Republican Wins Massachusetts senate race

[AngusJS]

you CAN make compromises

That's all they've been doing - making compromises with people who aren't going to vote for the bill anyway. The result: half a baby.

you can also put a bill out there that has the SUPPORT of 76% of the nation rather than the DISDAIN of 76% of the nation!

A large part of that 76% wants real reform, and is disappointed with the cop-outs and half measures in the bill, along with the largess.

they can put a bill out there that has the support of the medical personnel that will have to work under it every single day... the people who are already in the industry, that know the system... when those people are saying "This health care bill is a big problem and we need to think of other ways to fix this."

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790

Most doctors supported the public option.

here is a novel idea - PUT CONGRESS ON THE SAME HEALTH CARE PLAN!!!

That's been included in reverse - letting the Office of Personnel Management put contracts up for bid to provide health insurance that ordinary people can buy into. But it's not clear if that will survive reconciliation. And while Lieberboy says he might support it, you can probably chalk that up as another lie.

Turning it over fully to government control will not fix the system either

IT'S NOT FULL GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL. It was never even close to it.

it will fall apart, just like medicare, just like social security, just like every other government run chartity funded by very real public dollars it will be FLAT ASS BROKE.

It's not a charity if it's funded by the premiums of people buying into the plan.

if we go forward with this trillion dollar health care bill NOW...

we will be creating a problem ten times that size 15 to 20 years down range.

If we do nothing now, health care costs will go up by another 100% in 10 years time.

We did something, a hell of a lot more than the Republicans ever did. But Obama let Congress run in a million different directions, he let the Right frame the issue and monopolize the debate, and at the end he and the Senate leadership caved into Lieberboy et al.

you want to fix health care in this nation? i have a great place we can start...

elementary school.

Or we could look at...oh, I don't know...EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY and see how they handle health care, and do it better for less cost.

Nah, let's just concentrate on school lunches and phys ed. Small stuff, that, while important, come no where near to the crux of the problem.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Lieberboy et al.

Why do Democrats always have to have a scapegoat to blame their parties flaws upon? The truth is the Democrats with solid majorities in both houses of Congress and in control of the White House, had a golden opportunity to make real progress on something they claim is so important to them and they blew it, Not Senator Lieberman, who btw their party first put into office, not the Republicans, not George Bush, not anyone else but the Democratic party.

They caved to the unions and other special interests, loaded their bill with astronomical amounts of pork and patronage, and then tried unsuccessfully to hide the details long enough to sneak this abortion under the nose of the American people even though they knew that ultimately it would not solve the health care issue and end up costing the taxpayer even more than he pays now. BTW expect another wave of pissed offedness when folks start doing their taxes this year and get to see the repeal of those Bush era tax cuts in dollars and cents.

Meanwhile the Dems tossed band aids at the real problem the people put their party into power in the first place. To paraphrase a Clinton era Democrat; "It's the economy stupid". Unemployment is running at 10% and the economy shows little sign of recovery. I have to say that if they don't expect to get "Scott Browned" on a national level come November the leadership of the Democratic party had better get on the stick and quick.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

Why do Democrats always have to have a scapegoat to blame their parties flaws upon?

In this instance, Lieberboy does deserve a lot of the blame. He supported a Medicare buy-in in September (IIRC), but upon hearing that some Democrats were toying with the idea, flip-flopped.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...he-fallout/?hp

Mr. Lieberman had supported the Medicare buy-in proposal in the past — both as the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2000 and in more recent discussions about the health care system. In an interview this year, he reiterated his support for the concept.


But in the interview, Mr. Lieberman said that he grew apprehensive when a formal proposal began to take shape. He said he worried that the program would lead to financial trouble and contribute to the instability of the existing Medicare program.


And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.


“Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it’s the beginning of a road to single-payer,” Mr. Lieberman said. “Jacob Hacker, who’s a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, ‘This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.’”


Some Democratic senators who have discussed the health care proposal with Mr. Lieberman have said his positions are inconsistent and at times incoherent. Some say he is shifting further to the right politically in anticipation of a re-election bid in 2012.

The way he acted throughout the process gives the impression that he's doing this out of spite for being primaried.

The truth is the Democrats with solid majorities

As it turned out, not really. The Democrats had a ~54 seat majority in the Senate; the other senators either had conservative constituencies, or were Lieberboy.

...had a golden opportunity to make real progress on something they claim is so important to them and they blew it

This is true. Regardless of the shakiness of the Senate majority, the Democratic leadership could have done so much better, and deserve most of the blame.

Meanwhile the Dems tossed band aids at the real problem the people put their party into power in the first place. To paraphrase a Clinton era Democrat; "It's the economy stupid". Unemployment is running at 10% and the economy shows little sign of recovery.

Well, we have stopped losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.

Of course maybe that's because there are no more jobs to lose.

I have to say that if they don't expect to get "Scott Browned" on a national level come November the leadership of the Democratic party had better get on the stick and quick.

I agree. Obama's policies have done little to ensure that another financial crisis on the scale of 08 won't happen again.

Of course, I'm not sure Republican policies would be all that much better. In fact, if we had "let them fail" as a lot of conservatives were saying, we might now be wishing we could have just a 10% unemployment rate as opposed to what we'd have if the unchecked financial meltdown had resulted in the China Syndrome.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

The way he acted throughout the process gives the impression that he's doing this out of spite for being primaried.

Or he didn't agree with their methods and means more likely. Does your mangling of his name indicate some personal dislike of the man?

As it turned out, not really. The Democrats had a ~54 seat majority in the Senate.

That is a solid majority, especially when you count the RINOs like Snow and Chaffee. Then there is the HoR.

Of course, I'm not sure Republican policies would be all that much better. In fact, if we had "let them fail" as a lot of conservatives were saying, we might now be wishing we could have just a 10% unemployment rate as opposed to what we'd have if the unchecked financial meltdown had resulted in the China Syndrome.

This could be true I suppose. In 1929 nothing was done and in the ensuing great depression the unemployment rate went up to 25%. It remains unproven however that today's 10% would have been worse without government interference. It is also no guarantee that it won't get there this year or next.

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually the chicken in every pot socialistic ideals of the New Deal, along with other highly destructive actions of FDR - kept the country from seeing its way out of the Great Depression for an extended time frame.

The Great Depression is held to have started on Oct 24th of 1929 - so called "Black Thursday". It is commonly held to have ended anywhere from 1939 to 1941 - depending on how you define the end. It was only with the military trade and buildup within the US that the depression ended.

The New Deal is but one of many failures that were supposed to rescue the economy and thus the people. It, combined with things like taking the US off the gold standard, arbitrarily setting the price of gold (by executive decree - which really was illegal), the seizing of privately owned gold, etc - did nothing more than pull the bottom out of the currency, devaluing it greatly and thus impoverishing many more people, as well as increasing the hardship on all the people. This resulted in the inability of the economy to recover since the capital it needed to do so was devalued.

The parallels to today - and the flagrant increasing of our national debt (which significantly devalues our currency) are no coincidence. While the motives may be great, the paths to accomplish them have the opposite of the intended effect. Until spending by the government is reigned in (meaning less social programs and not more of them) as well as the deficit addressed with more than a band aid and yet another set of books - any recovery will be long in coming.

Study your history, or repeat it.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

Or he didn't agree with their methods and means more likely. Does your mangling of his name indicate some personal dislike of the man?

Again, it doesn't appear that Lieberboy was standing on principle. A policy that he was advocating a few months ago suddenly became unacceptable when other Dems brought it up.

Reforming our asinine system was too important to let personal issues get in the way. But it appears that that's just what happened.

That is a solid majority, especially when you count the RINOs like Snow and Chaffee. Then there is the HoR.

It's not a filibuster-proof majority.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

It's not a filibuster-proof majority.

but it's definitely close enough for any bill that enjoys even the least bit of bipartisan support Angus. Apparently it doesn't even have the support of democrat leaning independants. That should tell you something right there.

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Originally Posted by August

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Which is why a multi-party system could be advantagiouse to the american people.

Originally Posted by August

but it's definitely close enough for any bill that enjoys even the least bit of bipartisan support Angus. Apparently it doesn't even have the support of democrat leaning independants. That should tell you something right there.

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Well come on over to Finland, we've got all kinds of little parties like the Swedish Democrats. They have their own minister post in the present government and a seat in the European parliament, from Finland. I'm a Finn and lived here all my life and it boggles my mind how that can be.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

... But Obama let Congress run in a million different directions...

Just a minor but important nit to pick until it bleeds.

The President does not LET congress do anything. Congress does not work for, nor are they accountable to the President.

Every congress, regardless of majority, makes damn sure that every President, regardless of party, know that.

The President ASKS congress. He or she does not TELL congress.

The President can attempt to use his charisma or his political capitol, but in the end, all he can do is ask.

That is an important part of the separation of powers.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Just a minor but important nit to pick until it bleeds.

The President does not LET congress do anything. Congress does not work for, nor are they accountable to the President.

Obviously that's the case. But the President is the leader of the party, and he can set the agenda. During his health care address, he could have said "Any legislation that does not reduce health care costs by X percent is getting vetoed."

He could have used his pulpit to raise the cost of Lieberboy's opposition to the bill.

He could have done something.

But no, we're supposed to be post-partisan now, so he did what amounted to bupkis.

[CaptainHaplo]

The failure of the health care "reform" bill does not lay at the foot of the President.

It lays squarely at the feet of Pelosi and Reid.

Yes - the President has a "bully pulpit" - and President Obama can use it. But the ones who shepharded this monstrosity through, who ok'd the various "payments" for votes, who tried to hide the contents from the people, are the 2 leaders in Congress.

Had Obama stood up and said "This is an unacceptable bill for X,Y,Z reasons" - regardless of if they were issues on the public option, costs, how to pay for it, etc - could he have helped shape the public opinion about the bill? Yes - but only in the negative.

The only fault that President Obama is responsible for regarding this bill not getting done is telling his party that he wanted a bill on his desk to sign before the State of the Union address so that he could tout it as the "big accomplishment". Had the Leadership had the ability to backdoor this piece by piece, and not been greedy, some form of this uglyness would have been alot more solidly on its way to being law before the end of this year.

But the writing is on the wall for the President. He will be a one term president, and so they wanted to avoid the mistakes of the past few presidents of both parties - and instead "secure" Obama's legacy and have a springboard for more far left movement in the government.

Greed caused impatience - and impatience "kills" political momentum as assuredly as it kills in combat.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But the writing is on the wall for the President. He will be a one term president...

People were saying the same thing about Bush.

It depends not only on how the public feels about Obama, but also how the public feels about whoever is running against him next time. If the Republicans give us crap again, it is likely Obama gets another term.

In order for an incumbent to be replaced two circumstances must be present

1. The citizens must feel that reelecting the incumbent would be bad

AND

2. The citizens must feel that electing the opponent would be good.

This is what happened to Bush in 2004. Bush had low approval rates, but what the Democrats were offering was not "that" much better. In politics the tie often goes to the incumbent.

"I am not Bush" did not work in 2004 and "I am not Obama" won't work in 2012. It would behoove both parties if they understood that.

[Oberon]

I happened to catch a report on the World Service which talked about Scott Brown, and he sounds a voteable guy, if half of what it said about him is true then it's little wonder that he got in. He seems to be a rather middle road Republican, a sort of 'Republican-lite' compared to the oft-portrayed (by left leaning media it must be said) right-wing heavies.
It doesn't hurt that he's got the looks and charisma. Heck, the guy is a walking talking vote winner, he's got an American Idol semi-finalist as a daughter, a news reporter as a wife, he swims, he cycles, he runs, he's Downtown Scotty Brown in the hoops, he's in the National Guard, he's a model and he raises money for Nuns who make candy for children.

This guy is going to go far. He's a walking campaign winner I'd say. We could see a President Brown in 2012. If I were American I'd probably vote for him and I'm more left wing than I am right, but his views sound about right, although I (as I always am) am a bit concerned with the mixture of religion with politics, don't get me wrong, I don't mind what denomination the chap is, so long as that doesn't come through in his policies. Politics and religion should really be kept seperate IMHO, but that's me.

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Or we could look at...oh, I don't know...EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY and see how they handle health care, and do it better for less cost.

In Danmark hospital workers are being layed off because
THE MONEY IS NO LONGER THERE.