What Does It Mean?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If Coakley loses in Massachusetts (she's down 3%) what does it mean for Obama and Democrats in Congress?

 

[Boxlicker101]

If Coakley loses in Massachusetts (she's down 3%) what does it mean for Obama and Democrats in Congress?

MA is one of the most liberal states in the union. Besides that, this is the seat once held by Ted K. and by JFK before that. They would really, really hate to lose it, but it might make them see the handwriting on the wall. Generally speaking, the US is nowhere near as liberal as the current Congress.

Just in case anybody demands verification: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

With what's gone on in Congress over the past year, losing Ted Kennedy's seat is a very real possibility. I love it. It would be a real wake up call for the Dems.
The Republicans have always been to the right, but not as far right as they were lead by GW Bush. Now they have moved back towards the center.

The Democrats suddenly moved all the way to the left as close as the Party has ever been to Socialism. They need to move back towards the center and Middle America too.

Maybe this is the jolt they need.

 

[DeeZire]

What Does It Mean?

It means the clueless and the ill-informed are going to succeed in keeping our country trapped in the 20th century, while most other countries are embracing 21st century values like universal healthcare and green energy.

With the success of Fox News, and the death of true journalism, we're on the cusp of entering the Golden Age of Unenlightenment. The fact that so many people embrace this trend only proves my point.

 

[TE999]

It would sure put the Dems knickers in a twist. Especially if it happens in Massachusetts. Last I heard, two Dem Senators and 10 Congressmen were hitting the silk this election year. If the Repubs don't trip over their own shoelaces, they may have a chance to at least provide a counterpoint in Congress on issues and legislation of national importance.

 

[DeeZire]

...If the Repubs don't trip over their own shoelaces, they may have a chance to at least provide a counterpoint in Congress on issues and legislation of national importance.

Yeah, just what we need - gridlock. As if it isn't bad enough already, now the Party of No will have even more stoodges on the payroll of Industry, Finance and Insurance blocking reforms and guaranteeing the deterioration of our once-great country.

 

[JackLuis]

It won't make much difference, I'll prognosticate.

The midterms will be a circus and the clowns will prevail.

No matter what the numbers turn out to be in Congress, not much will be done to reform anything. The Congress isn't interested in effective policy, they are interested in getting re-elected, which means doing what the lobbyists tell them to do, so they can rake in the money.

The only reality inside the beltway is inside the beltway. Beyond the Beltway is where those voters live.

 

[DeeZire]

It won't make much difference, I'll prognosticate.
...

It will make a huge difference to people with pre-existing conditions if the Dems lose the seat in Mass and healthcare reform goes down the drain.

 

[TE999]

Yeah, just what we need - gridlock. As if it isn't bad enough already, now the Party of No will have even more stoodges on the payroll of Industry, Finance and Insurance blocking reforms and guaranteeing the deterioration of our once-great country.

Just out of idle curiosity, when, in your view, do you think our country was great?

 

[trysail]

Yeah, just what we need - gridlock. As if it isn't bad enough already, now the Party of No will have even more stoodges on the payroll of Industry, Finance and Insurance blocking reforms and guaranteeing the deterioration of our once-great country.

Gridlock is exactly, precisely what the authors of the Constitution intended. The b'hoys had just finished getting rid of a king at a considerable expenditure of blood, sweat and sacrifice and they wanted to be goddamned sure there'd never be another one. Their whole idea was to set up a system of checks and balances that would make it extremely difficult to get anything done. They intentionally designed a government with separation of powers and pitted "ambition against ambition."


It was never their intention to create a system that permitted demagogues to purchase votes by looting government coffers.


Unfortunately, the concept of a professional politician is one that never entered their minds. This country went off the deep end the day it became possible to make a living as a politician.

 

[DeeZire]

Just out of idle curiosity, when, in your view, do you think our country was great?

Before GWB ruined it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TE999
Just out of idle curiosity, when, in your view, do you think our country was great?

Before GWB ruined it.

Does that mean you think it was great when slavery was legal and women were not allowed to vote? Before GWB isn't much of an answer, because there is over 200 years of history.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If Coakley loses in Massachusetts (she's down 3%) what does it mean for Obama and Democrats in Congress?

Here is the most recent poll. It's more than 3% now, but still within the margin of error.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&a...=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQsQQwAA

I don't really like the idea of either party running the entire government. It is not the way things were intended to be.

 

[sr71plt]

Just out of idle curiosity, when, in your view, do you think our country was great?

I think the country was asleep when Millard Filmore was president. Does that qualify?

 

[DeeZire]

Gridlock is exactly, precisely what the authors of the Constitution intended. The b'hoys had just finished getting rid of a king at a considerable expenditure of blood, sweat and sacrifice and they wanted to be goddamned sure there'd never be another one. Their whole idea was to set up a system of checks and balances that would make it extremely difficult to get anything done. They intentionally designed a government with separation of powers and pitted "ambition against ambition."


It was never their intention to create a system that permitted demagogues to purchase votes by looting government coffers.


Unfortunately, the concept of a professional politician is one that never entered their minds. This country went off the deep end the day it became possible to make a living as a politician.

Depending on how one wishes to interpret the Constitution, this statement could imply a different way of doing business than the present system:

The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.

What we have now is a system where the minority can block legislation by using the filibuster. So today, even though a majority of Americans would like to see a public option in healthcare reform, there is none. And if the Dems lose the Mass Senate seat, there will be no healthcare reform, even though a majority of our elected representatives are in favor of it.

I don't think this is what the framers had in mind, at least according to this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "

In the situation at hand, we'll have 41 percent of our elected representatives taking away the rights of the 59% of the majority.

 

[DeeZire]

...Does that mean you think it was great when slavery was legal and women were not allowed to vote? Before GWB isn't much of an answer, because there is over 200 years of history.

No, I'm thinking more about recent history, like when Clinton handed GWB a budget surplus.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Depending on how one wishes to interpret the Constitution, this statement could imply a different way of doing business than the present system:



What we have now is a system where the minority can block legislation by using the filibuster. So today, even though a majority of Americans would like to see a public option in healthcare reform, there is none. And if the Dems lose the Mass Senate seat, there will be no healthcare reform, even though a majority of our elected representatives are in favor of it.

Do you have anything to support the statement that a majority of Americans want a public option? I have always been under the impression that most people do not. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...private_health_insurance_trumps_public_option

ETA: In all honesty, the results of the polls depend on who is doing the asking and what questions are asked.

I don't think this is what the framers had in mind, at least according to this quote by Thomas Jefferson:


In the situation at hand, we'll have 41 percent of our elected representatives taking away the rights of the 59% of the majority.

What the framers had in mind was keeping a bare and temporary majority from ramming their ideas down everybody's throat.

 

[DeeZire]

Do you have anything to support the statement that a majority of Americans want a public option?

Box, my friend, the American public has been polling 60% or more in favor of a public option since at least this summer.

(Sep. '09) A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan.

It is only in the last month that the percentage in favor has dropped, largely due to the success of the industry-financed propaganda campaign and the frightening rhetoric of Fox News fearmongers. What surprises me is this:

I have always been under the impression that most people do not.

Where have you been all this time, under a rock? (Rhetorical question, since I distinctly remember linking similar polling numbers for you this fall, right here at LIT. Obviously, when you encounter factual information you don't like, you discount it and promptly forget about it.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Do you have anything to support the statement that a majority of Americans want a public option?

Box, my friend, the American public has been polling 60% or more in favor of a public option since at least this summer.


Quote:
(Sep. '09) A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan.

It is only in the last month that the percentage in favor has dropped, largely due to the success of the industry-financed propaganda campaign and the frightening rhetoric of Fox News fearmongers. What surprises me is this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I have always been under the impression that most people do not.

Where have you been all this time, under a rock? (Rhetorical question, since I distinctly remember linking similar polling numbers for you this fall, right here at LIT. Obviously, when you encounter factual information you don't like, you discount it and promptly forget about it.)

As I said earlier, the problem with any poll is that the results will be skewed by the questions asked and the persons asked. I definitely don't trust the NY Times any more than you trust Fox.

 

[DeeZire]

What the framers had in mind was keeping a bare and temporary majority from ramming their ideas down everybody's throat.

Really? Where do you see "temporary majority" written in the Constitution? (FYI: it's always a temporary majority - temporary until the next election cycle.)

Wait! I think I've got it! A "temporary majority" is when the political party you don't like is in power. A "regular majority" is when the political party you do like is in power. Thanks for enlightening me, Box. I never thought to look at it that way. Next time the conservatives are in the majority, I'll remind them that it's only a temporary majority, and that whatever it is they're trying to do will not not meet the approval of the framers of the Constitution.

ETA: on polling I would encourage you to Google "polling public option." In order for you to deny the existence of the public's approval of a public option between Aug and Dec of '09, you're going to have to discount every polling organization in the country. But that shouldn't be hard for you to do.

 

[sr71plt]

The original framers had no concept of "temporary majority." There were no such things as parties even conceived at that point, and original framers didn't even think much about votes being taken on much of anything or anything at all much happening above the state level. What the original framers were consumed by was the disparite sizes of the puzzle pieces (states) making up the whole and how to keep Delaware, etc., from assuming New York and Virginia would combine into a PERMANENT majority.

 

[trysail]

"Once the government creates an insurance company or plan, the government or the taxpayers are liable for any deficit that government plan runs, really without limit. With our debt heading over $21 trillion within the next 10 years...we've got to start saying no to some things like this."

-Joseph Lieberman ( I- CT )
speaking about the "public option" portion of the Health Care debate.



Public Option Skeptics Find Support in CBO Health-Care Study
By James Rowley

Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Economists skeptical about a U.S. government-run health-insurance plan received new evidence to support their argument that it won’t force private insurers to cut premiums.

The Congressional Budget Office says a version of the so- called public option backed by House Democrats would charge “somewhat higher” premiums than the average private insurance policy offered on a government-sponsored exchange to be set up to sell coverage to small businesses and individuals.

That counters claims by President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the public option would charge lower premiums to “keep insurers honest.”

One reason premiums may be higher: Pelosi, seeking votes to pass a $1.055 trillion House health bill, decided against a “robust” public option, which would peg doctor reimbursements to Medicare rates to cut costs. Instead, she proposed that the public option negotiate fees it pays providers.

“The robust option had a lot more power to buy services from providers at much lower rates than private insurers paid,” said Paul Ginsburg, an economist who heads the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. “That would have been a big deal.”

The House and Senate are considering legislation to expand health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and try to rein in costs. The public option is among the most contentious issues, opposed by every Republican and by some Democrats, who say it would offer unfair competition for insurers such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. and Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc.

Vote Coming Up
Pelosi, a California Democrat, is considering a plan to debate and vote on the health-care legislation on Nov. 6, a leadership aide who briefed reporters and who asked for anonymity said last night.

The budget office yesterday also reported that health-care costs would eat up as much as 20 percent of income for some families, even those getting subsidies, under legislation being considered by the House.

A family of four with an annual income of $66,000 would be eligible for $10,500 in subsidies if they purchased insurance on health exchanges created under the bill, and would still pay $10,000 to cover premiums, deductibles and copayments, the CBO said.

On the public option, the budget office estimated in an Oct. 29 letter to congressional leaders that rates the program pays doctors and hospitals would “on average, probably be comparable to those paid by private insurers” that sell on the exchange.

Won’t Curb Benefits
The public option wouldn’t curb benefit payouts as much as private insurers by managing how people use health care, the CBO said. It would also incur higher costs because it would draw a “a less healthy pool of enrollees.”

“Attracting sicker people” and doing less “utilization management than private plans” would “put the public plan in a weak competitive position,” said Ginsburg.

The CBO estimated the House public option would attract about 6 million people. Some economists say that to dictate lower fees it pays to doctors and hospitals, the public option would need more enrollees.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, a California Democrat, said the new program would “be competitive because it will not be putting money into shareholder dividends and executive salary bonuses.”

Questioned about the public plan’s competitiveness at an Oct. 30 conference call with reporters, Miller said it “would operate on a level playing field” that “in some years makes it more expensive than other plans, on other years it may be more competitive or less expensive.”

Unfair Advantage
Some economists also say the public option would have the unfair advantage of not being taxed and, if it loses money, to ask Congress to make up the shortfall.

“I am skeptical of the ability of the public plan to deliver meaningful competition while keeping within a break- even budget constraint,” said Leemore Dafny, a health economist at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Illinois. “Sure, it will inject competition if they don’t have to break even.”

Republican lawmakers, insurance industry officials and some economists contend that the advantage of government subsidies would eventually push private competitors out of the market.

“It’s a risk,” said Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, the only Republican in Congress to show willingness to support a Democratic health plan.

Working With Democrats
Snowe said she’s working with Democrats who oppose the public option, which is included in the proposal Democratic Leader Harry Reid says he will submit to the Senate for a vote.

The public option would be included on the new online exchanges intended to extend insurance to individuals and small business owners. House leaders said the CBO estimates on premiums confirm that their bill will curb costs.

“This underscores that this legislation will control health costs and lower health-care premiums for families and individuals,” said Representatives Henry Waxman, Charles Rangel and Miller, in a joint statement.

Waxman, a California Democrat, is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Rangel, of New York, heads the Ways and Means panel.

The chairmen said under their bill premiums for a family making $102,100 would be $15,000 by 2016. “This is well below the $24,000 family premium expected if Congress fails to act and premiums grow as projected under current law,” they said.

 

[amicus]

What Does It Mean?

It means the clueless and the ill-informed are going to succeed in keeping our country trapped in the 20th century, while most other countries are embracing 21st century values like universal healthcare and green energy.

With the success of Fox News, and the death of true journalism, we're on the cusp of entering the Golden Age of Unenlightenment. The fact that so many people embrace this trend only proves my point.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Insofar as the election in Massachusetts is concerned, one suspects that the Kennedy Machine will overcome and the statistically even polls will be tilted by Labor Union money and 'boots on the ground' in a door to door effort, energizing of the Left wing base.

DeeZire is loathe to put a name to his/her political position, but every post indicates support for a strong, oppressive central government that determines the course of political action within a society.

People of that ilk have been trying to change the concept of the American form of government since before the Founding Document were signed; there have always been those who want a King or a Dictator or a Church to determine the rights of the individual man.

The Framers intended a small Federal government authorized to protect the security of the nation, define and enforce those basic ennumerated laws that protect life, liberty and property.

There have always been those who feel and believe that the 'elite' of society should govern and not the individual.

Individual human rights and values are a relatively new concept in the history of man; Deezire wishes to abolish the very concept of the individual and return to the feudal dark ages of total oppression.

Such a deal...

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

There have always been those who feel and believe that the 'elite' of society should govern and not the individual.

You, for instance, with your Ayn Rand bullshite about Great Men and parasites et cetera.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS remove me from your FREE SPEECH list as I dont wish to be associated with about 1/2 the people you list. You obviously went daft while away from LIT.