Languish.org

[Mr. Burns]Excellent[/Mr. Burns]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/01/2010_could_easily_be_disastrous_for_democrats_98501.html

Quote2010 Could Easily Be Disastrous For Democrats
By Sean Trende

In this week's New Republic, Ed Kilgore writes a piece entitled "Some Revolution: Why The 2010 Election Will Not Be A Repeat Of 1994." The piece is a pretty good summary of arguments I've read concluding that 2010 won't be bad for Democrats.  These arguments are worth a closer analysis.

Kilgore concludes that the Democrats' most likely fate for the 2010 midterm elections is a loss of about ten seats. Bear in mind that this would be well below the post-World War II average loss of 24 seats in a midterm. This is well below what non-partisan analysts like Charlie Cook are predicting. In fact, if Republicans only gained ten seats, it would be the eighth worst midterm election for an out-party since the Civil War.


I think that such minor losses are highly unlikely. But before getting into what Kilgore's analysis misses, let me say that I really don't purport to know what's going to happen in 2010. It's a bit like trying to predict who will win the 2011 Super Bowl. We can probably say with some certainty it won't be the Detroit Lions, but once you get past perennial bottom dwellers there are too many variables to assign realistic odds (and even then, who knows; witness the turnaround of the Miami Dolphins from 2007 to 2008).

So beyond saying that Republicans will almost certainly not lose another 20 seats, we can't do much in the way of precise predicting right now. But while the optimsitcs may ultimately be correct, they'll be correct in spite of his analysis, not because of it, much like a math student who gets the correct answer, but has numerous errors in his work. So let's go through the main arguments, and see what holds up, and what doesn't.

1. Open Seats Kilgore notes that "[t]wenty-two of the 54 [sic -- Republicans picked up 56 Democratic seats and lost four of their own for a net gain of 52 seats on election night] seats the GOP picked up [in 1994] were open. By comparison, the authoritative (and subscription-only) Cook Political Report counts only four open, Democrat-held House seats in territory that is even vaguely competitive."

If we are asking whether Republicans can net 52 seats like they did in 1994, then this is an appropriate analysis (though we still have to note that it is relatively early in the cycle, and more seats are likely to come open if the situation doesn't improve for Democrats, as Cook has also noted).

But if we're just asking whether or not the Republicans can back take the 40 House seats they need in order to take back the House there's a real problem here with this analysis (and if we're just asking whether Republicans can pick up the 30 or so seats they'd need to bring the Democrats' agenda to a grinding halt, it's irrelevant).

You see, open seats are a cause of midterm loss.  But they're also an effect of a bad election shaping up.  Running a losing campaign is no fun, and an awful lot of these open seats were open in 1994 because the incumbents saw that they were likely going to lose. Rather than fight it out, these incumbents picked up their toys and went home.

Almost all of these open seats won by Republicans were in Republican-leaning territory, eight of these vacating incumbents had won with 55% of the two-party vote or less in the relatively good Democratic year of 1992, and all but two of these incumbents had voted for either the 1993 Clinton budget or the assault weapons ban. Thirteen had voted for both controversial pieces of legislation.

As I've noted before, similarly-situated incumbents in 1994 suffered close to a 50% mortality rate. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to conclude that, even if all of these Democrats had run for re-election, Republicans would have defeated enough of them to retake the House. While the potential lack of retirements in 2010 certainly won't help Republicans any, it won't hold them to single digits, either.

Remember what tsunami midterms are like.  In 1994, Mike Synar's seat was open because he was defeated in a primary election by a retired high school principal who spent less than $20,000 on his campaign.  Synar would not have survived the general election even if he had made it that far.  Democrats like Earl Hutto in Pensacola, Marilyn Lloyd of Chattanooga, and William Hughes of South Jersey weren't coming back to Congress, regardless of whether they ran or not (much like Jim Nussle and Bob Beauprez in 2006).

2. "The Great Ideological Sort Out"

Kilgore argues:

    The 1994 election was the high-water mark of the great ideological sorting that occurred between the two parties. That made the environment particularly harsh for southern Democrats, as well as those in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West, where many ancestral attachments to the Donkey Party came unmoored. . . . Nothing similar to those handicaps exists today. The ideological filtering of the parties is long over; any genuine conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans left in the electorate clearly have reasons for retaining their loyalties, which will be difficult to erode.

The problem with this was identified by Kilgore earlier in his piece, where he explained that "if you apply the Partisan Voting Index, (PVI), which compares a district's prior presidential results to national averages, you find that there are 66 Democrats in districts with a Republican PVI and only 15 Republicans in districts with a Democratic PVI--a similar situation to the 79 Democrats in Republican districts in 1994."

To the extent there was a "Great Ideological Sort Out" in the 1990s, it largely reversed itself in 2006 and 2008, when the Democrats decided to back pro-life, pro-gun Democrats in places like NC-11, AL-02, and other conservative districts. In fact, most Southern Congressional delegations are almost as heavily Democratic today as they were right before the 1994 elections; Democrats presently have one fewer seat than in 1994 in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, have broken even in North Carolina and Florida, and gained a seat in Arkansas (Republicans have picked up a few more seats in these states due to reapportionment).

The end result is that, as Kilgore notes, there are almost as many Democrats in Republican-leaning districts today as there were in 1994. And there's no great trick to eroding the voters' loyalties to these Democrats here; many are newly elected and were elected because of incompetent or corrupt Republican incumbents, because they weren't being pressured by their leadership to vote for highly unpopular (in conservative districts) measures like cap and trade or health care reform, or because of unusually high African American and/or youth turnout in 2008 (on which more later).

3. Ye Olde Emerging Democratic Majority. I'm on record expressing great skepticism about the conglomeration of demographic observations that have come to be known as the "Emerging Democratic Majority Theory." Not that I believe there's a "Permanent Republican Majority," emerging or otherwise.  I just don't believe in permanent majorities. I won't rehash everything I've written; you can click here to get the basic argument; the article contains lots of links to other things Jay Cost and I have written on the subject.

As for the argument that there is not a "single discernible long-term trend that favors the Republican Party," two observations are in order. First, you can almost always make this argument when you've beaten down the other party. If you look at the exit polls from 1988 (or 2004), it's hard to make a case for the Democrats returning to power anytime soon. This is why highly respected political scientists penned well-received articles in top-tier scholarly journals in the late 1980s and early 1990s about what was known as the "Republican Lock On The Electoral College." We know how that turned out (Jay and I have both written at greater length on the longer-term trends).

Second, long term trends are largely irrelevant here. We aren't so much concerned with what the electorate is going to look like in ten years as we are what it's going to look like in thirteen months. And in thirteen months, the electorate is almost certainly going to be less favorable to the Democrats than it was in 2008.

4. Short Term Trends. As Kilgore points out, we can be fairly certain of one thing: The 2010 electorate is going to be older than the 2008 electorate. And as Kilgore notes, these voters are not particularly crazy about the Democrats right now. Moreover, a grayed electorate robs Democrats of one of Obama's strongest constituencies in 2008: The young. Kilgore notes that this shift alone could cost Democrats ten seats if the Democrats are as popular in 2010 as they were in 2008. They're substantially less popular today than they were in 2008, which is why I'm perplexed by Kilgore's prediction of a ten seat loss.

There's another problem: The midterm electorate is likely to be whiter than in 2008. Obama brought boatloads of marginal voters to the polls, who were excited to vote for the first African American President. Will the voters in VA-02 who turned out to vote for Obama and happened to also pull the lever for Glenn Nye now turn out to vote just for Nye? Perhaps, but I think it is highly unlikely. The more likely scenario is that we can expect to see a larger-than-usual dropoff in minority turnout from a general election than we are accustomed to seeing. Again, this weakens the Democratic performance.

Finally, Kilgore points to two articles by Alan Abramowitz. The first argues that our electorate is progressively less white and that Republicans will need to win 60% of the white vote to take the House, while the second notes that Obama is holding serve with his core constituencies. There are all manner of problems with these Abramowitz articles, problems which are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that (1) in good Republican years, Republicans have typically come close to winning the 60% of the white vote that Abramowitz thinks they need to claim the House outright; (2) the dropoff in minority participation from 2008 is likely to be more substantial than Abramowitz's model allows; and (3) the Gallup polling data in the second article is from July of 2008, when Obama's approval rating was about seven points higher than it was today.

At any rate, the Democrats' concern isn't that core constituencies will turn against them; these voters are often packed into heavily Democratic districts, and they aren't likely to abandon Obama. The real concern is that independent voters – who went Democratic by eight points in 2008 and who are more concentrated in swing districts – will abandon the Democrats. Obama's approval rating is presently 43 percent among this group.

5. The Senate Kilgore is knocking down a bit of a straw man here; I don't think anyone is predicting that Republicans can take back the Senate. A pickup of 11 seats hasn't happened since the Republicans took 12 in 1980, and this cycle's playing field is not particularly favorable to the Republicans. Republican gains on the order of 5-6 seats are possible, but the most likely scenario is something of a wash. A lot will depend on whether Rep. Mike Castle opts to run for the Senate, whether North Dakota Governor John Hoeven decides to challenge Byron Dorgan, and whether George Pataki challenges Kirsten Gillibrand. Then again, no one but the hardiest partisan thought Democrats would take back the Senate until late 2006; few thought they would just miss a filibuster-proof majority in 2008 until summertime.

6. Stabilizing Approval. It is true that Obama's approval ratings have stabilized – he doesn't seem ready to go below 50% in Gallup. But his approval ratings right now are about where Reagan's and Clinton's were in September of their terms. Both of them eventually got shellacked in their first midterm elections. Indeed, if Obama's approval merely holds steady at 52%, it would probably still be a rough midterm for the Democrats.

7. The Economy Missing from Kilgore's analysis entirely is, strangely, what is likely to be the most important factor in the 2010 elections: the economy. In 1994, the economy was sluggish, but had been recovering for four years, and it still proved to be a drag on Democrats. I don't think anyone really has a clue what the public's perception of the economy will be in 2010. Reading Realclearmarkets day-to-day, you're just as likely to find someone predicting Morning In America II as you are someone predicting gloom-and-doom.

So let's say this: If it is apparent to the average American by the summer of 2010 that we are in the midst of a robust recovery, then I think that the Democrats' losses will be very limited. We could even see minor gains. But if we're seeing double digit unemployment numbers that are only beginning to crest or come down (or worse still, are still going up), the Democrats are going to have an absolute debacle on their hands. Every Democrat in a red district that voted for the stimulus package, which is almost all of them, will have to face charges that they voted for a trillion dollars in spending with nothing to show for it. Many will also have to defend votes on cap-and-trade, a health care proposal that isn't particularly popular in red states, and other votes yet to be determined (immigration reform?).

If that's the playing field on which the 2010 elections are fought, then 2010 won't look like 1994. It will look worse.

Sean Trende can be reached at [email protected].

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 02:37:04 PM
[Mr. Burns]Excellent[/Mr. Burns]

Why is that excellent?  Why should I care?

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:01:56 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 02:37:04 PM
[Mr. Burns]Excellent[/Mr. Burns]

Why is that excellent?  Why should I care?

As a Republican I want that.

Aslo, Mr. Burns was chairman of the Springfield Republican party, so that's why I used the word.

2010 could easily see a large earthquake in California.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:03:48 PM
As a Republican I want that.

Why are you a Republican?  What sorts of things do you think they will do if they take control of both houses of Congress again in 2010?

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:04:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:03:48 PM
As a Republican I want that.

Why are you a Republican?  What sorts of things do you think they will do if they take control of both houses of Congress again in 2010?

Give Obama a more credible scapegoat.

A conservative website writes an article stating the Democrats will get trounced in an election over a year away.

Color me shocked.  :mellow:

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:04:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:03:48 PM
As a Republican I want that.

Why are you a Republican?  What sorts of things do you think they will do if they take control of both houses of Congress again in 2010?

I'm hawkish and agree more with the Republicans on domestic and fiscal policy. (Although Republican politicians often only pay lip service to a conservative fiscal policy <_< )

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 02:37:04 PM

QuoteIt's a bit like trying to predict who will win the 2011 Super Bowl. We can probably say with some certainty it won't be the Detroit Lions,

:(

Quote from: Vince on October 01, 2009, 03:07:42 PM
A conservative website writes an article stating the Democrats will get trounced in an election over a year away.

Color me shocked.  :mellow:

RealClearPolitics isn't a conservative site.

I thought the article was quite objective and grounded in historical precedent. What are your problems with it?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:07:51 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:04:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:03:48 PM
As a Republican I want that.

Why are you a Republican?  What sorts of things do you think they will do if they take control of both houses of Congress again in 2010?

I'm hawkish and agree more with the Republicans on domestic and fiscal policy. (Although Republican politicians often only pay lip service to a conservative fiscal policy <_< )

you know, that "only paying lip service to conservative fiscal policy" used to be a pretty big knock on the Republicans.

However, now that we see what NOT paying lip service to conservative fiscal policy means, suddenly I am thinking we could use some lip service.

Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2009, 03:17:48 PM
you know, that "only paying lip service to conservative fiscal policy" used to be a pretty big knock on the Republicans.

However, now that we see what NOT paying lip service to conservative fiscal policy means, suddenly I am thinking we could use some lip service.

:lol:

David Gergen predicted a 40 seat loss.

In a perfect world, the Blue Dogs, Johhny Hero, the Maine chicks, and Lindsey Graham would keep their seats and everyone else would lose theirs.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:07:51 PM
I'm hawkish and agree more with the Republicans on domestic and fiscal policy. (Although Republican politicians often only pay lip service to a conservative fiscal policy <_< )

On domestic policy?  Interesting.  What aspects of domestic policy?  Is it just the entitlements?

Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2009, 03:17:48 PM
you know, that "only paying lip service to conservative fiscal policy" used to be a pretty big knock on the Republicans.

However, now that we see what NOT paying lip service to conservative fiscal policy means, suddenly I am thinking we could use some lip service.

The Blue Dogs have been pretty good at holding back the storm.  The stimulus bill is pretty much the only big new spending thing that has come out so far.

And the lip service we are getting now is that the health coverage will be done without increasing government spending.

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:30:14 PM
The stimulus bill is pretty much the only big new spending thing that has come out so far.

Oh that little thing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 03:28:50 PM
In a perfect world, the Blue Dogs

I am sort of comfortable with neither party being able to get anything done without the Blue Dogs.  It seems to have kept the floodgates closed pretty well so far.

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:04:45 PM
Why are you a Republican?  What sorts of things do you think they will do if they take control of both houses of Congress again in 2010?

Jeez Valmy, let the kid cheer for his team.  For once, it's a team I don't despise :D

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:30:14 PM
The Blue Dogs have been pretty good at holding back the storm.  The stimulus bill is pretty much the only big new spending thing that has come out so far.

And the lip service we are getting now is that the health coverage will be done without increasing government spending.

You should include the $100 billion in TARP money that was gifted to the UAW.

On health coverage I think you mean the deficit, not government spending.

To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2009, 03:34:08 PM
Oh that little thing.

I thought it was a classic Keynsian reaction to the economic crisis.  Of course it was done in a fucked up way but it is Congress after all.

If doing something theoretically whithin standard economic dogma is the extent of the rampant spending that actually happens I think we will have weathered the storm rather well.

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:34:54 PM
Jeez Valmy, let the kid cheer for his team.  For once, it's a team I don't despise :D

I just wanted to get Tim talking about the article and his opinions and not just the standard ':w00t:' or '<_<'

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

It's not a concern to them.

Quote from: Vince on October 01, 2009, 03:07:42 PM
A conservative website writes an article stating the Democrats will get trounced in an election over a year away.

Color me shocked.  :mellow:

There are quite a few doom & gloom conservative writers out there :contract:

Speaking of which, my copy of this should arrive today:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51UKyuxepkL._SS500_.jpg&hash=66a097790e874ff7b5b35070bb1202b6cefeb2a8)

:worthy: Derb

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

It's none of my business.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 01, 2009, 03:38:13 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

It's not a concern to them.

Then I'm glad I do not live in a country where greed and egoism trump compassion and social conscience.

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:39:45 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

It's none of my business.

You are not a Christian, are you?

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
Or is this not a concern to you?

x

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:40:58 PM
You are not a Christian, are you?

Yes, and I am charitable.  I just don't like forced charity.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

My biggest concern is the extent that health care costs are skyrocketing and the middle man, the insurance companies, have all the power and a ridiculous amount of the costs goes to the overhead of supporting this middle man.

I feel that if we can get that under control we have a chance of the market becoming more accessible in the future.  The leftist solution is to create a competing public option to drive down prices but I think that has the potential to blow up the federal budget in the future and I hope more moderate reforms can be tried first.

I can only hope the Republicans see the need to reform the system even if they come to power because I believe it is needed.  Reforms that might be able to address the problems alot of people have in getting coverage as well that hopefully will not continue to saddle us with huge and unsustainable entitlement costs.

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:04:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:03:48 PM
As a Republican I want that.

Why are you a Republican?  What sorts of things do you think they will do if they take control of both houses of Congress again in 2010?

He likes to hang around with people who hate him?

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:42:00 PM
Yes, and I am charitable.  I just don't like forced charity.

Well I think there are certain structural elements that could be reformed yes?  You are not actually saying the broken health care system is great and dandy I presume.  We discussed this earlier and you indicated you were in favor of some sort of reform.

After all there is the way the insurance works is that it discourages small businesses and the self employed by giving making them pay enormous prices for insurance while big business gets all sorts of breaks.  The worker with a family to think of might decide it is safer to simply work for big business and get his insurance than venture out on his own.

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:42:03 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

My biggest concern is the extent that health care costs are skyrocketing and the middle man, the insurance companies, have all the power and a ridiculous amount of the costs goes to the overhead of supporting this middle man.

I feel that if we can get that under control we have a chance of the market becoming more accessible in the future.  The leftist solution is to create a competing public option to drive down prices but I think that has the potential to blow up the federal budget in the future and I hope more moderate reforms can be tried first.

I can only hope the Republicans see the need to reform the system even if they come to power because I believe it is needed.  Reforms that might be able to address the problems alot of people have in getting coverage as well that hopefully will not continue to saddle us with huge and unsustainable entitlement costs.

Ok. So you are saying that you do not like the Democrat idea because it costs money, but you offer no alternative solution, just platitudes.

I wonder if the big hole in the federal budget that you predict would be sealed if you just spent the money that were wasted on the Iraqui invasion, on the healthcare of your own people instead.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2009, 03:43:56 PM
He likes to hang around with people who hate him?

Dude, Republicans don't hate Mexicans.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:04:45 PM
Why are you a Republican?  What sorts of things do you think they will do if they take control of both houses of Congress again in 2010?

A better question is what sort of things have the Democrats done that would justify them maintaining their seats? Why be a Democrat?

I could be wrong but Bush never went to any Republican governor and told them not to seek re-election. I also could be wrong in noting that the Republicans never created a law to appoint a replacement Senator only to have that law expire once a Democrat has taken the seat as they did in MA.

The country has a lot of issues and problems at the moment but this has seemed to escape the notice of the Democrats who are too busy trying to consolidate power to actually USE that power for the good of the people.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:45:38 PM
Ok. So you are saying that you do not like the Democrat idea because it costs money, but you offer no alternative solution, just platitudes.

I wonder if the big hole in the federal budget that you predict would be sealed if you just spent the money that were wasted on the Iraqui invasion, on the healthcare of your own people instead.

Compared to the money we spend on entitlements today the money for the Iraq war is pocket change.  Our government already spends more on providing health care per capita than any other country in the world right now.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:40:19 PM
social conscience.

:bleeding:

Why not throw "social justice" & the word "progressive" in there as well.

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:47:58 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:40:19 PM
social conscience.

:bleeding:

Why not throw "social justice" & the word "progressive" in there as well.

Is it your position that citizens of our great republic should have no responsibility to one anothers well being?

Quote from: Strix on October 01, 2009, 03:46:36 PM
A better question is what sort of things have the Democrats done that would justify them maintaining their seats? Why be a Democrat?

Hence why I am neither.  To the extent I support the Democrats it is because I am fundamentally opposed to social conservatism.

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 03:48:47 PM
Is it your position that citizens of our great republic should have no responsibility to one anothers well being?

Should they?

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:40:19 PM
Then I'm glad I do not live in a country where greed and egoism trump compassion and social conscience.

I'm generally for health care reform.  I used to have serious concerns about the Trojan Horse effect on the deficit of a public option before it was killed off, and still have serious concerns about the effect of employer mandates on large, low wage companies (i.e. Walmart). 

But here's what I don't get about angry liberals like Mike Moore hyperventilating about uninsured Americans: why don't you go ahead and do it yourself?  Why not pick one or more deserving people and buy them health insurance?  Pick a person with expensive pre-existing conditions that can't afford insurance on the open market.  Call up some like-minded friends, pool your capital and form a non-profit insurance company that would provide "quality, affordable insurance." 

If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

I hope you will enjoy your revolution, when it eventually comes.

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:45:15 PM
Well I think there are certain structural elements that could be reformed yes?  You are not actually saying the broken health care system is great and dandy I presume.  We discussed this earlier and you indicated you were in favor of some sort of reform.

Oh, I do believe there is a need for reform & would like to see more competition & efficiency in the healthcare industry.  And yes, it would be nice if more people were covered.  I prefer free-market solutions, however, not more government involvement.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

My guess is you'll come up with something anyway.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

Who exactly are you addressing?

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:55:14 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

Who exactly are you addressing?

Not you. :P

Quote from: Strix on October 01, 2009, 03:49:48 PM

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 03:48:47 PM
Is it your position that citizens of our great republic should have no responsibility to one anothers well being?

Should they?

Yes.

We are countrymen.

We are not total strangers living in isolation in a confined space.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

I hope you will enjoy your revolution, when it eventually comes.

You're not going to get me with that false sympathetic crap.  I believe in individual economic responsibility-- that is what made us such a rich, developed nation.  And like I said, I also believe in private charity.

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

I hope you will enjoy your revolution, when it eventually comes.

You're not going to get me with that false sympathetic crap.  I believe in individual economic responsibility-- that is what made us such a rich, developed nation.  And like I said, I also believe in private charity.

Sympathetic crap? I am just saying that I will cheer when American soil runs red with the blood of your kind.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 04:01:23 PM
Sympathetic crap? I am just saying that I will cheer when American soil runs red with the blood of your kind.

Hey if people do not like the way we do things they are free to move to Poland where the compassionate people live :P

Actually we are compassionate the issue usually comes down to political philosophy and the role of government and all that.  The issue is not that some people want to help and others want them all to die horribly.

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

I hope you will enjoy your revolution, when it eventually comes.

You're not going to get me with that false sympathetic crap.  I believe in individual economic responsibility-- that is what made us such a rich, developed nation.  And like I said, I also believe in private charity.

That is fine and all, I also believe in individual economic responsibility but there is simply no excuse for the richest, most powerful nation in the world to have its citizens sick and dying because they can't afford health care. Are there lazy people who will sit back and let the system take care of them? Yes, of course, but there are hard working people who draw a tough lot and end up having their lives destroyed. We need to do more to help these people. IF for no other reason than that we're the most powerful nation the world has ever known and we CAN do something about it.

Quote from: Valmy on October 01, 2009, 03:37:00 PM
Of course it was done in a fucked up way but it is Congress after all.

I'm not convinced by this.  I think the bit that it's been meant to do so far it has done.  It and TARP and bailouts are unpopular but they've worked.  I think in Autumn or January of this year no-one though that we would be returning to growth this summer - albeit tepid growth - rather than closer to the end of this year or next year. 

The problem with TARP, bailouts and the stimulus is that they're easy to argue against because all people like me, who thought they were right, can say is 'it would have been worse'.  We've only got a hypothetical idea of what would have happened without it.

QuoteI can only hope the Republicans see the need to reform the system even if they come to power because I believe it is needed.

It looks like the public option's totally dead.  So, hopefully, more Republicans will now get involved with real ideas.

QuoteIf you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

I find it pretty extraordinary that people don't view it as anything to do with them.  It's totally alien to my thinking and the way we look at it in the UK.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2009, 04:21:13 PM
I'm not convinced by this.  I think the bit that it's been meant to do so far it has done.  It and TARP and bailouts are unpopular but they've worked.  I think in Autumn or January of this year no-one though that we would be returning to growth this summer - albeit tepid growth - rather than closer to the end of this year or next year. 

IIRC many economists predicted that the recession would end in the summer of this year.  The government clearly did not understand the extent of the problem; their economists predicted 9% unemployment by year's end if congress did not pass the stimulus package.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2009, 04:21:13 PM
I'm not convinced by this.  I think the bit that it's been meant to do so far it has done.  It and TARP and bailouts are unpopular but they've worked.  I think in Autumn or January of this year no-one though that we would be returning to growth this summer - albeit tepid growth - rather than closer to the end of this year or next year. 

The problem with TARP, bailouts and the stimulus is that they're easy to argue against because all people like me, who thought they were right, can say is 'it would have been worse'.  We've only got a hypothetical idea of what would have happened without it.

"It worked" is a defense against an accusation no one except Hans has made.  You could double or triple the size of the stimulus and it would certainly "work" but would that working be worth it in terms of the amount added to the deficit.  Then you've got all those Reed and Pelosi re-election bells and whistles.  Then you've got the infrastructure portion of the package, which, as Hans pointed out rightly this time, was devoted to anything but shovel-ready projects.

QuoteIt looks like the public option's totally dead.  So, hopefully, more Republicans will now get involved with real ideas.

Another interesting question is how the progressive gang of 70 will backpeddle on their promise to vote against anything that does *not* include a public option.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 04:33:27 PM
"It worked" is a defense against an accusation no one except Hans has made.  You could double or triple the size of the stimulus and it would certainly "work" but would that working be worth it in terms of the amount added to the deficit.

Okay, I'll be more explicit.  It worked and it was worth it.  Without TARP, the bailouts and the stimulus we'd be in a far, far worse economic situation than we are now - though I don't know how bad.  I think that the bailout and TARP was Bush's best and most important decision.

QuoteThen you've got all those Reed and Pelosi re-election bells and whistles.

Have you any details of what these are?

QuoteThen you've got the infrastructure portion of the package, which, as Hans pointed out rightly this time, was devoted to anything but shovel-ready projects.

Shovel ready is a silly phrase.  What Hans is pointing out is that government takes time to spend money - not least because of anti-corruption regulations on how money can be spent.  This is well-known and normally a criticism of stimulus spending.  If you pass a stimulus bill in a normal recession then it can often cause more damage than it solves because most of the money won't be felt/spent until about 18 months after it's passed.  By that point, in a normal recession, that money then largely has an inflationary effect because growth is really rebounding.

I explicitly during the stimulus arguments that one of the reasons I supported it was because I think we'll need a boost in 18 months because this isn't a normal recession (and we want to avoid a W). 

Meanwhile taxes have been cut (in my opinion this was a waste) and state governments have received a great deal of money to plug holes in their budgets in the short-term, not least because state government is funded a lot by sales and property taxes which were really stinging.  That's important because I think with widespread swinging cuts or tax increases that would have been required by the states - because I don't think many of them are allowed to have debt - would have really hurt growth.

QuoteAnother interesting question is how the progressive gang of 70 will backpeddle on their promise to vote against anything that does *not* include a public option.

I don't think they were serious.  But I agree.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 04:01:23 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

I hope you will enjoy your revolution, when it eventually comes.

You're not going to get me with that false sympathetic crap.  I believe in individual economic responsibility-- that is what made us such a rich, developed nation.  And like I said, I also believe in private charity.

Sympathetic crap? I am just saying that I will cheer when American soil runs red with the blood of your kind.

Soon. :menace:  I've already signed up to be an Obama commissar.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2009, 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 04:01:23 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

I hope you will enjoy your revolution, when it eventually comes.

You're not going to get me with that false sympathetic crap.  I believe in individual economic responsibility-- that is what made us such a rich, developed nation.  And like I said, I also believe in private charity.

Sympathetic crap? I am just saying that I will cheer when American soil runs red with the blood of your kind.

Soon. :menace:  I've already signed up to be an Obama commissar.

"Obammissar"  :D

Of course, the Republican comeback has been tainted now...

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2009, 04:42:58 PM
Okay, I'll be more explicit.  It worked and it was worth it.  Without TARP, the bailouts and the stimulus we'd be in a far, far worse economic situation than we are now - though I don't know how bad.  I think that the bailout and TARP was Bush's best and most important decision.

I don't know how much worse the situation would be either.  AFAIK there's no body of economic theory that says what the optimal amount of Keynesian stimulus is in any given recession.  So maybe we can agree that it's impossible to tell if it was worth it or not.

QuoteHave you any details of what these are?

Reid's high speed Vegas-LA rail line, Pelosi's wetlands protection something or other.  Grabon could tell you better than I, he got a post card from Pelosi listing all her fabulous pork for the year.

QuoteShovel ready is a silly phrase.  What Hans is pointing out is that government takes time to spend money - not least because of anti-corruption regulations on how money can be spent.  This is well-known and normally a criticism of stimulus spending.  If you pass a stimulus bill in a normal recession then it can often cause more damage than it solves because most of the money won't be felt/spent until about 18 months after it's passed.  By that point, in a normal recession, that money then largely has an inflationary effect because growth is really rebounding.

I explicitly during the stimulus arguments that one of the reasons I supported it was because I think we'll need a boost in 18 months because this isn't a normal recession (and we want to avoid a W). 

Yes, I remember your argument about preventing the W from before.  What doesn't make sense to me is delaying *the majority* of spending to counteract a hypothetical double-dip instead of spending it now on an actual and real V.  Makes it look very much like infrastructure spending falls under the category of "spending I would like to do at some point" rather than "spending I need to do to prevent a deep recession."

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2009, 04:42:58 PM

QuoteThen you've got all those Reed and Pelosi re-election bells and whistles.

Have you any details of what these are?

Here's what SF (alone) got:

$50 million to rebuild a bunch of streets.
$124.3 million for SF Transit Authority, BART and Caltrain
$20.5 million for SFO
$1.5 million for various artists
$16.5 million to hire cops
$1 million to found the Mission Neighborhood Health Center (in my neighborhood).
$17.2 million for SF parks
$17.9 million for SF Housing Authority
$3 million for the removal of lead-based paint from low-income homes
$8.7 million to provide short term housing for the homeless.

All are more or less worthy causes but I'm not sure what relevance many of them have in an economic stimulus package.

Hiring cops?  That must be pretty unpopular in San Francisco.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

Why do you think a portion of Americans have no health care?

Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 07:04:31 PM
Hiring cops?  That must be pretty unpopular in San Francisco.

Unsure. Our cops don't do much. After all, we allow public nudity and in certain areas/days allow public sex.

Dirty Harry, where art thou?  <_<

Quote from: dps on October 01, 2009, 07:07:06 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

Why do you think a portion of Americans have no health care?

No money. :(

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: dps on October 01, 2009, 07:07:06 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

Why do you think a portion of Americans have no health care?

No money. :(

Wasn't asking you.

Quote from: dps on October 01, 2009, 11:08:17 PM

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: dps on October 01, 2009, 07:07:06 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

Why do you think a portion of Americans have no health care?

No money. :(

Wasn't asking you.

You got your answer anyways, bitch.

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
If you find nothing wrong in the fact that people die of curable illnesses in the richest and most scientifically developed nation on Earth, then I don't really have anything to say.

You proceed from a false assumption.

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 11:24:46 PM

Quote from: dps on October 01, 2009, 11:08:17 PM

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: dps on October 01, 2009, 07:07:06 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

Why do you think a portion of Americans have no health care?

No money. :(

Wasn't asking you.

You got your answer anyways, bitch.

I got jackshit, 'cause that's all you got to offer.

Quote from: dps on October 01, 2009, 07:07:06 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 03:36:12 PM
To the opponents of Obama's health care plan: how do you propose to address the fact that a portion of the American population has no health care and can't get one because they are unemployed, can't afford one and/or cannot get one due to an existing illness (e.g. people suffering from HIV)?

Or is this not a concern to you?

Why do you think a portion of Americans have no health care?

It's because they're lazy and aren't trying hard enough.  :rolleyes:

There's always the emergency room. And Derspiess' charity. Clearly the most cost effective solutions.

It's because we don't have a public option.

The whole bullshit "protestant anglo saxons give lots to charity, so it's just as good!" always make me laugh.

I'm sure derspiess gives lots and lots to charities that help the healthcare of poorer americans  :lol:

Gimme a break. You probably give 50 bucks a year to some crap pet project you care about and then proceed to feel all good about yourself.

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 03:57:39 PM

Quote from: Strix on October 01, 2009, 03:49:48 PM

Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 03:48:47 PM
Is it your position that citizens of our great republic should have no responsibility to one anothers well being?

Should they?

Yes.

We are countrymen.

We are not total strangers living in isolation in a confined space.

Should we help our fellow citizens, yes. Should we be responsible for them, no. The choice to help my neighbor or not help my neighbor is a personal one, and not one that should be decided for me by the government.

I am guessing that you are a follower of the ideal that our country should be about equal outcomes and not equal rights.

QuoteShould we help our fellow citizens, yes. Should we be responsible for them, no. The choice to help my neighbor or not help my neighbor is a personal one, and not one that should be decided for me by the government.

Do you apply that logic to the provision of universal education?

Quote from: Zoupa on October 02, 2009, 12:02:41 AM
The whole bullshit "protestant anglo saxons give lots to charity, so it's just as good!" always make me laugh.

I'm sure derspiess gives lots and lots to charities that help the healthcare of poorer americans  :lol:

Gimme a break. You probably give 50 bucks a year to some crap pet project you care about and then proceed to feel all good about yourself.

Princesca and I give money to NPR and are in the Red Cross.  I've also volunteered for Habitat for Humanity in the past, but I stopped that after I saw several of the properties post-construction and what the ungrateful trash had done to them. :)

NPR is a charity?  :lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2009, 07:57:25 AM
NPR is a charity?  :lol:

:unsure: Yes?  I mean our local NPR affiliates btw (both in Boston and here).

Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 07:58:07 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2009, 07:57:25 AM
NPR is a charity?  :lol:

:unsure: Yes?  I mean our local NPR affiliates btw (both in Boston and here).

All those poor people working in libraries and conducting symphonies can't afford their entertainment. :(

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2009, 08:02:18 AM
All those poor people working in libraries and conducting symphonies can't afford their entertainment. :(

I think it's really important that everyone have the opportunity to listen to Dianne Rehm. :)

Quote from: Warspite on October 02, 2009, 07:30:33 AM

QuoteShould we help our fellow citizens, yes. Should we be responsible for them, no. The choice to help my neighbor or not help my neighbor is a personal one, and not one that should be decided for me by the government.

Do you apply that logic to the provision of universal education?

Or fire services, police services, armed defense, the rural electrification project, etc.  Even putting a civil court system into place is helping your neighbor.

Quote from: Strix on October 02, 2009, 06:59:50 AM
Should we help our fellow citizens, yes. Should we be responsible for them, no. The choice to help my neighbor or not help my neighbor is a personal one, and not one that should be decided for me by the government.

I am guessing that you are a follower of the ideal that our country should be about equal outcomes and not equal rights.

Strix the Libertarian?

Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2009, 08:30:26 AM
Strix the Libertarian?

I wonder what his union boss thinks about his libertarian views. :ph34r:

Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 08:03:16 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2009, 08:02:18 AM
All those poor people working in libraries and conducting symphonies can't afford their entertainment. :(

I think it's really important that everyone have the opportunity to listen to Dianne Rehm. :)

:mad:

I donate to the "Recently Divorced Who Lost a Lot of Money Fund." I find that this local charity is not really that well supported of late.

I don't have any theoretical problem with the government providing health care to those who cannot afford it, or subsidizing the cost.

My problem with the current healthcare debate in America is that it isn't really about that - it is about extending socialism.

If people actually cared about the poors ability to afford healthcare, they would be dealing with the fact that healthcare in the US from a cost perspective is grossly broken, with costs rising at a rate that is simply not economically viable and is clearly the result of a broken market.

But we won't address that - gosh no, why, that would not be very socialist of us, to try to restore some market forces to the healthcare market! Golly, that would turn us all into Ayn Rand!

So instead we propose to simply have the government pay for health care, even if it does cost 2.5 times as much as it should. Sure, that will work great. *That* will certainly drive down costs, if we mandate that everyone have "health insurance", when it is the broken concept of "health insurance" that is driving the costs through the roof to being with.

Notice that none of the people in this thread wringing their hands about the poor not getting health insurance have said a single word about how it ought to be paid for. Because that just doesn't matter, does it?

Quote from: Zoupa on October 02, 2009, 12:02:41 AM
The whole bullshit "protestant anglo saxons give lots to charity, so it's just as good!" always make me laugh.

I'm sure derspiess gives lots and lots to charities that help the healthcare of poorer americans  :lol:

Gimme a break. You probably give 50 bucks a year to some crap pet project you care about and then proceed to feel all good about yourself.

Can't speak for derspiess, but some people are. (no, I don't think this is a substitute for public healthcare)

"In the 2007 Philanthropy 400, United Way of America was again the largest charity in the United States, with 1,285 local United Ways reporting over $4.2 billion in contributions, a 2.2% increase over 2006."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Way_of_America

"The Salvation Army is the second largest charity in the United States, with private donations of almost $2 billion for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Current_organization_and_expenditures

Government money just appears magically. :)

Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 08:33:04 AM

Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2009, 08:30:26 AM
Strix the Libertarian?

I wonder what his union boss thinks about his libertarian views. :ph34r:

He looks out only for himself.  What could be more libertarian?

I think that's why health care's going to fail. The majority of people already have it.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2009, 11:16:50 AM
I think that's why health care's going to fail. The majority of people already have it.

Interesting perspective.  Yes we have it but we usually rely on our employer to get it.

What I want is health insurance that is cheap enough I can pay for it myself and not have to rely on my employer.  If the government can help make that possible I will be happy.

Actually what I really want is a clinic where I can just pay an annual subscription fee and they can handle all my health needs and only use insurance for big surgeries and stuff.  Now that would be awesome.

Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2009, 09:28:01 AM
Notice that none of the people in this thread wringing their hands about the poor not getting health insurance have said a single word about how it ought to be paid for. Because that just doesn't matter, does it?

The money has to be somewhere, because WE ARE TEH RICHEST COUNTRY.

Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
Government money just appears magically. :)

I bury my money so the gub'mint doesn't magically take it.

Quote from: Zoupa on October 02, 2009, 12:02:41 AM
The whole bullshit "protestant anglo saxons give lots to charity, so it's just as good!" always make me laugh.

I'm sure derspiess gives lots and lots to charities that help the healthcare of poorer americans  :lol:

Gimme a break. You probably give 50 bucks a year to some crap pet project you care about and then proceed to feel all good about yourself.

I give half my paycheck to buy gooks toothbrushes :contract:


But seriously, I donate to Birthright International, Vietnam Veterans of America, my church, and <gasp> UNICEF.  Plus some other things that are less significant or none of your bidness.

Oh, and I regularly donate blood, for what that's worth.

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 02:29:05 PM
I bury my money so the gub'mint doesn't magically take it.

Thank God for coffee cans :contract:

Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2009, 02:32:49 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on October 02, 2009, 12:02:41 AM
The whole bullshit "protestant anglo saxons give lots to charity, so it's just as good!" always make me laugh.

I'm sure derspiess gives lots and lots to charities that help the healthcare of poorer americans  :lol:

Gimme a break. You probably give 50 bucks a year to some crap pet project you care about and then proceed to feel all good about yourself.

I give half my paycheck to buy gooks toothbrushes :contract:


But seriously, I donate to Birthright International, Vietnam Veterans of America, my church, and <gasp> UNICEF.  Plus some other things that are less significant or none of your bidness.

Oh, and I regularly donate blood, for what that's worth.

I gave to buy Israeli troops pizza so they could be strong and kill Zoup's Hezbollah friends.

Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2009, 02:33:24 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 02:29:05 PM
I bury my money so the gub'mint doesn't magically take it.

Thank God for coffee cans :contract:

and punji sticks.

2010 disastrous for Democrats? Heh, I figured that 2009 has already done more damage than anyone could have imagined. Certainly all of Congress is looking pretty bad anyway. What happens to our political parties when they gain a lot of seats/power? Seems they just go politically Rambo and try to jam through their most ideological wish lists, resulting in a certain amount of self destruction of the party. Republicans are practically experts at it, but I think the current crop of Dems have re-written the book, being saved, maybe, by the Blue Dog Dems.   :huh:

But even so, I don't think the Repubs are gaining that much with their own wise and sage policies and ideas.  ;)

Quote from: KRonn on October 02, 2009, 02:43:48 PM
2010 disastrous for Democrats? Heh, I figured that 2009 has already done more damage than anyone could have imagined. Certainly all of Congress is looking pretty bad anyway. What happens to our political parties when they gain a lot of seats/power? Seems they just go politically Rambo and try to jam through their most ideological wish lists, resulting in a certain amount of self destruction of the party. Republicans are practically experts at it, but I think the current crop of Dems have re-written the book, being saved, maybe, by the Blue Dog Dems.  :cool:

The Dems are trying to do the things Obama campaigned on though. The public is just fickle.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2009, 02:46:34 PM

Quote from: KRonn on October 02, 2009, 02:43:48 PM
2010 disastrous for Democrats? Heh, I figured that 2009 has already done more damage than anyone could have imagined. Certainly all of Congress is looking pretty bad anyway. What happens to our political parties when they gain a lot of seats/power? Seems they just go politically Rambo and try to jam through their most ideological wish lists, resulting in a certain amount of self destruction of the party. Republicans are practically experts at it, but I think the current crop of Dems have re-written the book, being saved, maybe, by the Blue Dog Dems.  :cool:

The Dems are trying to do the things Obama campaigned on though. The public is just fickle.

Well, people wanted change, but I don't think that people were expecting that so much spending and govt expansion would be proposed or attempted. People are concerned over spending more so now.

Apparently my man Lindsey Graham has gone on record calling the health care protesters "insane."

Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2009, 02:23:14 PM
The money has to be somewhere, because WE ARE TEH RICHEST COUNTRY.

Just don't look in my back yard, under the doghouse.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:46:40 PM
Apparently my man Lindsey Graham has gone on record calling the health care protesters "insane."

Has he come out of the closet yet?

Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2009, 05:49:35 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:46:40 PM
Apparently my man Lindsey Graham has gone on record calling the health care protesters "insane."

Has he come out of the closet yet?

Do you mean he's gay or that he simply has the ability see things that are as plain as day.

Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2009, 02:32:49 PM
Oh, and I regularly donate blood, for what that's worth.

I would donate blood but apparently mine is poisonous.

Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2009, 02:23:14 PM
The money has to be somewhere, because WE ARE TEH RICHEST COUNTRY.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9e%2FEvita_%2528fundaci%25C3%25B3n%2529.JPG%2F800px-Evita_%2528fundaci%25C3%25B3n%2529.JPG&hash=e0ff68efa1a1d9b268be70cf2919219c18cda4d8)

Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2009, 05:58:28 PM
I would donate blood but apparently mine is poisonous.

Do you have the hiv Grabon? :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 06:01:29 PM
Do you have the hiv Grabon? :huh:

No, but it does contain traces of man on man sex.

Apparantly, whatever giving Yi does, it doesn't include his blood.

Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2009, 05:58:28 PM
I would donate blood but apparently mine is poisonous.

You miss out on: free soda & cheese crackers :(

Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 08:19:28 AM
Or fire services, police services, armed defense, the rural electrification project, etc.  Even putting a civil court system into place is helping your neighbor.

Except those things help the individual as well as society.

The United States has a health care system already in place for the poor. It's called Medicaid and tax payers already pay a lot of money into that system. The problem isn't Medicaid (though it could use reform and streamlining) but how sky high medical prices have gotten. Doctors don't like to accept Medicaid because the government places restrictions on what it will or will not pay for. Obama and the Democrats are just trying to by-pass Medicaid and it's restrictions by passing the cost of medical bills on to the tax payers directly with "Universal Health Care" instead of fixing the insurance industry.

Obama just needs to....

A) Address the out of control pricing and gouging by Insurance companies in the US.

B) Address the out of control gouging and pricing by the Medical industry.

C) Reform and streamline Medicaid (perhaps changing it so that everyone who cannot afford health insurance besides the poor can belong).

If he addresses and corrected many of the problems with all three of these things than the government would end up SAVING money instead of creating a monster that would be the current plan for "Universal Health Care".

Quote from: Strix on October 02, 2009, 09:04:02 PM

Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 08:19:28 AM
Or fire services, police services, armed defense, the rural electrification project, etc.  Even putting a civil court system into place is helping your neighbor.

Except those things help the individual as well as society.

As would a universal health care system.

Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 09:14:25 PM
As would a universal health care system.

How would a universal health care system help me? It would hurt the majority of people in the United States who would be forced to pay money into a system they would not use.

Quote from: Strix on October 02, 2009, 09:18:23 PM

Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 09:14:25 PM
As would a universal health care system.

How would a universal health care system help me? It would hurt the majority of people in the United States who would be forced to pay money into a system they would not use.

I think you're underestimating how many people get helped by the laws against rescission and for mandatory pooling.

Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 09:42:27 PM

Quote from: Strix on October 02, 2009, 09:18:23 PM

Quote from: ulmont on October 02, 2009, 09:14:25 PM
As would a universal health care system.

How would a universal health care system help me? It would hurt the majority of people in the United States who would be forced to pay money into a system they would not use.

I think you're underestimating how many people get helped by the laws against rescission and for mandatory pooling.

Mandatory pooling = socialism

And, in this particular case, if the social contract between the insurance companies and medical industry went through rescission than I have no doubts that a more fair and equatable system could be created. I think, in fact, that this is the only way that health care can undergo any meaningful reform in this country.

Obama and the Democrats current vision of universal health care is nothing more than building a house of cards on the sand.

Quote from: Strix on October 03, 2009, 09:18:49 AM
Mandatory pooling = socialism

No.  Single payer is socialism.

Rescission is the practice of, when you submit a claim to your insurance for something nasty (i.e., the reason you have the insurance), they go back over your initial application, claim you failed to disclose a preexisting condition, and drop you.  In numerous instances, the rescission has been based on a family member's application, not even the covered person.  In numerous instances, the policy holders say they disclosed what the insurance company ostensibly dropped them for withholding.

Quote from: ulmont on October 03, 2009, 09:32:37 AM

Quote from: Strix on October 03, 2009, 09:18:49 AM
Mandatory pooling = socialism

No.  Single payer is socialism.

Rescission is the practice of, when you submit a claim to your insurance for something nasty (i.e., the reason you have the insurance), they go back over your initial application, claim you failed to disclose a preexisting condition, and drop you.  In numerous instances, the rescission has been based on a family member's application, not even the covered person.  In numerous instances, the policy holders say they disclosed what the insurance company ostensibly dropped them for withholding.

And how is single payer socialism?

I was unsure of the context in which you were using rescission because it was not relevant to the discussion. Your example still isn't relevant to the conversation because what you describe has nothing to do with universal health care and everything to do with health care reform.

Socialism in the health industry is good.

Quote from: Strix on October 03, 2009, 10:33:05 AM
And how is single payer socialism?

It's a significant step closer to having the government directly owning the means of production?

Quote from: Strix on October 03, 2009, 10:33:05 AM
Your example still isn't relevant to the conversation because what you describe has nothing to do with universal health care and everything to do with health care reform.

I think you are nitpicking a bit here, but for a directly relevant example:  universal health care -> less emergency room visits as primary care -> better emergency room care for all in true emergencies.

Quote from: ulmont on October 03, 2009, 11:24:22 AM
I think you are nitpicking a bit here, but for a directly relevant example:  universal health care -> less emergency room visits as primary care -> better emergency room care for all in true emergencies.

Assuming, of course, that we suddenly see a huge rise in the number of pcps. Those bitches already be overbooked with appointments. <_<

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2009, 12:09:49 PM
Assuming, of course, that we suddenly see a huge rise in the number of pcps. Those bitches already be overbooked with appointments. <_<

Just because people can figure out what an acronym stands for doesn't always mean it's useful.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2009, 12:27:59 PM
Just because people can figure out what an acronym stands for doesn't always mean it's useful.

:rolleyes:

Primary care physicians

Yes, I got that.

But pcp is taken. :contract:

Quote from: ulmont on October 03, 2009, 11:24:22 AM
It's a significant step closer to having the government directly owning the means of production?

I misunderstood what you were trying to say here. I was thinking the citizens as single payers and not the government. I believe we are both on the same side on this part of the issue.

Quote from: ulmontI think you are nitpicking a bit here, but for a directly relevant example:  universal health care -> less emergency room visits as primary care -> better emergency room care for all in true emergencies.

I do not agree that this would play out accordingly with universal health care. Medicaid covers a significant portion of the poor in our country. And yet many of the problems that universal health care claims to solve are not solved by Medicaid.

I believe that illegal immigrants are a major issue when it comes to universal health care. Will it be given to them without any questions asked? If not than many of the financial issues now facing emergency rooms (and therefore hospitals) do not go away.

Also, the poor often are forced to go to the emergency room because many primary care providers won't take Medicaid (or make it very difficult to get an appointment in a timely manner). This may not change with universal health care unless the government is going to mandate what health care providers must do. And if that is the case they could do it know with Medicaid instead of creating a whole new government organization.

If only we could throw out and keep out all the illegal immigrants

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2009, 03:17:01 PM
If only we could throw out and keep out all the illegal immigrants

What an insightful response! Do you perhaps have any plan on how to pay for health care for illegal immigrants to go along with that?

Many hospitals are failing and emergency rooms closing because illegal immigrants don't pay their bills and they aren't covered under Medicaid.

Let them stay or don't let them stay. Either way a solution to the problem created by a large segment of the population which doesn't support the services it consumes must be found.

Post something that is worthy of our time. :)

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2009, 03:25:48 PM
Post something that is worthy of our time. :)

I knew you didn't have a response. It would require some thought on your part.

Quote from: Strix on October 03, 2009, 03:01:53 PM
Also, the poor often are forced to go to the emergency room because many primary care providers won't take Medicaid (or make it very difficult to get an appointment in a timely manner). This may not change with universal health care unless the government is going to mandate what health care providers must do. And if that is the case they could do it know with Medicaid instead of creating a whole new government organization.

Well, a Medicaid or Medicare for all would have been a better proposal IMO.  But you go to war with the Congress you have and all that.

Quote from: Strix on October 03, 2009, 03:26:43 PM
I knew you didn't have a response. It would require some thought on your part.

Wrong, darling. I just can't be bothered to waste my brain cells on you. :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 06:20:34 PM

QuoteHave you any details of what these are?

Reid's high speed Vegas-LA rail line, Pelosi's wetlands protection something or other.  Grabon could tell you better than I, he got a post card from Pelosi listing all her fabulous pork for the year.

They announced the high speed rail lines a couple of days ago.  The list is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100128_1400-HSRAwards-Summary_FRA%20Revisions.pdf

QuoteOH Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati Midwest $ 400 This investment will fund a number of projects across the state,
including track upgrades, grade crossings,

About fucking time. The rails here are falling apart.

Looks like pure government patronage towards 2008 Blue/Purple States.  :rolleyes:

A Vegas-LA rail line is NEEDED. The drive is a bitch. Took me 9 hours last New Years.  :yuk:

Quote from: Jaron on January 31, 2010, 06:03:51 PM
A Vegas-LA rail line is NEEDED. The drive is a bitch. Took me 9 hours last New Years.  :yuk:

9 hours? what are you an old asian women?

Quote from: Fate on January 31, 2010, 05:38:10 PM
Looks like pure government patronage towards 2008 Blue/Purple States.  :rolleyes:

It's about damn time!  :yeah:

Quote from: Jaron on January 31, 2010, 06:03:51 PM
A Vegas-LA rail line is NEEDED. The drive is a bitch. Took me 9 hours last New Years.  :yuk:

From what I've read it's actually got a good reason for getting a line.  Of course it would look too much like corruption so it's not getting any money.

Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:04:46 PM

Quote from: Jaron on January 31, 2010, 06:03:51 PM
A Vegas-LA rail line is NEEDED. The drive is a bitch. Took me 9 hours last New Years.  :yuk:

9 hours? what are you an old asian women?

It was New Years. The traffic was bumper to bumper from Las Vegas all the way until about the San Fernando Valley.

Quote from: Jaron on January 31, 2010, 06:33:48 PM

Quote from: katmai on January 31, 2010, 06:04:46 PM

Quote from: Jaron on January 31, 2010, 06:03:51 PM
A Vegas-LA rail line is NEEDED. The drive is a bitch. Took me 9 hours last New Years.  :yuk:

9 hours? what are you an old asian women?

It was New Years. The traffic was bumper to bumper from Las Vegas all the way until about the San Fernando Valley.

That's why you don't drive on NYE or NY, duh. :rolleyes:

:P

It was PARTY TIME. I was only 19 in 1999 so I had to get my licks in this time around. :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2010, 06:13:45 PM
From what I've read it's actually got a good reason for getting a line.  Of course it would look too much like corruption so it's not getting any money.

Your link was not very wordy.  Was there something else about the place you got it that suggested or stated those projects are the only ones that will be done with stimulus money?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2010, 06:59:50 PM
Your link was not very wordy.  Was there something else about the place you got it that suggested or stated those projects are the only ones that will be done with stimulus money?

Of the stimulus $8 billion was set aside for high-speed rail.  The link I give (and an additional earlier grant that also didn't do much for LV-LA) account for the $8 billion.

Edit: And that's from the appropriations committee on the bill that left conference:

QuoteHigh Speed Rail and Intercity Passenger Rail Grants: $8 billion to advance the development of high speed rail and to improve the intercity passenger rail service in corridors across the nation. The States for Passenger Rail Coalition estimates that there are over $1.5 billion in projects that are ready-to-go.

Quote from: Fate on January 31, 2010, 05:38:10 PM
Looks like pure government patronage towards 2008 Blue/Purple States.  :rolleyes:

I notice the LR-Dallas rail line isn't in there. Pity. I was looking forward to taking the train down to Dallas to kick your bitch ass. :(

I agree with him, the base from what I've seen online seems pretty pissed off.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-dem-base-and-health-reform

Quote
Jonathan Chait
The Dem Base And Health Reform

Since House Democrats remain fairly seized with terror at the political ramifications of passing health care reform, it's worth stepping back and thinking clearly about the Democrats' predicament. The November elections look bad for three basic reasons. First, the Republican base is extremely energized, for reasons that were probably inevitable due to Democrats running all three branches of government, in an era when Republicans have very effective communication media for whipping up their base. Second, independents are highly skeptical, which was also mostly inevitable when the party took power just after the economy began a free-fall.

The third problem, which has received little attention, is the demoralized Democratic base. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts featured terrible turnout by core Democrats, who perceive the Congress they elected as ineffectual. The best chance to reverse that perception would be to pass health care reform, which could help persuade the significant chunk of Americans who think the bills don't go far enough that the party has made significant progress on the issue. It would also help to pivot to issues like financial regulation where Democrats are fighting unpopular interests rather than cutting deals with them.

But Democrats have not given sufficient attention to the potential downside of failing to enact health care reform. Sam Stein reports:

Everyone, meanwhile, is gradually moving to the recognition that the worst thing the Democratic Party could do, would be nothing at all. As Jeff Liszt, a Democratic pollster at the firm Anzalone Liszt Research, told a conference organized by Families USA on Friday: "I really see it as existential threat for Democrats if they fail to get health reform through."

This is a big, big deal. If the Democrats had decided not to take on this issue, they may have been spared some backlash. But now that they have passed a comprehensive bill in each chamber of Congress, to let reform die because the two Democratic-controlled bodies couldn't work out their differences would be an act of criminal neglect. The overwhelming sentiment among Democrats, I predict, would go from the current ennui to an active desire to punish Congressional incumbents. I suspect that's what Liszt means by "existential threat."

I want to be clear about this. There is a perennial tendency by activists in both parties to bluster about retribution if the party fails to heed the maximal demands of the base. Elected officials almost always do well to ignore it. In this case it's deadly serious. I don't think anybody in Washington has begun to consider the scale of the blowback from the base Democrats will face if they punt from the opponent's one yard line.