New poll has Mass. Senate race in a dead heat

[KRonn]

Maybe a better strategy then would be to do the reform in a series of smaller bills that are easier to understand on their own instead of one big huge one that just looks overwhelming.

Politically, maybe, but practically it would be a disastrous strategy.  So many pieces of the healthcare reform must come together, or not at all.  You can't have guaranteed issue without a mandate, for example.

You're probably right. But I think most people don't want health care reform stopped, just want it done smaller at first, or quite differently. The Repubs and Bush admin did try some smaller changes but go nowhere as well.

[grumbler]

Reason magazine?  C'mon Tim.  You are better then that.

Address the argument not the source.

That's not the first place I'd heard about this case. I found a ton of stuff on it today and her actions were inexcusable.

There is no argument to address.  The article just has one poster whining about another poster.

[grumbler]

You're probably right. But I think most people don't want health care reform stopped, just want it done smaller at first, or quite differently. The Repubs and Bush admin did try some smaller changes but go nowhere as well.

The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary.  They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan."  As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works.  The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.

The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good.  The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks.  They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.

[MadImmortalMan]

A decent point. "Importing" a plan from Germany or the Netherlands would come under fire for being Euro but at least it would have the benefit of a concrete track record that people could look at and make up their minds about. The uncertainty that the Senate plan will be any good--or even worse than what we have now--is maybe the biggest reason people are skeptical. If it were complicated but built on a model that is known, a lot of that might not be the case.



BTW--polls close when? 45 minutes?

[Fate]

You're probably right. But I think most people don't want health care reform stopped, just want it done smaller at first, or quite differently. The Repubs and Bush admin did try some smaller changes but go nowhere as well.

The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary.  They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan."  As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works.  The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.

The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good.  The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks.  They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.

grumbler's solution is to import european socialism. That'll go over like a lead balloon with freedom loving teabaggers. 

[DGuller]

As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected.  I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is.  From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.

[Darth Wagtaros]

As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected.  I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is.  From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.

I disagree.  That attitude ensures that we cotninue to get less than deserving candidates because there is no reason to put forth good ones. 

[Razgovory]

As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected.  I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is.  From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.

I disagree.  That attitude ensures that we cotninue to get less than deserving candidates because there is no reason to put forth good ones.

Or we can wait around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for super candidates while congenial idiots take over the country.

[Weatherman]

Brown wins. 52% to 47%.

[Razgovory]

Brown wins. 52% to 47%.

America losses.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary.  They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan."  As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works.  The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.

The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good.  The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks.  They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.

I agree with this, a good example is the political maneuvering that Obama had to do to placate union leaders and State employees who were looking at the prospect of having their health care plans fall under the definition of "Cadillac health care plan."

I think most people agree health care needs overhauled; I'm extremely conservative and I feel this way.  The problem with the most recent attempt at health care reform is it is, just like grumbler said, not any sort of systemic overhaul but instead taking a hammer and swinging at random aspects of the health care industry in a way designed to make certain interest groups happy while only pissing off the ones that the Democrats feel they won't be supported by in any case.

The #1 issue facing America's health care system is cost, and we need a serious plan for addressing cost first, anything else will just lead to endless rounds of debate and further need for change.  It really doesn't matter what type of health care system we get out of the current situation if the problem of rising costs isn't adequately addressed (and it isn't by Obama's legislation), as long as rising costs are unaddressed we are going to be forced back to the table and looking at a "health care overhaul" again and again and again.

In some ways we'd be in a good position if our political leadership wasn't so concerned with creating some crazy-assed patchwork quilt designed to appease the various interest groups.  There are many working health care systems around the world, and since we have the opportunity to implement one essentially from the "ground up" we could look at systems like the ones in Europe or even Canada and implement them while avoiding the mistakes and problems of those systems (at least in theory--it's the classic example of a "late adopter" avoiding some of the developmental pit falls.")

[Neil]

Brown wins. 52% to 47%.

America losses.

Your statement doesn't make any sense.

[Darth Wagtaros]

As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected.  I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is.  From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.

I disagree.  That attitude ensures that we cotninue to get less than deserving candidates because there is no reason to put forth good ones.

Or we can wait around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for super candidates while congenial idiots take over the country.

That might happen anyway.

So long as people are OK with voting for the lesser of two evils or the one who isn't a total jackass we will see the parties not really put any effort into things. 

I believe Mass. will benefit long term from this because the Democrats will no longer take the Commonwealth for granted as a lock.  We've had GOP Governors, voted for Reagan, and now have a GOP senator.  Maybe now both parties will make a real attempt to win the state.  There is some benefit to being a battleground state.

It's a pipedream.  But I occasionally like to dream.

[dps]

The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary.  They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan."  As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works.  The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.

The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good.  The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks.  They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.

I agree with this, a good example is the political maneuvering that Obama had to do to placate union leaders and State employees who were looking at the prospect of having their health care plans fall under the definition of "Cadillac health care plan."

I think most people agree health care needs overhauled; I'm extremely conservative and I feel this way.  The problem with the most recent attempt at health care reform is it is, just like grumbler said, not any sort of systemic overhaul but instead taking a hammer and swinging at random aspects of the health care industry in a way designed to make certain interest groups happy while only pissing off the ones that the Democrats feel they won't be supported by in any case.

The #1 issue facing America's health care system is cost, and we need a serious plan for addressing cost first, anything else will just lead to endless rounds of debate and further need for change.  It really doesn't matter what type of health care system we get out of the current situation if the problem of rising costs isn't adequately addressed (and it isn't by Obama's legislation), as long as rising costs are unaddressed we are going to be forced back to the table and looking at a "health care overhaul" again and again and again.

In some ways we'd be in a good position if our political leadership wasn't so concerned with creating some crazy-assed patchwork quilt designed to appease the various interest groups.  There are many working health care systems around the world, and since we have the opportunity to implement one essentially from the "ground up" we could look at systems like the ones in Europe or even Canada and implement them while avoiding the mistakes and problems of those systems (at least in theory--it's the classic example of a "late adopter" avoiding some of the developmental pit falls.")

As far as I'm concerned, health care should be treated just like any other commody;  anybody should be able to buy as much as they can afford.  If we actually went that route, we'd actually see major cuts in costs.right now, doctors are doing quite well by chargind $75 and up just for a simple office visit, because most people will pay $20-35 and their insurance or the government will pick up the rest.  But if everybody just paid out of their own pocket, the doctors would have to lower their rates to a level that almost everyone can afford, because otherwise they'd lose all their patients.

[alfred russel]

CNN just said that a democratic senator (webb) released a statement saying it would only be fair to suspend health care votes until Brown is seated. Cowardly fuckers.