I now put the chances of a substantial health care bill passing at 75%, and the chances of the Democrats losing the house in 2010 at about 66%.
Replacing Ted Kennedy is major, of course, but the real game changer is that the CBO is willing to score health care savings on the grounds that the bill contains automatic spending cuts.
Conservatives are filled with rage and anguish. The spending cuts, they argue, mostly will not be done, which means that this bill is going to cost hundreds of billions more than its proponents claim. They are absolutely right: the savings cuts will not be made, and I doubt that many in the Democratic party leadership, or the liberal wonkosphere believe that they will.
But I'm not sure what good it does to protest this. That's the way the system works. The fact that the CBO has minimal discretion and uses roughly the same standards for every analysis is, despite its problems, a feature rather than a bug. We may not like the fact that the CBO scores what's in the law, rather than what is most likely to happen. But the alternative is what? An agency that can give the thumbs up or thumbs down according to how it feels about the legislators?
I assume that the CBO is going to score all these largely imaginary savings, and that this will make it very hard to keep the bill from passing, because legislators are, natch, more concerned about the appearance of fiscal rectitude than actual conservative budgeting. Conservatives can, and should, raise the reasons to believe that htis bill will cost more than its CBO score allows. But frankly, the public is probably going to accept the CBO numbers.
I think that ramming through the bill on a party line vote makes it very likely that the Democrats will lose the house in 2010; the American public doesn't like uniparty votes, especially on something this controversial. A lot of liberals have gotten angry at me for saying this, but it's not a normative statement; it's an observation. IF the Republicans had been willing to push forward on a controversial bill with no Democratic cover, we'd have private social security accounts right now. But they weren't, for a reason.
But if I were a Democrat, I'd take that bet. What's the point of electing Democrats if you can't get national health care passed? If Republicans were smart, they'd find a couple of Democratic senators from swing states and pound the Teddy Kennedy rule change until they forced one of them to sit out the cloture vote. But I'm not exactly holding my breath on a resurgence of Republican strategic brilliance.
No, I think that for those of us who were opposed to this bill, it's game--almost--over. This isn't exactly surprising; Democrats have a commanding lead in the house and the Senate, and now they have the presidency too. If public opinion on this thing craters again, I'll reassess. But for now it looks like it's time to start preparing for an ambitious health care reform, and all the dislocations, and the budget crisis that we now have even less ability to aver.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Then on to cap and trade -- a bullet in the other foot!
Megan -- are you assuming that the bill that passes is the one Baucus delivered?
Everything I read says that in the House and in the reconciliation committee, the bill will slowly but surely be dragged left, and with it, either increased taxes or an increased cost.
You're right, of course, (thank God). ONE of the five bills had to be the most conservative of them, so naturally it was going to be the Finance bill. But as it's merely a starting point, and as Republicans have made it clear they've no wish to be part of the process, then yes, the bill will be "dragged" left by the other participants.
Maybe someone like Snowe could make her support conditional on the bill including a provision that requires a 2/3rd vote to override the automatic spending cuts down the road?
Those always sound like good ideas, but there would still be nothing to stop a slim majority from altering the provision first, then overriding the cuts. Ultimately, there really is no way to create a stronger rule that applies to any individual bill than the normal rules. You could rely on public disapproval to keep members in line, but that wouldn't be enough to make me comfortable, particularly since the public could be easily convinced that their best interest involves keeping spending high.
Amazingly enough, the odds of a health care bill passing haven't changed since the summer.
And the odds of the dems losing the house will only increase if they DON'T pass health care. Because if they do pass it, the base will turn out for the democrats. And it won't if they don't.
So you're saying the Dems are screwed either way? Entirely possible. As each month passes, it seems less and less likely the economy will save them.
As each month passes, it seems less and less likely the economy will save them.
Especially since, you know, they're doing nothing whatsoever to try to improve the economy.
Massive tax increases in the middle of a recession will do nothing but hasten the depression.
Can't wait for 2010. It's going to be a bloodbath. I've never been this invigorated to turn out a passel of bums.
Who's raising taxes "in the middle of a recession?" In addition to the fact that we're probably no longer in recession, I'm not aware of any any significant tax increases that will go up between now and the midterms.
ROFLMAO, yeah, replace us with the same group that brought us bailouts, Bernie Madoff, surplus-to-deficit, unfunded war and eight years of declining wealth for everybody but the top 1 or 2%?
I don't think so.
No positive message equals no positive gains in the house. You just cannot count on negative feelings about the Democrats to glide all the Republican candidates into office. The Republicans have lost every major policy battle in this country for the last 80 years and George Bush's incompetence has exposed the conservative ideology for the bankrupt boondoggle that it is.
Mike Burns
http://www.disorderlyreport.com/
No, I'm saying that the odds of a health care bill passing were very good in the summer, and they are still very good.
Since it didn't pass in the summer, I'd agree with you.
It didn't pass in the summer because Pelosi couldn't secure the votes for passage.
And she will be unable to do so now, after the Autumn recess, because Democrats got a chance to see exactly what their constituents intend to do to them if they do pass this bill.
And I don't believe for a moment that Harry Reid has the stones to try to force the bill through the Senate on reconciliation terms. If he tries it, he'll be handed them by people who play the game a lot tougher than he ever thought about playing it.
The base will still come out. They have nowhere else to go. They didn't abandon the party after noticing that we are still in Iraq and in even deeper in Afghanistan.
Really?
With Barack Obama committing war crimes in Pakistan (a country we have not declared war against), the left is going to come out and vote for him?
With Barack Obama pushing Patriot Act spying, they're going to turn out for him.
With Barack Obama against gay marriage, they're going to vote for him.
With Barack Obama launching an economic broadside requiring young people to buy $13,000/year health insurance, you think they're going to turn out?
With Barack Obama doing renditions? His secret "no habeaus corpus" 3,000-person Guantanamo prison in Afghanistan?
Issuing signing statements with every bill he passes strengthening the "unitary executive."
Who do you think are among the 16% unemployed? Republicans?
Er, no, they're mostly Democrats, who are not going to turn out for him.
2010, if they force health care reform down the throats of America, will go down as the largest Democrat defeat in the history of the Republic.
yep -- the Dem base will still vote for him. For the same reason Dodger fans cheered Manny Ramierez when he came back from suspension.
Just like many, many Republicans voted for Bush in 2004. He might not have been perfect, or even good -- but he was better than the alternative.
The real question is what happens to two key constituencies that carried the Big O to victory in 2008: younger voters (sub 30 yrs old) and independents.
There wont be this history making vibe of racial reconciliation and hopey, changey wonderfulness around his campaign. I wonder how many idealistic 24 year olds in 2008 will turn into cynical 28 year olds in 2012 and stay home on voting day.
For independents -- there wont be the most unpopular president since Carter for Obama to run against.
"The" alternative.
They have two, you know. Police will not show up and escort them to the polls.
With Barack Obama committing war crimes in Pakistan (a country we have not declared war against), the left is going to come out and vote for him?
Not sure what you mean. Killing civilians? We have been doing that for eight years over there. Escalating the war in Afghanistan was a campaign promise, and yes-they voted for him.
With Barack Obama pushing Patriot Act spying, they're going to turn out for him.
They won't like it, but they will vote for him.
With Barack Obama doing renditions? His secret "no habeaus corpus" 3,000-person Guantanamo prison in Afghanistan?
Closing Guantanamo will be a major pr coup. They will be on his back about Bagram, but they will vote for him.
With Barack Obama against gay marriage, they're going to vote for him.
He has never been for gay marriage, so they already have voted for him on that point.
Who do you think are among the 16% unemployed? Republicans?
As a matter of fact, the recession has hit mostly white working class men, who are, by and large, Joe the Plumbers. So, yeah, they are Republicans.
Sorry. The left may not like a lot of things that are going on, but when the alternative is likely to be Mitt Romney-they will vote for him. Just like they voted for Bill Clinton, who was no darling of the left.
Actually, turnout issues will almost certainly be a challenge for Democrats in 2010. But that's to be expected. The party with the White House ordinarily loses seats in midterms. I think the question is how many seats they lose. I agree with Megan these losses are likely to be non-trivial; I'm just very skeptical they'll be sufficiently bad for the House majority to change parties (if the Dems pass healthcare) -- at least if the economy is is palpably recovering by then. We shall see.
They didn't come out in 1994. Labor, the AA vote, etc. all stayed home. That's why Democrats won. Democratic voters are more fickle than Republican voters. The most loyal will come out and vote, but they won't help get out the vote, volunteer, and raise money.
If a bill passes with a decent public option, there will be 1998 type activism from the democratic activists that helped Obama win the presidency.
If a Baucus-type bill passes, there will be much apathy on the left, and if no bill passes, forget it...
2008 activism, not 1998... my typo...
Jim:
Congrats!! You get what most people here willfully miss. Also, I just love how all these commenters think the Democrats will lose the House in '10. Do any of them have any idea how many seats they'll have to lose to make that happen? They'll have to lose even more than 1994. And 1994 was an aberration.
well -- the Dems enjoy a 79 seat majority. To lose that, 40 house seats have to switch in 2010.
Fun fact: there are 47 Dem reps from districts won by McCain -- it goes up to around 70+ if you look at districts won by either McCain or Bush in the last two Presidential elections.
There are 28 house Reps who represent districts won by Obama in the last election.
So -- there are really two degrees of "losing control". One is where the Dems lose outright control. It would take a large swing back to the right, but not totally out of probability. REspected election forecaster Charlie Cook now is predicting substantial Dem losses in the mid terms.
The other degree of control is where the vote advantage narrows down to 30 or so. At that point, remaining Dem blue dogs become the House swing votes that must be gained. So while Dems might control the House nominally -- the political tenor of the House would swing signficantly rightward.
Nobody every votes based on appreciation.
I'm going to be really interested to see if this leads to a spike in entrepreneurial activity.
I disagree. Anyone who cares about the fiscal side has already been permanently lost. Those concerned about government interfering in healthcare aren't swayed by this event at all. It's a non-event politically.
Good point, I’m not going to suddenly support adding another two trillion dollar entitlement program because it might be deficit neutral if someone else down the road can find some spending cuts on top of the new tax increases.
The fact that further cost-shifting from the public sector onto private patients in the form of higher premiums and lower take home pay doesn’t add to the federal deficit doesn’t negate the impact that both of these will have on my family’s budget.
That's simply not true. Andrew Sullivan -- a loud voice against deficits -- has been brutal (and correct!) in his criticism of Republicans on the deficit issue.
I myself am extremely concerned with "the fiscal side" and I haven't been "lost" at all to the Democrats. The big difference between Bush and Obama in this area is that the former inherited a surplus -- and presided over a country that had no need to engage in vast borrowing (I would have given him a pass in 2001 and 2002 as the country was battling a recession and dealing with a national security emergency). In other words, Bush's deficits were largely deficits of choice. But only the most hardened Ron Paulite would begrudge Obama his deficits right now.
Now, it is true that the longer term red ink looks worrisome. But I have little doubt the bond market will eventually force the country's hand, and taxes will be raised. And that's the thing of it -- and a factor conservatives tend to ignore: it's entirely possible to be a liberal who's concerned with the "fiscal side" by being someone who A) favors a robust level of government spending and B) the taxes to fund this spending in real time.
Ignore? That's what we hate/fear/resist: high spending, high taxes. We are fighting against such a socialist state.
The fact that Democratic Party politicians avoid admitting they want a socialist state doesn't mean we've forgotten the fact.
In fact, even though I'm sure I'm a racist to say this, it is just such dishonest methods that we hate the most: making "promises" to not raise taxes, but then using a pretext to increase spending so high that the Democratic Party politicians can "regretfully" be forced to raise taxes to avoid a deficit.
It is a dishonest, despicable method. That you are honest about your intent gives you points in my book, but that you think it is the bond market forcing higher taxes rather than the implicit Obama administration/Democratic Party plan all along is more than slightly naive.
It is clear to anyone who follows politics more than a little: Democrats cannot win elections by being honest about their intent. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but that window of opportunity is rapidly coming to an end for the Democratic Party.
Truer words have never been said.
And Republicans can?
Let's be honest. One could summarize every worthwhile piece of legislation that has ever passed with:
"This legislation is but a start. It will require hard work from many to make it succeed. It will take time to solve the problem. There will be some worthy people who are worse off under this legislation and some unworthy people who are better off. Yet we believe that in the end, this legislation will make the citizens and the country as a whole better off."
Now try to pass *anything* being that honest. The time is long past (if it ever existed) when you could acknowledge the costs of your policies without getting slaughtered by the media and the opposition.
There's no "socialist state" to fight against, Nathan. What you are fighting against is a vigorously capitalist state with a strong safety net. You might want to update your agitprop, because the public doesn't seem to be buyng it any more.
Obama didn't promise not to raise taxes. He made a campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class -- big difference. And if he ultimately has to break that pledge, I say good for him: I prefer to have a president (like George H.W. Bush) who puts the good of the country above the fear of giving his political opponents "gotcha" ammo.
No it's not. In the fall of 2007 nobody outside of Nouriel Roubini realized we were on the precipice of the most severe downturn since the 1930s, and nobody could possibly have anticipated the required expansion in the public sector's share of GDP (and the consequent, eventual need to raise taxes to curb deficit spending). You can accuse Obama of not having a crystal ball, but there's no valid "dishonesty" charge here.
Obama was crystal clear about the direction in which he wanted to take the country: on the domestic front national health care, carbon curbs, and increasing the progressivity of the tax code. On the foreign affairs front a more realistic, less trotskyite foreign policy and the replenishment of American soft power. What's really got your goat is that we're getting exactly what we were promised, a liberal Democratic administration.Jasper - "There's no "socialist state" to fight against, Nathan"
Where does %of GDP consumed by government have to be before you say "we're in a socalist state?"
with a strong safety net.
And price controls on medical care. And proposed taxes on industries which are supposed to be making too much money. (Often trumped up charges) etc.
Personally, I would rather go without my 'safety net' and just be able to keep my money and spend it how I'd like. Call that whatever euphamistic term you want.
No it's not. In the fall of 2007 nobody outside of Nouriel Roubini realized we were on the precipice of the most severe downturn since the 1930s, and nobody could possibly have anticipated the required expansion in the public sector's share of GDP
The point here is that Obamacare is not going to be deficit neutral. And over the long term, there's probably a limit to how much money as a percent of GDP we can raise through taxes.
Many wealthy people are also very mobile and flexible in how they hold their assets.
the required expansion in the public sector's share of GDP
/facepalm.
"Ignore? That's what we hate/fear/resist: high spending, high taxes. We are fighting against such a socialist state."
Are you aware of the correct definition of socialism? Based on the meaning of the term you are using Richard Nixon was twice the socialist Obama could ever be. And Dwight Eisenhower would be three times the socialist than Obama.
I can't wait for all of the new "non-tax taxes" that Obama lied about!
Conservatives are filled with rage and anguish? Oh, please. These are the same conservatives who voted for, or at the least didn't filibuster, Bush's tax cuts, his Medicare bill, his unpaid-for wars. They're the Dick Cheney conservatives who decided that deficits don't matter.
Let's agree on a rule: Democrats don't have to be more concerned about deficits than Republicans have proved to be. If, once back in power, Republicans show that as a governing party they've become true fiscal hawks, and don't just mouth platitudes, then and only then can we demand that Democrats do the same.
As for the Ted Kennedy thing. . . well, liberals have tried to bash conservatives for being hypocrites for a long time (see me just above!) but it hasn't worked. It won't work here either. Massachusetts voters elected Ted Kennedy to represent them in the Senate, for heaven's sake. Why shouldn't they deserve a Democrat to replace him when it reflects their original desires, not to mention Kennedy's? And why shouldn't they change a rule meant to prevent Mitt Romney from imposing a Republican Senator on them when they so clearly desired *not* to have a Republican Senator? Call it hypocrisy if you want. To me it looks more like representative democracy.
Oh please. If you want a law that says "the replacement Senator will be chosen by the party of the Senator originally elected," just pass that.
Yours is the logic that argues in favor of Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan two years late, since before that plan Texas was elected Democratic majorities to its House delegations despite a considerably popular vote each to Republicans, thanks to prior Democratic gerrymandering. Who cares if it upsets a tradition of when to redistrict? It doesn't break the law, and it respects what the people want.
Yes, it's exactly the same logic. As a Democrat, I didn't like what Texas did, but they did it anyway. We didn't start it, but if that's the way the game is played, so be it.
"We didn't start it, but if that's the way the game is played, so be it."
Actually, Democrats did. They've been playing machine politics as long as the party has existed including both Tammany Hall and Jim Crow. This idea that we start counting sins with Republican administrations but ignore everything before is certainly convenient for Democrats, but also intellectually dishonest.
But most Bay State voters don't want that. They just want a Democrat to fill the seat. The Democrats who utterly dominate both houses of the Mass legislature are aware the governor will choose a Democrat, so there's no need to have a law like the one you describe. People aren't stupid: of course it's "partisan" politics. And there's nothing wrong with that. There are very real differences between the parties. One party is calling for spending cuts in the middle of a horrendous recession. The other party isn't. One party believes global warming is a hoax perpetuated by "liberal" science. The other party doesn't. One party thinks America should continue to be the sole rich democracy that eschews a universal insurance decree. The other party doesn't. Anyway, if the Republicans don't like it they can try winning some elections. Here in Massachusetts, that's not going to be easy given the positions the party is associated with.
The complaints and whining about efforts in Massachusetts to keep the seat in Democratic hands basically boil down to "Don't do that! Because doing so makes it less likely the GOP agenda will prevail in Washington."
Well duh! That's just the point.
Well, okay the, Jasper. But I hope you'll be able to stifle your outrage the next time the Republicans change the rules in their favor. There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to play fair with Democrats.
There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to play fair with Democrats.
Yeah, right wingers would never do anything politically motivated, like screen DOJ employees for loyalty or fire US attorneys fro not digging dirt on political opponents...lol
One party wants to raise taxes on poor people to pay bloated salaries and pensions for government employees.
One party wants to raise taxes in the middle of the worst recession in 65 years and the other doesnt.
One party has borrowed trillions of dollars and handed them to the crooks on wall street that caused the crisis.
One party wants to force a complete overhaul of the healthcare system whether the public want it or not.
One party fantasizes about a whole new regressive tax (value added) and the other doesn't
Re: One party wants to raise taxes on poor people to pay bloated salaries and pensions for government employees.
The GOP of course. They are the ones who are on record complaining that poor people pay too little in taxes.
Re: One party wants to raise taxes in the middle of the worst recession in 65 years and the other doesnt.
Neither party has proposed a tax increase.
Re: One party has borrowed trillions of dollars and handed them to the crooks on wall street that caused the crisis.
That would be the GOP of course. I assume you are talking about TARP-- who was in the white House and whose Treasury Secretary designed the program?
Re: One party wants to force a complete overhaul of the healthcare system whether the public want it or not.
The Democrats should be excused for trying to do what they were elected to do. Recall that public opinion last year was full stop behind such an overhaul and the Democrtas were elected on a platform promising to do exactly this. It's an odd world where politicians are held to blame for trying to keep their camapign promises.
Re: One party fantasizes about a whole new regressive tax (value added) and the other doesn't
I haven't noticed any serious proposal to enact a VAT. Do you have the House or Senate bill number?
And the same liberals that criticized those deficits, like Pelosi, are not aiding and abetting their expansion.
Relative to the Democrats -- a sorry standard indeed -- the GOP actually are fiscal hawks. From 2004 onward the deficit declined, until exploding with the advent of the financial crisis. With Obama and the Dem Congress it's huge deficits as far as the eye can see.
Bush set a low standard, and the Dems are somehow managing to go even lower. Hope and change indeed.
With good reason. The economy is still very weak, so deficit spending is good. Longer term, taxes will be raised -- don't you worry.
Again, it is dishonest to deliberately ramp up spending with the intent of raising taxes to pay for it when there is no other choice, just like it is dishonest to deliberate rack up debt and depend on inflation to reduce the cost of that debt.
Do Democratic Party leaders really lack such basic integrity?
Just a note of caution when it comes to trying to blame someone else for the deficit.
In Canada one of the political parties active at the founding of the country lost all but two seats in an election. That party doesn't exist anymore. The deficit was one of the major reasons why. They talked a good talk, nibbled at spending, increased taxes, but didn't do what was necessary to stop the government from borrowing money. This at the end of many years of out of control spending by many administrations.
The US is going to hit a very hard wall at some point due to government borrowing. The Democrats are racking up deficits that make Bush seem almost responsible. When whatever makes these things turn, the party in power who talked but didn't do will bear the brunt of electoral punishment.
And what will make it all so ironic is that the health spending and benefits will take the largest cuts.
Derek
Alas, the American people never cared about the deficits and could care less now. We're literally a nation drowning on our own fat bellies and entertainment. Just don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
ElectronHayek is right... the arguments you are making are the same ones I heard during the Reagan years. No one cared. They continued to vote for massive deficit spending.
BTW, it was said that taxes now would be the highest ever... well, they are the lowest since 1933, so even that talking point has been debunked.
I admit I'm a little jaded by the fiscal scolds, since I've heard it for so long and the predictions have never come true!
Clinton won in 92 and 96 due to Perot taking the fiscal conservative vote away from the republicans. He ran, as we were told over and over again last year, a fiscally responsible government, with balanced budgets.
The democrats had gained reputation for being fiscally responsible going into last year. The republicans had lost it. Did that decide the election? Partly.
The democrats have thrown it away, not apologetically. It was portrayed as urgent, necessary. And the vast sums were openly considered inadequate.
I don't know if the republicans will win the house next year, but the real possibility is that the democrats lose it.
Derek
The American people haven't cared about deficits because those deficits haven't effected them: we haven't paid higher taxes, we haven't had our wealth pummeled by inflation, and we've all personally been on a 20-year spending binge. Deficits? What, me worry?
China has been politely financing our spending binge. Again, deficits? What, me worry?
If the predictions of so-called "progressives" come true, and we in fact enter a new quasi-socialist nirvana with good jobs for everyone, guaranteed cradle-to-grave social services for everyone, a rising standard of living, and only a relative handful of wealthy people paying higher taxes, then the Democratic Party will be governing this country for a long, long time.
Not everyone is capable of the cognitive dissonance necessary to believe that this could be our future, though. And we're certainly not at all comfortable with taking it on faith that, despite our better judgment, this future scenario is even plausible.
So, yes, deficits will matter. And the politicians and their party on whose watch they exploded will likely explode, too. Or fizzle...
I doubt it. If supporters of the bill start saying “the CBO now says the bill won’t add to the deficit,” then opponents can respond by saying “the CBO says the bill will cost _______ Billions or Trillions” and “it’s all based on spending cuts TBDLM (to be determined later, maybe).”
Part of the reason why the public has been rejecting this behemoth is uncertainty. People are concerned about the shape of the economy and government overspending and finding out that this radical restructuring of one-sixth of our economy is being done on the “hope” that someone down the line will figure out spending cuts isn’t going to allay the concerns. Especially not since the majority of the promised cuts that we know about all seem to be coming from Medicare.
So no, I don’t think it’s that hard to counter a rigged CBO score (which I doubt is going to persuade that many people) by pointing out the truth and I’m betting that people’s natural concerns about how Washington has overspent already is going to make them less inclined to support this on the “hope” that someone else down the road will figure out a way to cut spending.
I really think the politics play the opposite way - passing a health care bill is much better for the Dems than not passing one. They get to say that they've addressed the things that people have complained about most - pre-existing conditions, availability of insurance to everyone - rather than failing to get something done. The GOP's best play may be to oppose a bill no matter what it says and hope to convince people that it's bad for them, since they'll get no credit if it passes (the same as the stimulus), but that doesn't mean that they'll benefit if the bill is passed.
The analogy to Social Security is flawed for a couple of reasons. The first is that the Republicans actually did need some Democratic votes to pass it. The second is that Democratic cover was important because Social Security was a Democratic program and changing it in any meaningful way without Democratic support would have looked bad. In this case, there's no equivalent need for Republican cover for the Dems.
Now I don't know if the Democrats are clever enough to use this, but it's also worth noting that the Republican strategy of opposing every single thing that the Dems and Obama want to do is a potential cudgel for the Democrats in 2010. It's a pretty simple ad, actually: The Republicans are against the stimulus; they're against fighting global warming; they're against health care reform; they're against . . . What are they for?"
How about...jobs?
You know, those things that we've lost millions of since Obama took over.
Exactly how are they "for" jobs... The republican policies of the last 8 years certainly did not create great prosperity for anyone except billionaires, who promptly tanked the economy.
Repbulicans don't exactly have a very good track record on that number...
Unemployment steadily decreased throughout the bulk of President Bush's term, hitting a low of 4.7%. Bill Clinton's best was 5.6%.
I can't recall President Reagan's numbers offhand, but I think they were better than Clinton's as well...and certainly better than Carter's or Obama's unemployment numbers.
Your statement that Republican policies of the last 8 years didn't creat prosperity for anyone except billionaires is clearly and demonstrably false. The only ways to make a statement like that are near-total dishonesty, or near-total lack of economic understanding. Which is it?
In 2008 alone, under President George Bush, 2.6 million jobs were lost.
Next?
"Your statement that Republican policies of the last 8 years didn't creat prosperity for anyone except billionaires is clearly and demonstrably false. The only ways to make a statement like that are near-total dishonesty, or near-total lack of economic understanding. Which is it?"
Here is how Americans fared under George Bush, from the US Census:
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
You're living in fantasy land if you think most people are better off now than they were a year ago.
So if the bill said "we'll pay for this by requiring doctors to work for free" and that lowered the CBO cost projection to $0, would we have to take that seriously too?
Megan, your analysis is sound, but I think it won't pass due to a few elements you didn't include.
After President Obama's address, he got a minor bounce that lasted all of three days...and now the numbers are even worse. Moreover, President Obama didn't clear up the fuzzy parts of Obama Care in the address, and he is unlikely to clear it up much in his future appearances on TV and around the nation. He seems to think he can win this on Style alone, but people are demanding Substance, and the longer he doesn't provide it, the worse the numbers will get. Democratic Party leaders aren't defending the Obama administration and the health care plan as much as they are just attacking anyone critics by calling them racists. 85% of people are already happy with their current health care.
Then add in the ACORN scandal, the fact that Glenn Beck is the most-watched news program on TV, and even Jay Leno and Jon Stewart are criticizing ACORN and the mainstream news media for how events are playing out...I think people are starting to question what they are being told, are starting to seek out other avenues of information, and President Obama will not be able to scrub his association with ACORN as cleanly as he could have just 2-3 years ago.
Then consider that the final Health Care reform bill cannot be too centrist without angering the rather excitable extreme left side of the Congressional aisle that demands single payer, or insurance mandates, or at least a public option...how can any bill square that with the Blue Dog Democrats who won't be willing to sacrifice their congressional seat just to pass something to sate the more extreme left liberals.
No, the deals Emmanuel made to get conservative Democrats in to a Big Tent are going to make it difficult to pass a bill that supports all Democrats, and if even 15 Democrats in the House vote against it, we might see another scramble to change yea votes to nay votes like we saw in the Senate vote on defunding ACORN.
Then again, I could just be projecting anecdotal data on the entire population.
But President Obama gave seniors (the group least likely to seek out non-mainstream media information) a strong reason to become familiar with facebook, twitter, and blog aggregators.
Health Care reform on Democratic Party terms is dead. Tort reform, selling across state lines, and portability may be a campaign issue for 2010, though.
Tort reform? It's far to wonkish to ever be a campaign issue.
Are you kidding? "Sleazy Ambulance Chasing Lawyers"? Willie Horton for the 21st Century.
It is also highly unlikely to generate any significant cost savings for healthcare. Anybody who thinks differently doesn't understand the healthcare system.
"After President Obama's address, he got a minor bounce that lasted all of three days...and now the numbers are even worse. Moreover, President Obama didn't clear up the fuzzy parts of Obama Care in the address, and he is unlikely to clear it up much in his future appearances on TV and around the nation. He seems to think he can win this on Style alone, but people are demanding Substance, and the longer he doesn't provide it, the worse the numbers will get."
Wrong. Again.
"Opposition has grown but is now slowed to a near halt. Support reversed its decline sometime in August and has begun an upturn."
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/sixtyfive_views_of_hc_reform_o.php
"I now put the chances of a substantial health care bill passing at 75%"
Define substantial. As a strong opponent of nationalized helthcare, there are still substantial changes I'd like to see in our health insurance market.
Intrade seems to differ with this analysis:
http://data.intrade.com/graphing/temp/chart124721689466121704.png
Colin: that's an Intrade prediction of the probability of a public option being enacted -- not of a healthcare reform bill as such. And the punters are probably correct that a straight up public option will not be signed into law (a triggered public option is another story, however).
Actually the nightly news on any of the big three are the "most-watched news program on TV" and a lot of Beck's watchers are like my 17 year old who watch it just to mock the mockable Beck.
It entertains him, it does not inform him.
So how far does public opinion have to crater for you to reassess? And how far do you think public opinion has to crater before Congress puts it off until 2010?
I agree with Megan that the chances of a bill passing are quite high.
Elections have consequences. These are the consequences that people like Megan voted for in 2008.
Megan forgot to vote in 2008.
Amnesty was supposed to pass also- all the right people, all the right interest groups, left and right were for it. Only the miserable troglodytes- people condemned by their own political leaders, Bush, McCain, and Graham- as racists, were against it. But the rage of the peasants was enough. It is even stronger this time. Obama can't do this, Pelosi and Reid can't do this. Congressmen who have to go back to Podunk and face the rubes who elected them have to do this.
Little different situation there... You had a program that was anathema to half of the party in power... It's failure pleased much of the base. Health care reform is the number one issue amongst all democrats (even in blue dog districts).. not passing health care reform would enrage the base who wants it.
Very different situation indeed!
Thanks McArdle for giving us this wretched state of affairs.
Can someone tell me what changed in the bill(s) that made the CBO score the bill differently?
Something with a title vaugely related to health care will be passed by the House. A potential Senate bill will be strangled to death in committee because that's the only plausible way to blame Republicans for something Obama, Reid, and Pelosi can't get enough Democrats to agree on to pass.
Premise 1: President Clinton failed to pass health care reform in his first year in office.
Premise 2: He went on to lose Congress during the midterms.
Conclusion: Therefore, if President Obama succeeds in passing a significant health care bill in his first year in office, he will probably lose Congress during the midterms. QED
Where did this myth arise that the Democrats lost in 1994 because health care reform failed?
Just a year ago, Democrats were claiming that passage of the Assault Weapons Ban led to their defeat in the mid-term elections. Something about so-called Regan Democrats and clinging to their guns and religion?
It's mighty convenient to rewrite history every time you need to justify your current position, isn't it?
Megan,
What's with the "natch", by the way? Is that a Pynchon influence, or does it come from some deeper, darker place.
I now put the chances of a substantial health care bill passing at 75%, and the chances of the Democrats losing the house in 2010 at about 66%.
Megan,
What do you think the chances are that the bill - whatever bill gets reported out of conference - gets a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate?
Megan, given that Intrade has the probability of passage at about 20% currently, and given your idea that people should be willing to bet their convictions, are you betting a lot of money right now?
I'm willing to agree that the CBO analysis helps the Democrats, but that it is a game-ender I dunno. It all depends on how shook up the Blue Dogs are.
I wouldn't mind getting in on some of that action so long as we can determine in advance what constitutes "substantial health care reform." Does Megan think that the having a rigged CBO study is enough to put either HR 3200 or Baucus’ bill over the top or would she consider a bill that just prohibited denying people coverage based on preexisting conditions and mandated guaranteed issue and/or community rating to constitute “substantial health care reform”? I think that the latter scenario could still happen (and would be a bad idea) but I think it’s a far cry from and only a fraction of what either Baucus or Obama have been pushing.
Megan, given that Intrade has the probability of passage at about 20% currently
No, MikeR, Intrade makes no such prediction. The 20% probability figure refers to the enactment of a public option. Obama's willingness to compromise on this particular feature makes the passage of a bill more, not less likely.
I don't know, it looks dead to me. I don't see how they get Blue Dogs to commit suicide by voting for a public option, and the left wing of the Dems has promised not to vote for a bill without it.
Plus, people are starting to notice what I observed last week -- mandates have a serious problem with that obstructionist unprogressive anachronism called the Constitution.
Except here in Arkansas polling has shown that when the majority of voters (Dems & Ind) support an option of a public option.
Miz Blanche and Mike Ross are not actually representing the voters, they are representing their corporate bosses...they always have. They could care less what the voters in Arkansas want OR need.
Eh. That sounds like a favorably worded poll.
Ask people if they want a massive tax hike and/or massive deficit spending while being violently shoved into government health care and simultaneously facing huge fines if they don't play ball with death panels and rationing and I bet you can get 80% against it.
Well sure, TallDave, if you lie about healthcare reform in an effort to make it sound scary, of course support for it will tend to weaken.
Also, Obama just shot himself in the foot today by telling everyone he's going to cover illegals by granting them amnesty, which is extremely unpopular.
"You lie!" indeed. This is true mendacity.
What Obama said is really the truth. We are going to bear the health care cost of illegals (unless you recommend that emergency rooms simply turn away those who don't have proof of citizenship). I mean what other options do you have?
Enforce the law?
Not many Americans would "enforce the law" by letting innocent people die in emergency rooms. This is a good thing.
I think by "enforce the law" we mean they won't get turned away from the emergency room. In Mexico.
Yes, the 13 million illegals that already live here will be teleported back by the magick of "enforce the law".
Nimed - Is your argument that you don't think we could do more to prevent illegal immigration or deport illegal immigrants? The cops do more to prevent speeding. We could say that you have to have a relative who is a citizen to be fast tracked for citizenship (no more 'anchor babies') or that you have to prove citizenship to get public services, for that matter.
Sure we could do more. My argument is that "Enforce the Law" is a transparently stupid answer to Brian's question - what should we do to illegal aliens when they show up in a emergency room.
Yes, the 13 million illegals that already live here will be teleported back by the magick of "enforce the law".
As oppose to the magic by which penniless immigrants are going to pay for their health care?
We could at least have local governments play ball with federal law. That plus border enforcement could get us 80% of the way there.
Transparently stupid is your middle name, sweetie ;)
Yeah, sorry about the whole 'anchor babies' phenomenon. You see, we needed to pass the 14th amendment because mendacious, vicious bastards would not respect human rights. Now you mendacious, vicious bastards are upset about a side effect of that amendment benefiting people you don't like. You ought to think about that the next time you go about enslaving, terrorizing and lynching other people.
Geez, can't anybody handle the difference between letting "innocent people die in emergency room" vs. providing illegal aliens with unlimited free annual checkups, unlimited free prescription meds, unlimited free knee and hip replacements, unlimited free psychotherapy sessions, unlimited free chiropractic treatments, etc. etc. etc.?
Are you progressives really proposing that we offer those benefits to anyone who steps across our borders?
I'm not.
I just want people who go into an emergency room with an emergency to be taken care.
No matter who they are.
Just plain common decency demands that.
Americans traveling in other countries or living in them, legally or illegally, are treated in their emergency rooms...at times for free no reason why we can't return the favor.
I don't think folks who are here illegally should be able to take part in any health care insurance plan that is subsidized by tax dollars, but I also think that anyone with money to spend should be able to buy health insurance regardless of their status.
Yes I am a progressive.
We do.
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), passed in 1986 as part of the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), hospitals that participate in Medicare must provide an “appropriate" medical screening to all patients entering the emergency room regardless of their ability to pay. They must also stabilize these patients before transferring or discharging them. Similarly, women in active labor who present themselves in an emergency room must receive obstetrical care to the conclusion of childbirth, unless their condition stabilizes enough to permit transfer. Penalties for violations can include fines and exclusion from Medicare, and patients who are injured by a hospital’s failure to comply with the law can sue for any resulting damages.
Congress passed EMTALA in the wake of repeated reports that private hospitals were refusing to examine indigent emergency room patients and were transferring them to public facilities before they were medically stable. One study found that the number of transfers from private to public hospitals increased from 1,295 in 1980 to 6,769 in 1983 in Chicago, with almost one-quarter of the patients unstable and 87 percent reportedly transferred because of lack of insurance. In one incident that resulted in a prominent court case, an indigent Texas woman in active labor was told at an emergency room to drive herself to another hospital, and she delivered a stillborn child on the way. To many observers, this did not seem appropriate behavior for institutions that receive substantial public funding.
EMTALA has had a tremendous impact in improving access to emergency care by indigent patients. The requirement that they be screened usually results in a full examination of their medical complaint and in treatment when it is in the emergency room’s capability. If a serious problem is found and transfer is not possible, liability rules generally induce hospitals to provide needed care on an inpatient basis to the completion of the course of treatment.
However, EMTALA has also created significant economic inefficiencies. Knowing that a nearby hospital emergency room must screen them regardless of the seriousness of the complaint, many indigent uninsured patients visit emergency rooms for routine care. While they are technically responsible for the resulting bill in the absence of insurance, their indigent status usually makes hospital collection futile. As a result, many emergency rooms now serve, in effect, as primary care clinics that treat sore throats, earaches, and a range of non-emergency conditions.
LOL, you post a link to a right wing freak show blog as a source? Why not just link to WorldNetDaily, or quote Rush Limbaugh?
Moving along...
Given that the MSM has become a left-wing freak show, there isn't much else to choose from.
Tall Dave's right, Megan's prediction is doubtful. The Blue Dogs in the Senate are wavering, plus the public-plan diehards on the left might rebel. The Baucus bill is toast. As to 2010, too far ahead to make a judgment. Obama might yet find a way to the center, though, should he not, the Republicans will have a golden opportunity.
Democrats should lose their jobs because Republicans are unwilling to compromise?
Brilliant.
Republicans didn't have the sizable majorities that Democrats now have when they were proposing their social security bill, so we can't explore the counter-factual.
I have no doubt that mid term the Democrats will lose seats. At least 20 since it's the natural mid term cycle.
It's likely. Very likely. But Bush picked up some in his first mid-term. And so did Roosevelt, I believe.
Amusing to see all the good little libertarians revealing their true hard-right nature. As for the wishful thinking shown by y'all, you've provided a hearty laugh this Friday, starting with the idiocy of McArdle's estimates, and continuing with the howling and yelling of mob that follows her every squirm and wiggle. If real health-care passes, the Democrats will turn out for Obama like no tomorrow, and the GOP will gain little or nothing in the mid-terms. Obama knows this, which is why he's been fighting the good fight. One very simple rule for you: something always beats nothing in US politics, and right now the GOP has a big, fat, white Southern nothing. Their approval has collapsed everywhere but the South - and the South simply isn't going to be a winning card. Consider the idea of joining the 21st century, kids, or get used to many happy years of whining minority status.
Doesn't matter how many Democrats turn out for Obama — there aren't enough of you.
Obama won in 2008 because he won independents. And independents don't care about politicians "doing something" — they care about their lives. So life had better be pretty swell — a hell of a lot better than it is now — if Democrats expect to be anything other than a whining minority party in the 21st century.
Doesn't matter how many Democrats turn out for Obama — there aren't enough of you.
There is *more* than enough of us to beath the sad sacky white boys that are Mitch McConnell and his band of confederate loyalists. In case you haven't noticed, the GOP has not reversed it's trend of utter disdain from every faction of the American populace except the widely racist south and the unpopulated mountain states.
Gee, hillary1, math obviously isn't one of your strengths, is it?
There may very well be more Democrats than Republicans — but neither group approaches 50% of the electorate. The deciding difference is independents, those people neither interested nor focused on politics.
So the next Congress and the next President won't be chosen by you and your homeboys, nor by a band of Confederate loyalists. They'll be chosen by the apathetic idiots: those who don't care about politics, and who don't understand them, either.
The Democrats have overwhelming strength in the Congress. I guess I'm most conceened about the public option. That is the hardest to reverse. As for this specific change, the CBO scoring, I think anybody in the public who would be affected will discount the promises. People aren't going to say, 'It's a sheep! That's a relief! When I first looked out the window, it was a wolf,' are they?
How much worse does public opinion need to be before even Democrats won't dare pass a substantial bill? It's already 45% to 55% against reform. the individual mandate plays well with politicians and wonks but will be absolutely despised by the public.
Second, we shouldn't underestimate the mroe liberal wing of the Dem party's abailiity to shoot itself in the foot. Sen Rockefeller wants to drag this bill to the left before it even gets out of the Finance Committee.
I'm beginning to think the more likely scenario is a scaled back bill.
the individual mandate plays well with politicians and wonks but will be absolutely despised by the public.
If it keeps with Baucus-like levels of subsidies and doesn't feature a hardship exemption, that could be true. Which is also why Democrats are unlikely to let anything like the Baucus bill in its current form get to Obama's desk. You heard it here: we'll be looking at a $1.2 trillion bill before all is said and done. Alternatively, we'll be looking at a fairly large hardship exemption (from the mandate) in the language. Such a move would obviously reduce the coverage rate, but will also render the number of people who are really adversely affected by the mandate small enough not to worry about, from the standpoint of politics.
I don;t think $1.2 trillion is possible. Dems could add subsidies to the bill, but they will need to find offsets. I think the $1 trillion price tag has become a psychlogical line in the sand that Congress doesn't dare exceed.
I know i'm an outlier, but i think there is an equal chance that the bill's price tag goes down vs. up compared to the $800 Billion draft SFC bill.
I disagree. Concern about fiscal matters doesn't have much of a track record as a driver of voter behavior. IIRC the House bill has a $1 trillion + price tag already. I believe Democrats will correctly realize that mandating people who can barely afford it to buy health insurance is likely to cause much more political trouble than being accused by the broken record right wing spin machine of being spendthrifts. At the end of the day, once you're talking about a bill approaching a trillion, enemies of reform are going to round up when talking about it anyway, so why not go for the real thing? I mean, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. An extra, say, $300 billion over ten years ain't chump change; but it's not an insurmountable sum, either, for an economy whose output over that same period is likely to approach $160 trillion.
You are far to generous with the house estimate, if they pass an actual health bill they have about a 95% chance of losing the house. After all, they would be passing a piece of legislation the majority of voters oppose, it immediately frames them as those who directly contradict the majority, something the majority usually responds to brutally at the ballot box, as seen in 1994 and 2008.
I doubt it. The polls have been all over the place with this. But even if you believe the polls indicating a (slight) majority of the public opposes a bill, much of what they're opposing is not the legislation itself but rather the right-wing caricature of the legislation. Politicians know what's far more relevant is voter reaction to the actual changes they see in their lives. Most people will experience little or no change between the passage of a bill (lets call it December) and the 2010 midterms. That's partly because most people have health insurance already and won't be affected much either way by the legislation in the early going. And it's also because the major changes will be phased in only gradually. The fact is if a bill makes it to Obama's desk, people aren't going to see death panels and "Washington coming between them and their doctor" any time soon. But not getting a bill passed will create a powerful narrative of Obama as a weak and ineffective leader. For better or worse, the Democratic brand is tightly associated with President Obama, and Democrats (many of whom remember 1994) are aware of this.
And at any rate, the Democrats have sufficiently deep margins in the House to let many of their more vulnerable House members vote no. The Senate is a different dynamic, of course, because of the rules. But absolutely nobody thinks the GOP has a prayer of taking back the upper chamber. I think the most probable strategy in the Senate is for the Democratic leadership to corral sixty votes for cloture, but then release eight or nine of their caucus to vote against the conference bill if they wish on the floor.
Most people will experience little or no change between the passage of a bill (lets call it December) and the 2010 midterms.
The only changes before 2013 will be the tax increase.
In 2018, my current health insurance plan will be illegal.
You just proved Jasper's point... You still believe the lie about health insurance being illegal.
Even if no reform passes, with premiums at least doubling in the next 10 years, your current plan will probably no longer exist!
That's partly because most people have health insurance already and won't be affected much either way by the legislation in the early going.
Except for the higher premiums due to new mandated coverages, all the people unceremoniously dumped onto the public option by their companies, the Medicare cuts, the tens of millions of people whose insurance doesn't currently the federally mandated standards, the other tens of millions who don't want insurance and will face huge fines if they don't buy it...
You guys really don't understand this bill at all. Right-wing caricatures indeed.
But not getting a bill passed will create a powerful narrative of Obama as a weak and ineffective leader.
No one outside Washington cares about that. Besides, he's already cemented "weak and ineffective" with his foreign policy.
Virtually none of the observable provisions of healthcare reform will take effect in 2010, TallDave. That's my point. The actual effects of whatever passes will have a negligible impact either way on the midterms. The main impact on the campaign flowing from health care reform will be how it affects the national media narrative: is Obama a can-do guy and powerful leader, or is his a deeply flawed administration teetering on the brink of failure a la Jimmy Carter?
The political effects of the legislation itself won't be manifest themselves until the campaign of 2012.
It's not a question of who "cares" about the national media narrative. It's a question of whether or not voters are influenced by what national pundits are saying, and how the national media is reporting the news. I would submit that most voters indeed are not greatly affected one way or another by such things (I'm certainly not going to vote GOP if Obama's presidency is labeled as a flailing mess, and I doubt you'd vote Dem if by October of 2010 he's widely viewed as a success), but that persuadable voters -- independents, in other words -- many of whom reside in competitive districts -- are indeed impacted by what the media is saying about the administration's prospects. People don't like losers, but people will often flock to support winners.
Besides, he's already cemented "weak and ineffective" with his foreign policy.
After the utterly disastrous Bush years, it would be difficult for any new administration not to be globally perceived as being productive and successful in the area of foreign affairs, your tired putdown notwithstanding.
Since we're making predictions, here's mine: If a health care bill gets passed, the Dems will stay in power. Thanks to free money given to failed financiers, people have become desensitized to deficits and will shrug and say "welp, at least government's looking after the little guy this time."
Yikes. Enough sour grapes to make a decent confiture.
Loved the Pynchon reference, Meagan.
Anyway. George Bush was the practical consequence of conservative ideology. Many of the very reasonable ideas I hear here (e.g., insurance across state lines) fell victim to practical politics and the error term in converting the desired into the possible.
President Obama was the practical consequence of somewhat liberal ideology (though, I think him to be quite pragmatic in the main). I think we got a better deal with Obama. I also think you underestimate the esteem with which he is held for making campaign promises and executing a plan to keep them (yes, I know, some were a stretch and others may not prove possible, but still).
I expect that few will agree with me, as usual (except my buddy Nelson). But that's the problem, isn't it. All this preaching to the choir provides false comfort to the prospects of Democratic demise (or is that Democrat demise?). When I want a good idea of the chances of something political, I just go check out what Nate has to say.
He's flatly breaking the campaign promise that persuaded me to support him: No health insurance mandates. That's earned him a lot of my disesteem.
Evidence? You conservatives and libertarians have been making lots of sweeping statements about "what the American public" likes and doesn't like. Just listen to, oh, Mitch McConnell or John Boehner every time they open their mouths. Somehow these likes and dislikes always seem to jive with their policy preferences. It's amazing! Anyway, most people are a lot more concerned with a policy's effects on their own lives than they are with the party composition of the vote that enacted said policy.
No Megan, this is not an observation that bolsters your previous assertion, because privatizing Social Security wasn't a an idea the public liked; it wasn't popular. The GOP's failure to wreck, er, privatize Social Security had little or nothing to do with Democratic party opposition as such. It had to do with the fact that GOP congresscritters who value job security knew they'd be out of power for years to come if they passed such a loony idea into law.
But having a guarantee they'll always have decent health insurance -- like their counterparts in every single other rich democracy -- is a popular idea to ordinary people. At least popular enough to get enacted (and, your assertions to the contrary, enable Democrats to do just fine in the midterms).
I'm seriously a little worried though; the prospect of seeing their scare cries of "socialism" fail (and national healthcare enacted) combined with the much stronger economy we'll be seeing by this time next year -- and the obvious negative implications for the much hoped for GOP comeback -- is going to send the birthers and tenthers and death panelers and tea baggers off the deep end. Pelosi was right.
tenthers?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/28/texas-tenthers-rally/
No it isn't. Oh, it's popular in the abstract, if you pretend the money is coming from somebody else. But once the details are fleshed out it's not popular at all.
But once the details are fleshed out it's not popular at all.
What an absurd thing to say. I strongly suspect there's not a single country whose voters would willingly give up universal health care. I certainly can't think of an example where this has happened. Social insurance programs that are universal tend to be very popular, despite the fact that (duh!) they're not free.
If Americans really wanted universal health care, we'd already have it. You don't accept the possibility Americans would rather not pay the growth penalty for these kinds of programs?
Isn't this a tautology? Anything that is really wanted, you should *already* have.
More to the point, I suspect that it is likely that the proportion of the population that is willing to trade some growth for security (in this case, security of health coverage) is slowly growing. Eventually it reaches a tipping point. (I don't know if it has reached it yet, but it seems likely that it eventually will.)
Then why not propose an honest system that would have a 10-20% Value added tax that would fund a single payer system for every one.
Oh yeah, a proposal like that would be so unpopular that it wouldn't last a day.
Indeed, that would be the right thing to do, if you believed, like I do, that universal coverage is a good thing, and in the long run would be considered a good thing by the majority of the citizenry. I also believe that it would have very high approval from the populace about 5-10 years down the road. It would also have the dangerous (from a Libertarian point of view) side-effect of making taxes less hated. "Well at least our taxes are going to something I use."
However, the reality is that in the current era no major policy can be passed "honestly". I cannot think of one major piece of legislation (for good or ill) in the last two decades where the sponsors were willing to admit the costs, downsides or risks of their legislation.
So, no I don't expect "honesty" from any politician. If you believe a policy is important enough to pass, then you are practically obligated to pretend that there is no cost to it in order for it to have any chance of passing. This applies equally to Democrat or Republican policies.
I am, however, disappointed that the same mentality is quite evident in the blogosphere where at least in theory, we have the freedom to be honest without destroying the policy aims we hope to achieve.
Personally, I believe that anyone who cannot make a cogent persuasive argument for the *opposite* side that they believe in probably has little to say of note in the debate.
I strongly suspect there's not a single country whose voters would willingly give up universal health care.
It's hard to unscramble an egg. Doesn't mean it's better that way.
Social insurance programs that are universal tend to be very popular, despite the fact that (duh!) they're not free
Well, they kind of are.
Every socialized country uses monopsony pricing to get lower prices. That means we pay the lion's share of R&D, and they get it for free. It's like a train where 80% of the passengers get to ride without paying. It's a great deal till the other 20% stop paying too. Then there's no more train.
How many people on the train who are riding for free would voluntarily start paying?
It's a great deal till the other 20% stop paying too. Then there's no more train.
A very reasonable point. Honestly, I do think you'd see a lot less medical R&D if the US adopted a universal health-care style system.
However, satisfaction with the system rarely goes down because people are not getting health care that doesn't exist. Rather, it goes up when you are not getting as good medical care as that guy over there.
Nobody cares if all trains only goes 40 miles per hour if that's the maximum speed for *all* trains. Very shortly that is simply 'the speed that trains go'. They're only unhappy when they see that somebody else's train is going 100 miles per hour and ask themselves why can't mine?
I'd venture that satisfaction would go *up* when you are getting the same medical treatment as that rich guy over there (because expensive new treatments are unavailable).
In other words, very few are going to miss medical progress. (I've rarely heard someone say "my disease should be curable by now!")
Whether the lowering of medical research is worth universal coverage is a different matter. It's certainly not for Megan (it seems one of the biggest arguments against universal coverage). If I was American, I'd have to say the draw of never having to worry about medical expense again for me or my children would be a pretty powerful draw against the abstract hope of research that might be useful to me or mine someday.
Are we going to really lose worthwhile medical research? The government funds plenty already, and could do more. A lot of the private research is for the next big cholesteral drug (great at reducing cholesteral, but of limited use improving health), hair loss drugs, or better erection drugs. We can live without it.
Are we going to lose medical research?
Honestly, I think it likely. From a government perspective, medical research is a sort of amorphous benefit that isn't really appreciated all that much by the electorate. (Think how university research is generally regarded by the populace.)
Worse still, when it comes to government drug development, the incentives are skewed the wrong way. The electorate won't punish politicians for drugs that don't exist. But they will certainly punish them for "wasting" tax money on drugs that don't work out, and even worse, for creating drugs that are ultimately considered harmful and withdrawn. You can imagine the opposition having a ball with the idea of a government that developed Vioxx.
So reluctantly, as a universal health care supporter, I have to say it's likely medical research would decrease. (Excepting research into delivering treatments more effectively and cheaply. Very useful in its own right, but not the stuff of glamorous future.)
(1) Are the Republicans fighting the wrong last war? I.e., their benchmark seems to be HillaryCare/1994. But remember Medicare Part D. Dems were fairly sure that it would be highly unpopular, AND that they could use the costs to pound Bush like a drum. So many Dems (including, as I recall, all the major 2004 candidates) came out against it pretty strongly. But it's turned out to be really popular. What happens if health care reform is passed now and by 2010 (and 2012), most Americans realize, "Hey, not that much has changed. And now I don't have to worry about my health care if I get fired or change a job, and everyone has health care." Granted, part of the reason for that will be because much of the plan wouldn't have been phased in yet. But still, will Obama/Dems really get hit hard? Maybe voters will conclude they were worried about a big change, but nothing has changed (at least as of 2010 and 2012).
(2) I'll grant that in terms of optics, it looks bad if no (or few) GOP congresspersons vote for health care reform. But just in terms of us nerds arguing about this stuff, does it really matter if no GOP congresspersons vote for it? What about the argument made by Krugman and Yglesias and others that since the 1960s, liberal Republicans have mostly disappeared, as have conservative Dems? That basically we've had a realignment so that all the liberals are Dems and all the conservatives are GOPers? See, Exhibit A, Richard Shelby. See, Exhibit B, Arlen Specter. So in terms of analyzing a straight party-line vote intellectually, as opposed to analyzing it in terms of political optics, is that really a knock again Obama/Pelosi/Dems? Shouldn't most votes be largely party-line these days (e.g., despite Bush claims that his tax cuts received bipartisan support, my memory is that only a handful of Dems, possibly only 5-6 senators, voted for it)?
An expansion of social insurance popular? I'm shocked!
But remember Medicare Part D. Dems were fairly sure that it would be highly unpopular, AND that they could use the costs to pound Bush like a drum.
You may want to refresh your memory. Most of the Democrat oppostion to Part D was because the plan wasn't sufficently generous, not because it cost too much.
If you can't get Olympia Snowe to back your bill, I doubt that you can find fifty Democrat Senators to vote for it, either.
It doesn't mean it's better or worse. It means it's popular. National healthcare is popular wherever it's in effect (ie., the rest of the rich world). Shockingly enough, people like being able to take whatever job makes sense for them on the merits; they like knowing a bout of unemployment won't erode their ability to get their children's healthcare needs taken care of; they like not facing the prospect of crushing bills if they get sick.
Megan:
As a political consultant, don't quit your day job. Do you think some voter in Arkansas 14 months from now is going to give a flying fig about the Massachusetts state legislature exercising its plenary power granted under the Constitution?
That's neverminding the fact that the Dems won't need cloture if the CBO scores the bill as you think it will.
The Democrats passing health care does not make them lose the House. Polling has been in part on process, and in part on people's fears of losing their health coverage because of the bill -- and it's still close to 50-50. When the bill gets passed, and a year later there are no death panels, no massive dropped coverage issues, and no 48 month lines at the gynecologist (or at least, no more than there are now), a heck of a lot of independents are going to look back at the Summer of Crazy and think, what the hell was wrong with all those teabaggers and Republicans?
Whoa, but wait a second. A year later there isn't any substantial change to the current system since it isn't phased in until 2013. So, um, presumably all the uninsured are still uninsured. Are you suggesting that people are going to be like, "Yay! Only gotta wait three more year for actual coverage! But, boy, are these new taxes AWESOME!"
"These new taxes" won't be in effect, either. The health insurance situation of most people won't be impacted either way by reform legislation between now and November, 2010. The main relevance for the midterms with respect to the success/failure to pass a bill will be in the national media narrative.
I admire your patience.
Re: year later there isn't any substantial change to the current system since it isn't phased in until 2013.
Which is exactly why a bill passed this year won't have much effect next year (except to shore up the Democrats support from liberal voters who will be royally upset if they flub this one). The only people who will still be frothing at the mouth over healthcare a year from now are people who would not vote for a Democrat if the Lord Jesus advised them to do so. By this time year some new issue will be center stage and who knows what totally unexpected events may have intervened?
If public opinion craters again? It's already at a low point for Rasmussen, and everyone else seems to have it within a few points of the low point. I'm not sure how public opinion gets worse on this, so we're left with the Dems ramming through something that is pretty unpopular that doesn't take effect for quite some time. Do they explain that? I'm confused at how ramming something through that doesn't go into immediate effect is supposed to be some kind of coup for Dems.
Don't take this the wrong way, because I love you, but I'm not sure that something can begin to look like an established fact. If it's established, then it's established. If it isn't, it isn't.
66% chance of losing the house? Please... That's the number if they don't pass substantial reform... Everyone knows it, which is why the GOP is fighting so hard.
Eh what? The possibility they'll pass health care is the reason they're in danger of losing the House. As a political play it looks worse with every new poll.
On the other hand, the inability to pass one of the most important parts of his electoral program, even in the current watered down form, would probably piss off his progressive base.
So if he's going to lose popularity, he might as well do what he promised to do:
- Cap-and-Trade and promotion of renewable energies
- Universal (or at least closer to universal) health care
- Restoring the country's civil rights (torture, illegal detentions and wiretapping)
It's still too soon to say anything about the first, and Obama is not doing a very good job in the third - there's no point in closing Guantanamo and abolishing torture if you'll just start shipping detainees to another prison without habeas corpus. At to wiretapping... let's not talk about that.
My guess is the majority of the population (unfortunately) doesn't care that much about any of these issues, and the 2010 elections will depend mainly on the state of the Economy at that time.
Well, sure, but the president doesn't have the power to do any of that. To actually make it happen he needs the cooperation of a bunch of people who are up for reelection next year. They will not go along if it may cost their seat in Congress.
On the other hand, you may be right about the elections depending on the economy, and it reflects rather poorly on the electorate.
tostha: this is bullshit, and every Democratic AND Republican political consultant know it. The reason Democrats in Washington are facing the possibility of substantial losses next year is that they inherited a weak economy from George W. Bush. Crappy economies tend to be tough for incumbents. Just ask Republican governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The relevant history lesson is from 1994: for your assertion to be true, it would have to be the case that that if Clinton had managed to get his bill passed, Democratic losses would have been even greater in November of 1994. But absolutely nobody thinks that's the case. Failure to pass his healthcare bill increased the losses of Democrats in 1994, and probably flipped the House. Indeed, if your logic were valid we'd see much more fainthearted opposition to Obamacare from the GOP (I mean, if it's going to cause such harm to Democrats, why not go through the motions on opposition and let it pass?).
Bill Kristol was right way back then: passing universal healthcare will serve as as powerful reminder for many year to the country's vast middle classes (ie., most voters) that is the Democratic party that champions their economic interests. This is a game changer, and both parties know it.
Maybe i'm the only one, but i do believe more Democrats would have lost in 1994 if Clinton had passed a relatively unpopular (less than 50% public support) HC reform bill. And i think the same thing would happen in 2010. The Clinton bill was unpopular and it's passage would have caused Dems. Why isn't this a plausible scenario and why can't we apply it to the current HC reform situation?
I'm beginning to think this has become the strategy of some Republicans. their intransigence on HC reform and opposition of everything could push the eventual bill further to the left, making it even less popular in moderate districts. If a bill like this is passed, i think more Dem reps will lose in 2010 than if no bill is passed.
Of course, it's not a pure comparison because Clinton's HC bill never came up for a vote, but Dems in moderate districts who voted for two other unpopular (in red-leaning districts) Clinton issues - the tax hike and assult weapon ban -- lost at a much higher rate than Dems in similar districts who voted against 1 or both bills. Seems like a useful comparison for Blue Dogs and HC reform.
The reason Democrats in Washington are facing the possibility of substantial losses next year is that they inherited a weak economy from George W. Bush.
I think most people would agree that Obama and the democrats inherited a weak economy - no argument there. The 2010 election will hinge more on whether they are seen as making the economy worse, or better. If people perceive that they aren't paying sufficient attention to the economy, while trying to pass a lot of expensive measures like cap and trade - they are going to get creamed.
I realize this is a bit off-topic, but it's a question I've had for a while. If the projected deficits in Medicare are so large (unlike Social Security, which could be fixed with tweaks), why hasn't the Medicare payroll tax/deduction been raised since 1990? Is there any kind of actuarial linkage between the 2.9% rate and projected costs?
"the American public doesn't like uniparty votes, especially on something this controversial."
Oh, please. Didn't bother them with Bush's tax cuts for billionaires. The only reason the healthcare proposals are any more controversial is because of corporate-teat-suckers like Freedom Works.
That the House will lose Democratic seats is a foregone conclusion, but I think your prediction (hope?) that they will lose control is a bit of magical thinking.
"IF the Republicans had been willing to push forward on a controversial bill with no Democratic cover, we'd have private social security accounts right now. But they weren't, for a reason."
Which had nothing to do with worrying about uniparty votes and everything to do with losing one of their biggest constituents-old white voters, with whom this plan was less popular than a spoonful of hemlock. Old white seniors don't like healthcare reform much either, but they are not a primary constituent of the Democratic party.
In reply to jbahr, neither party has enough guts to address the issue of rising entitlement costs. Speaking personally, I'd like to see a rise in payroll taxes or the introduction of a value added tax. The Republicans would like taxes of this sort because they're regressive and the Democrats because the added revenues could be earmarked for social programs. But it won't happen, and we'll go on, year after year, with our government financed by the People's Republic of China.
I dunno, Stan. Medicare deductions have no cap, so they are actually pretty neutral. One would think the public could stomach a half-percent hike (only half of which is visible to the employee). Doesn't sound like much, but it's actually a whole lot of money. The cap is raised on Social Security almost yearly, which serves as a form of rate hike. Since you can't raise the cap on Medicare deductions, a small rate hike seems sensible. Republicans wouldn't do it, but the Dems are already labeled as tax-and-spenders, so why not just slip it into a bill?
jbahr, you're right on policy grounds, but the Democrats are wimps when it comes to taxes and have been for a long time. I think the only way payroll taxes can be raised is for Congress to appoint a bipartisan commision and then hide behind its report.
No, I think that for those of us who were opposed to this bill,
I have yet to hear what those of you "opposed to this bill" would do other than tax cuts and subsidies so we could all go out and buy our own ever more insurer-friendly health insurance. Go out and look at poverty in this country, Megan, and then let your libertarian arrogance tell me how any right-wing, corporate-friendly Republican plan helps these people who don't even make enough to pay taxes.
Do you even know anyone who's uninsured? I'm uninsured, and what the Baucus bill offers me is a mandate to buy health insurance that I won't be able to afford, and a fine for not complying with it. It doesn't do a damned thing to make health care more affordable. In fact, all of its regulations for the insurance industry can be expected to drive insurance rates up; and it would make it illegal for me to get a catastrophic coverage policy, which would actually meet my unmet medical needs. I don't want to buy health insurance for annual physicals, minor illnesses, and ordinary lab work in the first place; I have room for those in my budget, and I don't see any point in cycling the payment through an insurance company for added administrative costs and delays.
I've had medical insurance all my life, but I resented the cost and wasn't sure I needed it. Then one of my daughters was born with strabismus, which required several operations, my wife needed surgery on both knees and is presently struggling with a swallowing disorder, and I had a heart attack. If you think you have room in your budget for major surgery, you're living in a fool's paradise.
I'm well awre of the risk I'm taking, and don't like it. But I was paying as much as I could afford for a bare minimum of catastrophic coverage, five years ago. As in, I worried about being able to pay my rent . . . and being homeless is not healthy, either, and a more immediate concern. Then my carrier boosted the base rate significantly, and I knew that next year, when I turned 55, they would boost it again on account of age. And I just could not see my way to squeezing the added cost out of my budget.
After I stopped paying for insurance, I realized that I hadn't seen my doctor or dentist in two years, because I never had any money to pay for office visits. That kind of took away a lot of the point of catastrophic insurance, because by the time I found out I needed it, it would likely be too late.
I haven't seen anything in the current proposals that would bring the price of health insurance into a range I could afford to pay. They basically preserve the present system, with all its subsidies and its shelters from competition driving prices up, and try to compel everyone to sign up for it, with penalties if they remain uninsured and don't meet a standard of "hardship" set by members of Congress and civil servants. Now if we passed reforms that actually made the health industry competitive . . . for example, the Mackey proposals . . . I would be eagerly looking for an insurance carrier that could provide me with a high-deductible catastrophic policy in my price range. As it is, well, you know about the discouraged unemployed, people who have just decided they aren't going to find a job and stopped looking? I'm a discouraged health insurance buyer, for the same reason.
"Do you even know anyone who's uninsured?"
Yep. I have been for about half my working adult life, and my sister is now. And I am not sure where you got the idea that I am a proponent of the Baucus bill, because I am not. But I am less opposed to that than I am these glib just say no types who don't want any type of reform but have no real answers when asked how they would stave off the coming budget crisis if we do nothing.
I think that ramming through the bill on a party line vote makes it very likely that the Democrats will lose the house in 2010; the American public doesn't like uniparty votes, especially on something this controversial. A lot of liberals have gotten angry at me for saying this, but it's not a normative statement; it's an observation.
I'm not sure why liberals would get angry at Megan for saying this. But I don't think she's right. I don't think the American public cares much whether legislation passes on party-line or non-party-line bases. They care whether the legislation works or not. If it's bad legislation, I don't think a few Republican votes would do much to mitigate the damage in 2010 to the Democrats; Republicans would call it Democratic health reform anyway. If it's good (popular) legislation, it's not going to hurt the Democrats.
For evidence of this point: Democrats have been successful in pinning the Iraq war on Republicans. How many Democrats voted for the Iraq war? Half of them? More?
I think you could make a somewhat more sophisticated argument, though: the Democrats in Congress who voted for the Iraq war were actually, themselves, committed to that war. And that commitment made it extremely difficult for them to turn around and criticize it. That kneecapped the Democratic Party's ability to campaign on the issue for a long time. But that's different from saying that "the American people" don't like party-line votes. It's more that bipartisan votes create a political dynamic where it's more difficult to campaign on opposition to the bill afterwards.
But remember that it was a war foisted upon us by a Republican president who convinced a scared public into going into a conflict with the wrong country. Certainly Democrats were being cynical in supporting the war at the time (which was popular with the people), but you would have a hard time making a case that Democrats are as culpable for it as Republicans, especially when many prominent Democrats spoke out against it at the time.
I think the effectiveness of the bill will speak for itself, good or ill.
Megan's main point is incorrect anyway. The public is not going to buy the reduced price tag. The main problem all along for passing expanded coverage was that too many people could see through the lie that you could cover more people with better care and at a lower cost. Simply promising to cut later is not going fly, now or before.
Here are the politics laid bare- the Baucus bill is not even close to the bill that Democrats will eventually fashion. The bill will be quite a bit further left than that of Baucus, and by being so, it will not get a single Republican vote in the House or Senate. In the Senate, the Democrats have zero chance of doing this through normal procedures of a cloture vote since they cannot hold their entire caucus to any bill left of Baucus. Doing this through reconciliation is simply not going to happen. Too much of the bill (whatever it eventually ends up being) simply doesn't qualify for reconciliation procedures under even generous interpretations of Senate rules, the ability of the Republicans to stall this through parliamentary procedures and objections is too easy and extensive to get a bill through before next spring, and Democrats in Republican leaning districts are going to get increasingly terrified at the prospect of ramming this through on such narrow "majorities" (note how poorly this is polling now, not to mention later after a bitter partisan fight) in the electorate. Finding the votes in the House won't be possible in the end, and it is even possible that the Senate won't be able to come up with the votes required to do this through reconciliation. I put the odds at any comprehensive "reform" at about 10%.
Put another way, Democrats in Republican leaning districts don't want to have to vote on a final bill. There are a million different ways to accomplish this in Congress.
This blog cracks me up. A few staged townhalls and a corporate led protest, and all of a sudden magical thinking makes a comeback in crazyland! We are all South Carolians now!
ROFLMAO!
Remind me. Hillary got more actual votes in the Democratic primaries, then Obama right? So to get Obama, the eminently unqualified candidate (compared with Hillary, who got her own sets of drawbacks) elected you only needed three things.
1) Endorsement from the queen of Talk-shows, Oprah.
2) Bill Maher, creating a Bandwagon effect (mainly among younger people) by talking up insignificant Caucuses victories in a string of republican (red), and hence unimportant, states.
3) Some prominent media personalities (and a whole bunch of less prominent ditto) commenting on how super delegates who were not voting for Obama were in fact closet racists (this is a very efficient tactic vs. east and west coast Democrats, they will do anything not to be a "racist").
Then to get Obama elected he only needed, to stand and look tall in a suit besides President George W. Bush, when the initial Bank bailouts got presented to the voting public. It never pays off to underestimate how the US voter selects on emotion, rather then the issues.
You do realise that if the asset market bubble had popped earlier, or a little bit later, we'd all been talking about the historic Democratic mistake of not picking the stronger candidate for President in the last election, right?
"Remind me. Hillary got more actual votes in the Democratic primaries, then Obama right"
Um... no. Only if you do not count all the Democrats in states that do not use primaries to choose delegates. Nice of you to remind me of all those intellectually dishonest arguments made just a couple years ago.
Sorry for the double post, due to log in my reply to Xenox and Joseph ended up as a regular post. So here goes again:
Hillary got the Primary votes and Obama got the caucuses. Hillary got the working folks, and Obama got the café latte Democrats. Hillary got the older demographics and Obama won the young. You won't hear me deny it.
As for the power of Maher (poster below); I would not mind to have Maher against me as a Republican, but it is kind of hard for a Democrat if he constantly support your opponent. His younger 'hip' demographic is also somewhat problematic for a candidate like Hillary.
Young voters (not that likely to vote in real life!) also have a much larger influence on caucuses as they are more likely to go there and spend the time (also are more likely to use emotional arguments, and refuse to give in).
Some have expressed a bewilderment of where the young support for Obama went. It is not that hard to explain really. I used the word band-wagon effect, to express a movement to do as everybody else (as you could see especially among younger voters). The problem is that they want to do as everybody of their peers are doing, but at the same time be exclusive and an 'elite' group. This means it is fantastic when everybody you know votes and works to get Obama elected, but you got to be better then some other mainstream group while you do it. Like their parents for example.
You get the same problem as with Starbucks, when there is a Starbuck everywhere its not that exclusive any more. When, Obama won, your Mom voted for him, he is on TV every day, and horror of horrors you actually have to look at what he and congress is doing (BORING!!!) then Obama is not cool any more. Yesterdays news you might say.
Not that fun to sell that as a concept, even if you can get Bill Maher to do Old man jokes next election as well (his influence were mainly in the primaries, not the regular election). I really do not see calling opponents racists working for three more years also (not that this will stop people from trying).
Ha! I didn't realize Bill Maher had so much influence over the national dialogue! I wish! Maybe rational thinking on religion would trend higher in this country.
I couldn't get the reply feature to work, but I still want to apologize to William Stoddard. I had taken you for somebody in their 20's who decided that insurance is for dopes. You aren't in this category, and I'm sorry for the nature of my remarks, and I hope they weren't offensive.
May I just say thank you for maintaining standards of discussion here. I missed the original post, but I heartily approve of people being polite (and secure) enough to apologize when they've made remarks they later feel that were not warranted.
"Teddy Kennedy rule change" not sure what she refereed to here. Have Massachusetts already changed the law to appoint somebody before the election?
---
Anyway, is not a Republican majority in the house, and Pelosi stepping down one way to improve President Obamas chances of getting re-elected? I'm rather sure she won't go unless that happens also.
The CBO has a tradition of UNDER-estimating health care cost savings.
The the NYT op-ed by Jon Gabel on August 25.
And it can hardly even begin to estimate cost savings from the public-option market pressure, or the even more massive reductions which may come if we can begin to engineer a shift away from procedure-billed medicine.
Megan, the intellectual dishonesty (I'd hate to believe the omission was due to a lack of intelligence) of your attempts to praise the floundering Republican ship is shocking: why do you never even mention what might happen to the Democrats if they FAIL to pass substantial health care reform? Wasn't THAT what actually happened to Bill Clinton?
I think that the "Bill Clinton lost the house in 1994 because he couldn't pass health care" narrative is dubious at best. I actually think it's more likely that he lost because he tried to pass a bill that scared people; ramming it through wouldn't have made him any more popular. Would George Bush have saved seats in 2006 if he'd rammed through Social Security reform?
As for the CBO's much vaunted history of underestimation, the CBO has also scored a lot of savings that never happened, like the SGR.
They can pass whatever they want, with one exception. It's not the public option. I'm agnostic on that.
But if they pass anything with an individual mandate in it, I'll be campaigning against all the guys who vote for it. Including my own Democratic congressman, who has represented me tolerably well till now. The mandate is the dealbreaker for me.
Hmm... that's sort of an odd point of view but one I share. I don't think the P.O. will actually do much good but I don't think congress'll have the stomach to do what it would take for it to do much harm either. Certainly not in the near term.
As for mandates I may not dislike them as much as you but I find them pretty distasteful though I can see the charm in them.
My own sneaking suspicion is that Health Care Reform isn't on as sound footing as it seems because of the mandates. You already see support among seniors pretty low - and if Dems lose the house it'll be because they alienated them - but what I'm curious about is how younger people will feel about when they figure out that the way the money comes in is by forcing them to buy more insurance then they arguable need? Do they just eat and vote Dem in the 2010? Or do they stay home?
Still the truest thing is this - If you have a majority, use it. Doing nothing won't let you stay in power unless the Gods decide they love you. I'd argue that that's what happened to the Democrat majority in '74. Watergate prolonged a Democratic majority that really should have ended.
I look at the words "individual mandate" and see "large transfer payment to Baby Boomers." That's who's in the expensive medical years, but (for the most part) not yet in retirement. Does ANYBODY think it's an accident that we're seeing a push for health care reform now, rather than when the same people were 25 and relatively healthy?
We're already talking about how to pay for the Baby Boomers in retirement. Now we're talking about how to subsidize them in the years between 45 and 65. Really, it's all getting pretty extreme.
I say that even though I'm closer to that age range than I am to the broke 20-somethings without insurance. However, I think that the number of people who expect government programs to benefit them, on balance, is already way too high relative to the number of people who are expected to pay in far more than they get out. Are young single people without kids supposed to subsidize EVERYONE else? Because society really can't function on that basis.
This is way up there, so I didn't think it made sense to reply. But it still can't just sit there:
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame said, "Unemployment steadily decreased throughout the bulk of President Bush's term, hitting a low of 4.7%. Bill Clinton's best was 5.6%."
Um, where the heck did you get that idea? In January 1993, unemployment stood at 7.3% and steadily declined with nary a blip upward until it reached its lowest point in September through December 2000 at 3.9%. You might recall that as being the last month of Bill Clinton's presidency. Bush's lowest unemployment rate was January 2001 (or February, whichever you might count.
You may be technically correct that "unemployment steadily decreased throughout the bulk of Bush's term," but that statement clearly obscures rather then enlightens.
In the first 30 months of Bush's administration, unemployment rose steadily to a peak of 6.3% in June 2003. Then it steadily declined for 4 years when it hit a trough of 4.4% in March of 2007. Since then, it's been to the moon.
For a chart, go to the bureau of labor statistics site and click on the "historical" link under "Unemployment Rate" on the right of the page. www.bls.gov
It would be nice if all sides of an argument would stick to the actual facts when they are available.
Thus it was ever going to be.....the idea that a few renta mobs ginned up by Fox and some Republican activists like Armey had any significance whatever was only ever a figment of the imagination of conservative activists and their mouthpieces in the media and blogosphere who eagerly played up the conflict. That's you Megan. Where you get the weird idea that passage of this bill means Democratic loss of the house is a complete mystery. This is going to be just as humongously popular as Bill Kristol has always warned it would be and when you team it with an economy in full recovery mode by the summer of 2010 the tide will be running for the Democrats. I can see all the congressional campaign ads now showing the Republicans voting solidly against the stimulus program and national recovery, followed up with their votes against healthcare reform, equal pay for women, et al. And to top it off Obama is clearly planning Immigration Reform II.....see what that does for Republican party unity.
In hindsight, I'm pleasantly surprised that the CBO turned out to be as tough as it was. From an institutional perspective, you would expect them to be compromised and compliant, but they have been relatively honest.
Hillary got the Primary votes and Obama got the caucuses. Hillary got the working folks, and Obama got the café latte Democrats. Hillary got the older demographics and Obama won the young. You won't hear me deny it.
As for the power of Maher (poster below); I would not mind to have Maher against me as a Republican, but it is kind of hard for a Democrat if he constantly support your opponent. His younger 'hip' demographic is also somewhat problematic for a candidate like Hillary.
Young voters (not that likely to vote in real life!) also have a much larger influence on caucuses as they are more likely to go there and spend the time (also are more likely to use emotional arguments, and refuse to give in).
Some have expressed a bewilderment of where the young support for Obama went. It is not that hard to explain really. I used the word band-wagon effect, to express a movement to do as everybody else (as you could see especially among younger voters). The problem is that they want to do as everybody of their peers are doing, but at the same time be exclusive and an 'elite' group. This means it is fantastic when everybody you know votes and works to get Obama elected, but you got to be better then some other mainstream group while you do it. Like their parents for example.
You get the same problem as with Starbucks, when there is a Starbuck everywhere its not that exclusive any more. When, Obama won, your Mom voted for him, he is on TV every day, and horror of horrors you actually have to look at what he and congress is doing (BORING!!!) then Obama is not cool any more. Yesterdays news you might say.
Not that fun to sell that as a concept, even if you can get Bill Maher to do Old man jokes next election as well (his influence were mainly in the primaries, not the regular election). I really do not see calling opponents racists working for three more years also (not that this will stop people from trying).
"I now put the chances of a substantial health care bill passing at 75%, and the chances of the Democrats losing the house in 2010 at about 66%."
Why do you consider yourself to have standing to even offer an opinion at this point? Have you made one statement in this whole series that's been anything but vacuous, or that hasn't been completely shot down by people who take their readers' time seriously?
This whole health Care debate is not about Health Care or your and my health care. These left-wing liberal socialist, in Washington, think that if they can get control of health care, (1/7 GNP) they can control us. That may be true for some fools. They could care less if you or die.
We need a few health care reforms, not a complete overhaul of the system and certainly not another national health plan. Look at the way the government runs the VA health system. This should be the best health care system in the world, but it isn't. I have friends of mine that tell me you get so poor service at the VA medical services they would rather do without than go there.
If this proposed new National health plan passes you can look for everyone to be on it within 5-7 years. Why?, because employers will see that they can unload this health care costs on the government for less costs.
The people hurt most in all this health care reform will be Seniors. President Obama and the his group think there are to many of them, they live to long and cost to much for medical care. These are the people who made this country what it is today. Now President Obama wants to throw them out like old socks. We must not let that happen.