - that doesn't offend me in the least and I don't give a shit. Unless you have credibility and influence like Robert Reich then the only thing you should be doing is contacting your rep and senators in Congress. Congress has until October to get this straight, it is June, and you can't get hysterical or panicky every time a set back occurs.
Who told you this was going to be easy? Don't claim to understand how Congress works and don't slam them for being beholden to the insurance industry WHILE at the same time expecting Obama to have them eating out of his hands. I can't believe some of the nasty and unfounded attacks on Obama's character that I see on this site. It is becoming nearly impossible to find mature, level headed critiques of the President like the one Mr. Reich provided. Fair minded words people, fair minded words.
June 20, 2009 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, VivaAmerica!, if only for reinforcing my sense of delayed gratification in a complex process. To paraphrase, all 'we' know is that it's cheaper, and 'we're hoping' that's enough to push it through.
I also feel a kind of logic of apathy from an overstimulated populous (incl. myself and friends), of traps by a desperate right wing (e.g. why aren't we getting involved in Iran?), and of strategy versus tactics from the Obama administration (thnx, John McMaverick). I fear my own apathy and will contact members of congress. We should all make our preference for a public option known, and we should make it clear that not supporting a public option will lead to no-support for the next election cycle.
June 20, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
the thing that allowed him to win the presidency is now his undoing, which i can't say i find surprising at all.
i had hoped i would be proven wrong about this and him but it doesn't look likely, damned it.
nothing good will ever be gained by bipartisanship when your own side is, for the most part, corrupt and the other side is even worse.
June 20, 2009 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think his post-partisanship promise has been trumpeted as more than it was, and for that it has been a sore spot for critics to poke. I have taken his promise as one of pragmatism over ideology, which spurred criticism at the time that he was an inexperienced executive who couldn't juggle.
However, I have an inclination towards what you say that his inability to take a strong stand on issues is due to the fact that he is trying to be post-partisan on issues that are clearly partisan issues. His framing is off. If he framed the issue as something Dems are strongly behind and something that moderate-Repubs can work with, then he'll make his way out of no-man's-land.
June 20, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely perfect. I agree with the article completely.
Obama is sharp as a tack, thinks steps ahead and has already warned the big medico companies that he anticipates a fight.
As a few here have pointed out... the dems have the votes to win this (generally speaking in congress) but it is our OWN PARTY that is selling out to the special interests.
We need to identify the money whores and pressure every one of them.
June 20, 2009 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heads up . . .
If it truly interests you . . .
You may find the links to the recently (yesterday) released House Discussion Draft here at my Cafe blog:
Health Care Bill: Initial House "Discussion Draft" . . .
Cheerios . . .
~OGD~
June 20, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
June 20, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surely someone must have by now developed an alternative economic forecast of the 'cost' of universal coverage from the CBO's flawed analysis? From my perspective, lack of universal coverage, resulting in a large pool of uninsured and individuals who lack access to primary care is a national security issue. In case of pandemic, this situation could prove catastrophic. Also, neglect of primary care due to lack of insurance might cost the economy $1,000 billion annually in lost productivity. Surely, some proponents of universal care have done a PRA (probabilistic risk assessment) costing the failure to enact universal health care? In trying to get my arms around the problems of health care in Amercia, I produced a discussion deck, located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/16487050/Theopolitics-of-Health-Care
June 20, 2009 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cut and pasted this and sent it along with a message to the WH e-mail system: "You need to get it done and stop worrying about whether everyone is your friend."
I also e-mailed my senators. I've been e-mailing the WH every day, and today I am going to get my fax together for the senators that "matter."
But we should also send messages to the house to dig in. The house bill is an incredibly worthwhile start. I read about 3/4 of it yesterday. The Senate is worthless. Have to smoke your individual senators out, especially those who would never dare vote against a final bill with a public option.
June 20, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama doesn't put single payer in the mix, we should go all Iranian on his ass, i.e., shut down the country until he listens to us. Americans can still protest, can't we?
June 20, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're an idiot. There's no such thing as single payer. There's only the wealthy supporting your lazy ass.
June 20, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are not particularly smart, BTW. Single Payer doesn't mean government paid for, it just means shared risk. There isn't support for people who can afford to pay premiums to get them free; just to make premiums the same across the board without penalty for having had the bad luck of being ill or injured. It means non-profit, non-advertising; in other words, non-wasting money that should be spent on health care instead of obscene salaries and stockholder's bennies.
You really shouldn't go around calling people idiots. It kind of reflects back on you, and the image is a perfect match.
June 20, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. How do you manage to find your house in your attempts to go home at night?
> BTW. Single Payer doesn't mean government paid for, it just means shared risk.
Let me lay this out to you:
I pay taxes.
Government pays healthcare premiums for other people.
I pay for my own insurance.
I'm deprived of my life and property because the government decided my money needed to pay for someone elses healthcare, because someone else is too lazy to work for a living and have a health insurance policy of their own.
Try arguing based off of facts rather than Shit You Made Up.
June 20, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your bitterness is pathetic. Sorry you are so miserable as well as uninformed.
June 20, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what it's called when you deprive a person of life and liberty for the counterparty's benefit?
Slavery.
June 20, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may give you some background on the 'intellect' you're trying to debate CVille. Pay particular attention to CMN's favorite blogs, books, and quotes.
June 20, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I not surprised? I hope CMN's self-paid health insurance included inpatient psych care.
June 20, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do you think the wealthy got their wealth caveman? You think God gave it to them or might it be that they owe their wealth to the little people who do all the work that makes wealthy people wealthy and keeps them that way? Sometimes I hope there is a vengeful God just so that people like you are judged harshly and then justly rewarded.
June 20, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is the problem with your logic. Wealthy people have earned their wealth. Poor people have obviously not earned their wealth. Why should the wealthy support the poor?
Your belief that you deserve to be just as wealthy as every other member of society is stupid. Hitler would've loved you as a member of the National Socialist Party, though.
June 20, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean wealthy people like out previous President? How did he "earn" his wealth? By being born well and that's hopw many of them "earn" their wealth. The others "earn" their wealth by exploiting the labor of others for their own personal benefit.
Say, maybe you should go back to the 16th century where you belong. That would make everyone here happier including you. You could see how that moron political philosophy plays out in real life there.
June 21, 2009 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saw this coming. Typical liberal class warfare argument: What I don't have you should give to me. Doesn't work, thanks for playing.
June 21, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one who made the claim that wealthy people EARNED their wealth, and poor people DESERVE being poor.
He called you on your idiocy. And you have no answer.
Typical.
It's not class warfare. It's calling you out on your stupidity.
Did you know that MOST rich people inherited their wealth? Those are the facts.
Most Americans stay within the same basic socio-economic strata they were born into.
The conservative MYTH of that rugged individualist who busts his butt to become "successful" is just that. A myth.
Yeah, it happens. It definitely happens. But more often than not, rich people were born to OTHER rich people.
Like Dubya. And HIS father.
And more often than not, poor people were born into poverty.
Lord, conservatives are sooooo ignorant about sooooooo many things.
June 21, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
> You're the one who made the claim that wealthy people EARNED their wealth, and poor people DESERVE being poor.
Yes. This is exactly right. Now you're starting to understand.
> He called you on your idiocy. And you have no answer.
The right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Man, where did I read that again?
> It's not class warfare. It's calling you out on your stupidity.
This is wrong. It's pitting one class against another to deprive one class of their life and property. It's slavery.
>
Did you know that MOST rich people inherited their wealth? Those are the facts.
Why do I care? Why are you so jealous of these people?
> Most Americans stay within the same basic socio-economic strata they were born into.
Yes, because most people only grow to be slightly more or equally as intelligent as their parents. That whole environmental + biological thing in Psychology.
> The conservative MYTH of that rugged individualist who busts his butt to become "successful" is just that. A myth.
It hasn't been proven wrong yet. In fact, wasn't the richest man in the world a college dropout with very little means? Didn't Berkshire Hathaway arise from a little kid who set up pinball machines to make money at 16?
> Yeah, it happens. It definitely happens. But more often than not, rich people were born to OTHER rich people.
As said before, of little relevance and uninteresting.
June 21, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't all your spin make you dizzy? I know your logic has been twisted so bad it resembles a pretzel. It is to the point that there is no need to address it on its lack of merits.
June 21, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't want to address it because you know how silly any vain attempt you make at an argument will be. It's impossible to win an argument based off of emotion when the opposing view is using facts, therefore, why should you even try?
June 22, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attempting to reason with you is like attempting to reason witha dog that suddenly and inexplicably acquired the power of speech without the power of reason and rationality. Woof! Woof!
June 22, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Health care reform was dead before it got out of the gate.
As Bill Maher so aptly put it: "Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.."
June 20, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just read a New York Times article today. In the second sentence, this is what I see:
"But they said they did not know how much it would cost and had not decided how to pay for it."
Enough. I saw a supplemental war spending bill get passed and not one person in the media uttered anything about cost. Why Obama and the Democrats insist on getting boxed into a corner is beyond me. The plan will be paid for in the form of benefits to the people: far fewer bankruptcies; far fewer passed-on costs (to those who have insurance); much more economic stability.
If Obama does not get this thing under control, we'll have to wait another 16 years to get health care. Democrats will lose the House (again, with a Democratic president) and they'll lose the senate in 2012. People WANT to see this get done. It has to get done. Please. I don't need single payer. I don't. But, I do think it's necessary to have a federal plan that has some seed money from the government to get it off the ground. Once it gets going, it should be self-sufficient. And, if it isn't, there are values in raising taxes and spreading benefits of universal health care across the spectrum.
June 20, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. How do you think we paid for the interstate highway system? You think that was revenue neutral in year one? It's called income tax. Back in the day when we did big important things like the interstate highway system we taxed people who had money. What a concept! So retro! So mid-century modern! Time to bring the idea back.
June 20, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, they always find the money for war and for Wall Street, it's only when actual, normal U.S. citizens need something that money becomes an issue. They are so beneath contempt and the fact that so many Dems are among those wringing their hands makes me ill. From now on the DSCC can kiss my ass, I am not contributing to anyone except individual progressive candidates.
June 20, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check this out starting 2 minutes in. Maher went after the party this week and he has them nailed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrCR8TndvYk
"We don't have a left and a right party anymore. We have a center-right party and a crazy party. ... What we need as an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who are not being served by the Democrats because bottom-line: Democrats are the New Republicans ..."
June 20, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm far more optimistic than most of those who have commented here. Although not yet a certainty, major health care reform is very likely to pass, and will expand coverage gradually over the coming decade to almost all Americans. The law won't be ideal (legislation never is), and it won't reduce costs as much as desirable, but it will be an historic accomplishment for this president - all the more remarkable because it will come in the first year of his presidency.
I expect a historic presidency for other reasons as well, including a sane energy policy that restores our standing in the international community as a nation recognizing the need to mitigate climate change. We are also seeing the end of American combat engagement in Iraq, an Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy that is going surprisingly well in the face of very daunting obstacles, and an approach to foreign relations that restores our stature in a world that had come to doubt or even despise us.
Finally, without disrespect, I would submit that condemnations from those in the liberal establishment who demand perpect compliance with their demands will serve President Obama in good stead as he attempts to rally public opinion in support of his priorities.
June 20, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, I admire your optimism. I really do. I will admit to not knowing precisely what progress Obama will make overall if he makes that progress in increments. In other words, if a 1000 page health care bill is signed, and it doesn't have a public option, it's possible he's taken a baby step forward.
But passing any comprehensive health care bill does not constitute a historic accomplishment in my book.
Passing one that really causes a sweeping overhaul of a broken system and makes a world of difference in people's lives constitutes a historic accomplishment.
June 20, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, what is with the Obama bash fest? We have to keep fighting, if he signs a bill without a public option, he is done for. End of story and so is any Dem who votes against a public option.
June 20, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Save" universal healthcare? The only thing Moderates are worried about is losing their freedom and liberty. This universal healthcare proposal is nothing more than an attempt to open the door for socialism in the US. While most of you here probably live in the bottom 43% that actually get money from the government instead of being taxed by the government, I don't think that I should be taxed to provide healthcare for people that either don't want it, can't provide it for theirselves, or don't need it.
This doesn't even bring up the fact that it'll cost 1.6 trillion and only insure 16 million americans, according to the CBO.
June 20, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, go back to your cave and enjoy the ambience.
June 20, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take a cave with liberty any day over being deprived of my life and property to provide someone else care they do not want, have not earned or deserve it.
June 20, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about how unbelievably stupid your statement is while you're driving on the roads, using the sewer system and having your life and property protected by your fellow citizens. Now go back and keep hunting for a dinosaur to kill and drag home. You should be ashamed to spout such nonsense, but obviously you're too shortsighted and selfish to realize how embarassingly backward your views are in the 21st century.
June 20, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do roads and sewage systems have to do with healthcare? I get a benefit from roads existing. I get a benefit from having a sewage system. I definitely get a benefit from paying the military to protect my life and property. I do not get a benefit from having me provide others with healthcare because they are too lazy to provide it for themselves.
June 20, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
All those "people" that you despise so much...why do you allow them on the roads? Should they be able to flush a toilet now and then? Do you think they should be lined up and shot because the military (that apparently only YOU are supporting with your taxes) is also protecting them?
You are so sadly lacking in basic information that you don't realize that millions of people pay taxes but cannot afford health care. And if you think the people that come to TPM are a bunch of non-tax-paying losers, you betray even more ignorance for all the world to see.
You said somewhere above that some people don't "deserve" health care. Who do you think "deserves" it?
June 20, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this exellent and informative post.I do agree with all the points.
All the corporations and those individuals who have too much can afford to spend millions to make the word socialism sound like something scary and evil and their scare mongering has worked until now.But it seems that the poorer the have nots are getting they are also slowly learning that we have many systems that are socialism and that they work. For instance the social security system, schools, libraries etc.
What seems to confuse people is how the universal healthcare is going be paid for. And then they get mad when they understand that the pay would come from payrol deductions. So they explode for the taxes going up.
America still has one of the lowest tax rate (especially for the rich). But if you add your helth insurance payments to your regular taxes your tax rate
explodes. And even worse if you do not have insuranse and need expensive treatment !!!I bet that the health care payroll deductions are much less than what you lucky who have insurane pay now
Instead of scare mongering we should try to explain how the health tax works and benefits everybody except the insurance and pharma.
One good exsample is social security . It works .
What would have happened if Bush had gotten his plans to work? And remember how Bush was just trying everything to get his hands on that money!
June 20, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink