IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New See what happens when you let the option on the table?
Set to be implemented by 2017, Vermont’s healthcare overhaul goes well beyond the new federal law. The Vermont Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted last month, will make Vermont the first state in the nation to offer single-payer healthcare. On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin hailed the Supreme Court decision upholding the federal Affordable Care Act, but he said Vermont would probably be least impacted by it. "We’ve had a long history of healthcare reform and a real priority of taking care of our citizens," says Robin Lunge, Vermont’s director of Health Care Reform. "We’re not interested in waiting for the nation to catch up with us."

http://www.democracy...irms_patchwork_us
New States are free to implement single payer if they want.
http://en.wikipedia....January_1.2C_2017

Funny how this fatally flawed piece of legislation allows that, huh.

Cheers,
Scott.
New You've never been more wrong.
The federal health care reform law would not allow Vermont to enact single payer until 2017; Vermont is asking the administration to grant it a waiver so that it can get there even faster, by 2014.

http://www.motherjon...payer-health-care

Guess what? They didn't get it. So, the administration actually prevented Vermont from implementing single payer as soon as they wanted to. Boy, that White House really hates single payer doesn't it? Pretty clear who they're really worried about, isn't it?
New You do understand that Obama isn't king, right?
Obama doesn't have a vote in the Senate any more.

http://www.whitehous...mmitteereport.pdf (p.43 of 80) From September 2011:

Accelerate the issuance of State Innovation Waivers. This proposal empowers States to develop their own innovative strategies to ensure their residents have access to high quality, affordable health insurance achieving the same outcomes as the ACA. Similar to legislation previously introduced by Senators Ron Wyden, Scott Brown, and Mary Landrieu and endorsed by the President, it would make “State Innovation Waivers” available starting in 2014, three years earlier than under current law. These State strategies would need to provide affordable insurance coverage to at least as many residents as without the waiver and must not increase the Federal deficit. The Administration is committed to the budget neutrality of these waivers; an allowance for these waivers is included to account for the possibility that CBO will estimate costs for this proposal.


Moving the date forward to 2014 requires legislation.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who has been more wrong about many, many more things than this. ;-)
New Well, then, similarly
You do understand that Obama apparently can't lead a group of cub scouts to the toilet, right? He's supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party. Either he's a total flop or he's getting exactly what he wanted.
Your choice.
New Heh.
"Leader" has many meanings.

What does Obama have for leverage with members of Congress? Especially compared to the olden days when the parties were the major sources of largess (campaign funding, etc.)?

Obama passed a nearly universal health care bill with no votes to spare. He knows how to count votes and got it done in the face of nearly continuous unified opposition by the Republicans.

Do you think Obama would have vetoed a bill with a Public Option? Do you think that he would have vetoed a Single Payer bill if it had made it through both the House and Senate?

http://www.progressi.../nichols0109.html (from January 2009):

[...]

The point won't be to teach Obama about single-payer. Less than six years ago, he told the Illinois AFLCIO: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody . . . a singlepayer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

Since then, Democrats have taken back the House, the Senate, and the White House. The man who set those prerequisites in 2003 will sit in the Oval Office in 2009. But change didn't just come to Washington. It came to Barack Obama. His statements, his strategies, and his appointments evidence a caution born of the political and structural pressures faced by Presidential contenders and Presidents-elect. Whether the previous, more progressive Obama still exists within the man who will take the oath of office on January 20 remains to be seen. But the only way to determine if Obama really is the progressive he claimed as recently as last summer to be is to push not just Obama but the public.

Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

It is reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama agrees with them on many funda-mental issues. He has said as much.

It is equally reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it.


Obama is a pragmatist. He knows when to take half a loaf rather than expend all his money for a whole loaf that he had no chance of getting. Incremental progress is where it's at. If the public wants single payer, and their representatives vote for it, he'll be more than happy to sign it.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Swing and Another miss.
The facts are not in your favor here. A significant majority of Americans wanted Single Payer in 2009. 58% in favor, 38% opposed in a Kaiser Foundation Study in July, 2009 ( http://www.kff.org/k...s/upload/7943.pdf ). Physician for a National Health Program found two-thirds of Americans favored Single Payer.
This six-part series explores the research on American attitudes about a single-payer (or Medicare-for-all) system to evaluate the truth of the new version of the "yes but" argument. We will see that the research demonstrates that approximately two-thirds of Americans support a Medicare-for-all system despite constant attacks on Medicare and the systems of other countries by conservatives. The evidence supporting this statement is rock solid. The evidence against it - the focus group and polling "research" commissioned by the "option" movement's founders - is defective, misinterpreted, or both.

In Part 2 of this series, I will describe two experiments with "citizen juries" which found that 60 to 80 percent of Americans support a Medicare-for-all or single-payer system. The citizen jury research is the most rigorous research available on the question of what Americans think about single payer and other proposals to solve the health care crisis. It is the most rigorous because it exposes randomly selected Americans to a lengthy debate between proponents of single payer and other proposals.

http://www.pnhp.org/...icare-for-all.pdf

Another poll in January, 2009 found similar results:
The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.” Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.

http://www.healthcar...-for-single-payer

I guess Obama figured that 32% was far more equal than the 59%. Probably included Big Pharma, Big Bank and Big Insurance types.

Want to try again?
New The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again.
New Changing arguments mid-stream gets you only so far. ;0)
New Re: The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again.
Alas. this is [STILL] TRUE.

No matter What Poll indicates the sense/sensibility of lots of Muricans (not on the Kool-Aid):
The Congress [nor USSC] of 2012 are NOT representing 'people' (Etc. Yada, qed. All Done Here already.)

Ergo, I shall Not vote for Any Old/New Nincompoop--as a satisfactory (or even digital-logical) evidence of my discontent with Obama's
(say, to pick one: continuance of all the Bush Rights-rapes.)

Of Course.. I *would* have used the bully-pulpit In Controlled and Effective Anger! just often enough to 'correct any false impressions of wimpishness'.
But I do not imagine, in wildest egoistic Dreams: that as Prez, *I* could have gotten ANY 'Health Care expansion' through the DC insanity
--as persists, perhaps even deadlier.
But He Did!


Jeezz.. it's fucking-Crazy out there, and intensifying unto --> It Can't Happen Here clinical madness. :-/

.hr

Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
New So, can you or Scott help me out here?
If a significant majority want change (isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?) and they get "their guy" in the White House with a huge amount of public desire for change backing him, how is it not a huge, unforgivable failing of the President himself not to leverage that into change we could all believe in?

This is precisely the danger of Obama as President I was most concerned about in 2007. I saw him for what he was: YAN empty Wall Street Armani. Yet, people who still believed in actual change voted him in, taking him for something he never was and never will be - an agent of change. And, as the 2010 elections showed, the disillusionment with the government and the absolute conviction people have now that "nothing will ever change" in Washington almost guarantees the impossibility of fixing it without tearing it completely down. Obama has cost the US its remaining believers. All that's left to participate are the screaming idiots of the Tea Bagger and like movements. Obama has sealed our fate and extinguished the last hope we had: belief in our collective ability to influence our government.


edit: tpyo and elaboration of point.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt July 18, 2012, 09:17:02 AM EDT
Expand Edited by mmoffitt July 18, 2012, 09:22:41 AM EDT
New Obama isn't the problem - Congress is the problem. HTH.
Your continued focus on Obama as the big villain here is misguided.

All it takes is for 26 seats to flip and you'll see that your "impossible" strawman will actually flop around in the forest like the red herring it actually is. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New The question remains.
Who is left to vote to flip the 26 seats?
New We'll see in November. I'm optimistic myself. YMMV. ;-)
New See post below. Either way, we all lose.
New Meh.
New Actually no
If a significant majority want change (isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?)

A PORTION of those that elected Obama want the level of change you want. Many of them have other specific areas that caused them to vote for him. You conflate your goals with everyone else's. Since the majority of US citizens currently have healthcare, and they fear it getting worse, then they'd simply like to keep the status quo without too much change, since change is often for the worse for those who already have a piece of what is changing.

These are not the sheeple you are looking for.
New The "portion" was the determining factor.
Without that "portion" Obama wins neither Indiana nor the election.

Now, that they're completely disillusioned, I doubt very seriously they'll be back in 2012 - which is why even a toad like Mittens is polling so close to Bam-Bam. Just so you know, the people in that portion of America are called Progressives. And Progressives know that you won't get anywhere by being a Partisan Democrat.
There are essentially two major camps left-of-center in American politics, and the divisions between the two are often as deep and wide as the rifts between the two major parties.

One camp is composed of Democratic partisans — a group that goes to great ends to stifle any and all criticism of President Obama and other Democratic politicians.

Commonly referred to as ‘Democratic loyalists’, ‘Obamabots’, ‘Obama Loyalists’ ‘Obama apologists’, ‘sheeple’ … they are fueled by a deep conviction that the Democratic Party — no matter what they do and how far to the right they swing — must have our full unflinching support to ensure their eventual reelection.

The second camp is composed of progressives — a group whose loyalties lie ONLY with progressive policies. These individuals relentlessly pursue the truth irregardless [SIC] of which party suffers from their findings. Unlike partisans, they refuse to cherry-pick, or engage in historic revisionism, or even to pull punches as a way of sparing Democratic politicians embarrassment.

Commonly referred to as ‘the Left’, ‘the populist Left’, ‘truth-tellers’, ‘the professional Left’, ‘non-partisan Left’, ‘ideological purists’, … they tend to vote Democratic, but will at times — depending on the options available to them — consider voting for Greens and independents.

The Left has been especially critical of President Obama over the last three years. He won a decisive victory in 2008 having campaigned on the following progressive platform: a public option as the vital component to any health care reform legislation; allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs; ending Bush tax cuts; scrapping the Patriot Act, which he deemed ‘shoddy and dangerous’; ending the warring policies of the neocons; closing GITMO; ending ‘Too Big to Fail’ on Wall Street (so as to avoid future TARPS); rewriting job-killing NAFTA-like trade policies, etc. etc. Once elected, he instantly turned his back on all these campaign promises, instead cutting back-room deals with the wealthy entrenched interest groups who profit from the very deep structural problems he vowed to reform...

Progressives are of the mindset that the only way to transform this country into a more progressive one, is to heighten politicians’ FEAR of their own constituents in a way that rivals the fear instilled by deep-pocketed interest groups. Progressives know that politicians strategically move towards their ideological base, whenever confronted with political insecurity.

When the Left calls Obama out in a way that penetrates the inner-beltway bubble — and becomes quantifiable by corresponding poll numbers — the President’s political advisers interpret this as voter repudiation. They realize his policy pendulum has swung too far Right in favor of entrenched interests and to the detriment of his own political stability. And it’s at this moment he begins to fear his supporters — the ones who elected him, and who will actually cast the votes in 2012. This leaves him with little choice, but to pivot towards his base and attempt to diffuse rising populist dissent.

Therein lies the key crucial difference between the two camps:

Progressives understand that when a President’s poll numbers drop he is more likely to push progressive priorities to appease his supporters. As such, the Left doesn’t believe its criticism of Obama in any way threatens the ends it hopes to achieve: progressive policies. If Obama stubbornly refuses to pivot to the Left then he has only himself to blame for a disenchanted, unenergized base come election time.

Partisans are always in campaign mode — viewing actual governing as little more than the muddy tracks of a perpetual horse race — and thus equate lowering poll numbers as a precursor to defeat. Therefore, as a group, they are incapable of ever pressuring their politicians to champion progressive causes or to promote meaningful change.

The message partisans continue to send to their Democratic representatives is this: “Just ignore me and everything I want, because I intend to campaign for you and vote for you regardless of what you do. I’ll even lie for you and cover up how you’ve screwed me every which way til Sunday — anything to ensure those scary Republicans don’t win.”

The Left hopes to send them the exact opposite message.

http://www.alterpoli...ident-obama-fear/

But, but, but, He didn't have the votes!
New IIRC, you didn't expect him to win IN in the first place.
You think progressives in IN put him over the top there? Really? I think he won IN because lots of people (including a few progressives) wanted to give change a chance and lots of new voters were enthusiastic about him.

Sure, many of those people stayed home in 2010, but that's always the pattern - fewer people turn out in off-year elections, and the President usually loses seats. I've seen little that indicates the pattern was generally different because Obama was there.

I didn't find the article you posted persuasive. Or I think it only describes a small number of people. Carville versus Kucinich or something. E.g. "The Left has been especially critical of President Obama over the last three years." Really? http://www.gallup.co...remains-high.aspx Or is this a "no true Scotsman" argument?

If you want the system to change, you have to work within it. That means supporting the better candidate(s). They're not all the same.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

New No dispute. I did not think he would win in 2008.
I'd hoped he wouldn't because I knew if he came to "pass for a Liberal" let alone a "Progressive" as his campaign indicated, we'd be forever strapped with apologists who say "well, at least he's more liberal than Dick Armey" or some such. The bar for being labelled "Liberal" in this country was already so low that I suspect even Nixon could be so labelled. And that's the discussion we're bound to keep having from now on, thanks in no small measure to Obama's victory in 2008.

Obama's policies have turned us into a nation debating whether we should be as liberal as Nixon or as conservative as Armey or Bachmann. With Obama as the Left Sentinel, there is no longer a middle in American politics nor is there likely to ever be.

I'll not repeat my mistake of 2008. The only thing I will predict this go 'round is that if you go to sleep now and wake up in 3 years, review the implemented policies of the 3 years when you were asleep, you won't know if Mittens or Obama won. There's not as much guessing in this prediction because I have three years experience to draw upon.
New I suppose that's good to know.
And here's me thinking that all those closed door sessions where he preemptively capitulated virtually every point his base wanted in favor of the big money interests was actually accomplishing something. I seem to recall some blather about how bright he was and n-dimensional chess and him manipulating the republicans. He DID clear the table pretty nicely before the repubs even got there. There wasn't much left for them to attack since all that was left was a republican plan. No prob... He won't miss any meals and his healthcare is covered for life. He's on the upside of neo-feudalism.

There's a bright side though. At least I can't be guilted into voting for him because it doesn't really matter who is there. If there isn't perfect harmony, nobody can do anything good or bad. I think we just beat entropy!
New Reread DeLong's recent post.
The choice for president and congress does matter.

http://delong.typepa...-of-november.html

Cheers,
Scott.
New I remain sceptical
DeLong seems to be ignoring the fact that Obama packed his administration with republican retreads (the same ones who caused this mess) and preemptively capitulated every opportunity he got. The enthusiasm in 2008 was caused by the hope for real change. By 2010, it was pretty obvious that we had been sold out and it would be business as usual. Perhaps if the DNC wanted us to vote democratic in 2012, they should have run a democrat.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voting for bottom feeders or bottom ballots or whatever he called them just supporting the LOTE system. They want support, they need to deliver. They failed the voters. We didn't fail them.
New Who would have been your candidate in 2008?
Serious question. And how would they have been better?

Hillary?

Edwards?

Biden?

Gravel?

Dodd?

Kucinich?

Bayh?

Vilsack?

Other?

Incoming administrations pick as staff people who worked in previous administrations because they have experience and connections and know how the systems work. Chaos results when masses of new people without those attributes assume high positions. Look at Carter's experience - http://en.wikipedia....ssional_relations

Cheers,
Scott.
New Serious answer
My wife and I both supported Obama, I less so after the FISA reversal. We had an Obama sign in our yard, and my wife pounded the pavement for him. At election time, I thought he was a bit of a stinker, but still better than the others. I thought Hillary was too much of a republican and a hawk. Well, she is, but she's nowhere close to Obama's league. Oh, and we both voted in 2010 (against republicans, of course.) So how do I vote against a republican in 2012? Obama can (and does) out republican most of the morons with a R after their name.
New Thanks. I understand the disappointment.
Imagine if you had Jim Webb and Mark Warner as your senators. ;-)

Hang in there.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Really? I thought he could kill people whenever he wanted.
That's "Kingly" isn't it?
New <sigh>
     Why PPACA is inexcusable, in a nutshell. - (mmoffitt) - (45)
         Corner cases are always there. - (Another Scott) - (39)
             A corner case? - (mmoffitt) - (38)
                 How many votes were there for single payer? - (Another Scott) - (37)
                     Hey... how many times... - (folkert) - (6)
                         Different animals. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                             I am not... - (folkert) - (4)
                                 Understood. Me neither; ditto. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                 In the absence of real leadership... - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                     I can agree with that... - (folkert)
                                     "real leadership"? - (crazy)
                     Your President killed Single Payer in the crib. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                         We've been through this ad nauseum... - (Another Scott)
                     See what happens when you let the option on the table? - (mmoffitt) - (27)
                         States are free to implement single payer if they want. - (Another Scott) - (26)
                             You've never been more wrong. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                                 You do understand that Obama isn't king, right? - (Another Scott) - (24)
                                     Well, then, similarly - (hnick) - (21)
                                         Heh. - (Another Scott) - (20)
                                             Swing and Another miss. - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                                                 The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again. -NT - (Another Scott) - (12)
                                                     Changing arguments mid-stream gets you only so far. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                     Re: The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again. - (Ashton) - (10)
                                                         So, can you or Scott help me out here? - (mmoffitt) - (9)
                                                             Obama isn't the problem - Congress is the problem. HTH. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                 The question remains. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                     We'll see in November. I'm optimistic myself. YMMV. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                         See post below. Either way, we all lose. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                             Meh. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                             Actually no - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                 The "portion" was the determining factor. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                     IIRC, you didn't expect him to win IN in the first place. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                         No dispute. I did not think he would win in 2008. - (mmoffitt)
                                             I suppose that's good to know. - (hnick) - (5)
                                                 Reread DeLong's recent post. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     I remain sceptical - (hnick) - (3)
                                                         Who would have been your candidate in 2008? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                             Serious answer - (hnick) - (1)
                                                                 Thanks. I understand the disappointment. - (Another Scott)
                                     Really? I thought he could kill people whenever he wanted. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         <sigh> -NT - (Another Scott)
         That's a crock - (crazy) - (4)
             So, she should ... - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                 The PPACA is much better than nothing - (malraux) - (1)
                     We'll see. I doubt it. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 You did not read what I wrote - (crazy)

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam!
121 ms