In his very informative healthcare newsletter GoozNews, Merrill Goozner discusses the various threats and strategies arising from the Republican control of the House. He makes the very provocative point that supporters of the the Healthcare Bill should be willing to throw out the so-called "Individual Mandate" (IM) which requires that everyone have health insurance. This is the centerpiece of the opposition and the subject of the main legal challenge (lawsuits by around a dozen state Attorney's General) to the overall bill. Goozner reminds us that the IM was initially opposed by Obama when he campaigned (and was supported by Clinton), and was thrown in mostly to appease the Insurance Industry. Since this industry was among the many that helped campaign against Democrats -- and hence against the bill -- in the last election, they are hardly owed any loyalty.
If the Dems join the PTR (Party for The Rich) to jettison the IM, then the Insurance Industry will have to go through 50 state insurance "exchanges" in order to obtain premium relief to pay for those with pre-existing conditions who buy insurance -- which the companies are mandated to sell -- only when their conditions warrant it. This would be a nightmare for the companies since they would have to publicly display their costs and policy specs.
Goozner also has a discussion of this, as well as "defunding" issues, in the latest Fiscal Times.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Two more issues where the people are with Dems
There are a few other issues where a clear majority of people support the position of the Democratic Party, though they may not know it since the the Dems are so cautious.
The first is the egregious Supreme Court decision in the "Citizen's United" case. Here, a huge majority in a fairly recent poll agreed with most Democrats (and even a few Republicans, though it helps the PTR) that the decision was a bad one: Citizen's United.
Another issue is the regulation of Wall Street. Once again the population at large supports strong regulation, as do the Dems but not the PTR: Regulate Wall Street.
Once again, it's the terrible Democratic propaganda machine, not Nancy Pelosi, that is hurting them. Is there no talent out there on the Left?
The first is the egregious Supreme Court decision in the "Citizen's United" case. Here, a huge majority in a fairly recent poll agreed with most Democrats (and even a few Republicans, though it helps the PTR) that the decision was a bad one: Citizen's United.
Another issue is the regulation of Wall Street. Once again the population at large supports strong regulation, as do the Dems but not the PTR: Regulate Wall Street.
Once again, it's the terrible Democratic propaganda machine, not Nancy Pelosi, that is hurting them. Is there no talent out there on the Left?
Reid's campaign
Thanks to Maxine for pointing out to me this interesting article about Harry Reid's campaign, which appeared in today's Las Vegas Sun.
This is an example of the Democrats' need for a highly talented "minister of information" (or "propaganda"). Reid's campaign was prepared from before day one. They had material on all prospective opposition candidates and were able to use it to help the Republicans select the stupidest and least disciplined, Sharron Angle. Then they blasted her early and often with The Truth: her own words and her own idiocy. This wasn't a smear of the type Republicans trot out, but a simple presentation of things she herself had said and clearly believed.
Are the Dems doing THIS RIGHT NOW? Or will they wait, as usual, for the Republicans to set the agenda and phraseology for the 2012 election? We are already reading in the press nonsense about how there is a historic rightward shift in the electorate, and how people are against Obama and, in particular, his healthcare plan. This is all baloney.
Yes, people are unhappy with the recently passed healthcare bill. But they are not unhappy with the actual provisions in the bill itself. The very effective Republican propaganda machine has tied the bill and Obama to socialism and high unemployment. Americans are conditioned to hate and fear both. Since they largely don't understand what's in the bill, they now hate and fear the bill. Already they are blaming it, totally irrationally, for the bad behavior of the economy. Yet, when polled on actual provisions of the bill -- for example, forbidding denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or caps on coverage, and an expanded drug coverage (elimination of the "doughnut hole" -- a still substantial majority effectively favors the bill. Here are a few of these poll summaries: an old one and a newer one. AARP, the largest and most effective senior citizen lobby, also supports not only provisions of the bill, but the bill itself.
What this indicates is that the Democrats are losing the propaganda war. They haven't been able to convince people that the bill that was passed embodies many of the things that people want and still support. Also, many people feel that the bill that was passed doesn't go far enough. The so-called "public option" is still as popular as before, even though Obama and many Dems made sure it was deep-sixed long before the bill was voted on.
This past election was not a referendum on what is actually good for this country. It was a referendum on which propaganda machine was most effective. As usual, the Democratic effort was largely fact-based on most issues: healthcare, economy, climate-change; yet it was unskillful and unprepared (see the Reid article cited above for an exception). The Republican effort was, as usual, untruthful and fact-avoiding, yet extremely effective given the economy and joblessness in particular.
The election was unfortunate in that people with no program and no desire to face difficult and complicated facts were elected. But it was not particularly historic, and hardly an indicator of the path that is objectively best for us to pursue.
Schoolkids: Teacher, is our class Easter Bunny a girl or a boy?
Teacher: Well class, why don't we take a vote?
This is an example of the Democrats' need for a highly talented "minister of information" (or "propaganda"). Reid's campaign was prepared from before day one. They had material on all prospective opposition candidates and were able to use it to help the Republicans select the stupidest and least disciplined, Sharron Angle. Then they blasted her early and often with The Truth: her own words and her own idiocy. This wasn't a smear of the type Republicans trot out, but a simple presentation of things she herself had said and clearly believed.
Are the Dems doing THIS RIGHT NOW? Or will they wait, as usual, for the Republicans to set the agenda and phraseology for the 2012 election? We are already reading in the press nonsense about how there is a historic rightward shift in the electorate, and how people are against Obama and, in particular, his healthcare plan. This is all baloney.
Yes, people are unhappy with the recently passed healthcare bill. But they are not unhappy with the actual provisions in the bill itself. The very effective Republican propaganda machine has tied the bill and Obama to socialism and high unemployment. Americans are conditioned to hate and fear both. Since they largely don't understand what's in the bill, they now hate and fear the bill. Already they are blaming it, totally irrationally, for the bad behavior of the economy. Yet, when polled on actual provisions of the bill -- for example, forbidding denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or caps on coverage, and an expanded drug coverage (elimination of the "doughnut hole" -- a still substantial majority effectively favors the bill. Here are a few of these poll summaries: an old one and a newer one. AARP, the largest and most effective senior citizen lobby, also supports not only provisions of the bill, but the bill itself.
What this indicates is that the Democrats are losing the propaganda war. They haven't been able to convince people that the bill that was passed embodies many of the things that people want and still support. Also, many people feel that the bill that was passed doesn't go far enough. The so-called "public option" is still as popular as before, even though Obama and many Dems made sure it was deep-sixed long before the bill was voted on.
This past election was not a referendum on what is actually good for this country. It was a referendum on which propaganda machine was most effective. As usual, the Democratic effort was largely fact-based on most issues: healthcare, economy, climate-change; yet it was unskillful and unprepared (see the Reid article cited above for an exception). The Republican effort was, as usual, untruthful and fact-avoiding, yet extremely effective given the economy and joblessness in particular.
The election was unfortunate in that people with no program and no desire to face difficult and complicated facts were elected. But it was not particularly historic, and hardly an indicator of the path that is objectively best for us to pursue.
Schoolkids: Teacher, is our class Easter Bunny a girl or a boy?
Teacher: Well class, why don't we take a vote?
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Krugman on Obama
Might as well check out Krugman's as usual right-on-target column. He, also, says that now is the time for Obama to get together some fight and not concede anything to the conservatives.
The conservatives have been wrong on economics for a long time now. Their power was consolidated for many of the years when they controlled both houses of Congress during Bush's presidency. They got what they wanted -- tax cuts and de-regulation -- and failed. Economics may not be a science, but it doesn't take an Isaac Newton to recognize when a theory does not pass the test of experiment in the real world. Now they have regained a lot of power -- at least negative, program-killing power. What do they want? More tax cuts and deregulation and repeal of healthcare reform. They failed to destroy the economy first time around. Now they have another chance.
Jon Stewart made a good point the other night. Why would the Republicans want to offer up any sort of plan to help the economy? Suppose they do nothing. If the economy rebounds, they will claim that their recent control of the House led to the improvement. If the economy remains bad or tanks further, they will continue to blame healthcare reform and other Democratic programs. It has become clear that truth or reason have very little to do with who gets praised, blamed or elected these days (goodbye Russ Feingold).
Too bad we don't have a party willing to fight them. Nice that Obama is chatting them up.
The conservatives have been wrong on economics for a long time now. Their power was consolidated for many of the years when they controlled both houses of Congress during Bush's presidency. They got what they wanted -- tax cuts and de-regulation -- and failed. Economics may not be a science, but it doesn't take an Isaac Newton to recognize when a theory does not pass the test of experiment in the real world. Now they have regained a lot of power -- at least negative, program-killing power. What do they want? More tax cuts and deregulation and repeal of healthcare reform. They failed to destroy the economy first time around. Now they have another chance.
Jon Stewart made a good point the other night. Why would the Republicans want to offer up any sort of plan to help the economy? Suppose they do nothing. If the economy rebounds, they will claim that their recent control of the House led to the improvement. If the economy remains bad or tanks further, they will continue to blame healthcare reform and other Democratic programs. It has become clear that truth or reason have very little to do with who gets praised, blamed or elected these days (goodbye Russ Feingold).
Too bad we don't have a party willing to fight them. Nice that Obama is chatting them up.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Now what?
Supposedly Obama is inviting Boehner and other Republicans to the White House for dinner or some such. The rags say he's trying to work out a compromise with them (LOL). Some people never learn. They already said that they want to make his Presidency a failure and have shown that they mean it.
Truman presided over an even bigger Democratic loss in 1946. He came out swinging. There are lots of things a president can do that don't require Congress. For example, gearing up enforcement agencies (like NLRB) and giving directives to the IRS. The Attorney General has some clout that doesn't require Congress. (Yeah, like he set the AG to argue for retaining Don'tAskDon'tTell -- just a little longer.) But mainly, he has to come out swinging. Get on TV and name names of obstructionists and what they are obstructing. There are a lot of unemployed people out there whose benefits will run out under Republican control of the House. Is it too much to ask of the feeble Dem propaganda machine ("DemProp"?) that they make it clear what is happening and who's screwing them? It seems just as likely that the Republicans will successfully blame the Democrats when unemployment benefits lapse.
I simply don't understand why the Dems can't find someone like Karl Rove to handle their strategy and message; to head up DemProp. Why don't they advertise for someone: "Needed: smart person to handle propaganda for major political party. Must be as smart and effective as Karl Rove. Astronomical salary for the right person." They have to start their PR NOW NOW NOW. They always wait too long; I've been saying this for years -- I'm sure you can find it in an old blog. The progressive message is not as simple-minded as the conservative one, and requires preparation.
Alas, they're already caving I'm afraid. I hope Obama has a pleasant dinner with the people who will soon finish cutting his throat.
Truman presided over an even bigger Democratic loss in 1946. He came out swinging. There are lots of things a president can do that don't require Congress. For example, gearing up enforcement agencies (like NLRB) and giving directives to the IRS. The Attorney General has some clout that doesn't require Congress. (Yeah, like he set the AG to argue for retaining Don'tAskDon'tTell -- just a little longer.) But mainly, he has to come out swinging. Get on TV and name names of obstructionists and what they are obstructing. There are a lot of unemployed people out there whose benefits will run out under Republican control of the House. Is it too much to ask of the feeble Dem propaganda machine ("DemProp"?) that they make it clear what is happening and who's screwing them? It seems just as likely that the Republicans will successfully blame the Democrats when unemployment benefits lapse.
I simply don't understand why the Dems can't find someone like Karl Rove to handle their strategy and message; to head up DemProp. Why don't they advertise for someone: "Needed: smart person to handle propaganda for major political party. Must be as smart and effective as Karl Rove. Astronomical salary for the right person." They have to start their PR NOW NOW NOW. They always wait too long; I've been saying this for years -- I'm sure you can find it in an old blog. The progressive message is not as simple-minded as the conservative one, and requires preparation.
Alas, they're already caving I'm afraid. I hope Obama has a pleasant dinner with the people who will soon finish cutting his throat.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Election results
Well, not as bad as it could have been.
It was nice to see awful candidates lose: Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Carl Paladino in New York, and Carly Fiorino in California. Both Angle and O'Donnell are true Tea-Screamer religious loonies -- not part of the reality-based community. Fiorino is a rich contemptuous corporate has-been, and Paladino an outright thug. Hope we never see any of them again.
It was terrible to see Russ Feingold lose -- and hard to understand. If ever there was a senator who voted from principle and often against the wishes of his party, it was Feingold. His defeat was emblematic of the sheer idiocy of the "vote out all incumbents" position. And I was just beginning to think that Wisconsin might actually be a non-coastal state with a reasonable voting population...
Generally speaking, the distribution of intelligent voting in this election reinforces my sports-rooting algorithm: North over South, Coastal over Central and (for a tie-breaker), East over West. (The World Series SF Giants over Texas Rangers was a no-brainer, even considering my ex-New Yorker sensibilities against the renegade Giants and Dodgers.)
Here in New England, sanity generally prevails. In fact, with the exception of the Senatorial race in NH, Republicans did very poorly, as they ought. Deval Patrick, the mediocre Governor with a heart of gold beat Charlie Baker, the rather effective ex-healthcare administrator with a heart of ... well, whatever stout Republican hearts are made of. Baker turned around Harvard-Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) when it was on the brink of financial disaster. People who worked for HPHC seem to be impressed (which is more than the folks at HP were with Carly Fiorina). However, his prescription for Massachusetts was the usual Republican tax-cut & trim waste, less regulation less government spending baloney.
Barney Frank was also re-elected, in spite of his screw-up over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (he thought they were in fine shape until they collapsed). This lapse is more than made up for, in my opinion, by his generally good work for his constituents (ranging from upper middle-class professionals in Newton to people in the fishing industry at the other end of his district) and his recent efforts on behalf of consumer protection in the recently passed financial regulation legislation.
We still don't know whether Lisa Murkowsky will win in Alaska. I for one don't care: Alaskans are, generally, both greedy and not too swift. They get far more than they deserve or contribute in federal funds, yet maintain that they are "independent" and don't need government. This is typical swinish behavior. Most states where voters complain about "big government" get more from the feds than they contribute in taxes. Murkowski will do her best to continue this; her Palin endorsed opponent (Miller) may try to as well. Since the Democrat McAdams will not win, one can only, perhaps, hope Murkowsky's write-in win would discredit Palin -- whatever discrediting Sarah Palin might mean at this point.
All in all, it could have been worse.
It was nice to see awful candidates lose: Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Carl Paladino in New York, and Carly Fiorino in California. Both Angle and O'Donnell are true Tea-Screamer religious loonies -- not part of the reality-based community. Fiorino is a rich contemptuous corporate has-been, and Paladino an outright thug. Hope we never see any of them again.
It was terrible to see Russ Feingold lose -- and hard to understand. If ever there was a senator who voted from principle and often against the wishes of his party, it was Feingold. His defeat was emblematic of the sheer idiocy of the "vote out all incumbents" position. And I was just beginning to think that Wisconsin might actually be a non-coastal state with a reasonable voting population...
Generally speaking, the distribution of intelligent voting in this election reinforces my sports-rooting algorithm: North over South, Coastal over Central and (for a tie-breaker), East over West. (The World Series SF Giants over Texas Rangers was a no-brainer, even considering my ex-New Yorker sensibilities against the renegade Giants and Dodgers.)
Here in New England, sanity generally prevails. In fact, with the exception of the Senatorial race in NH, Republicans did very poorly, as they ought. Deval Patrick, the mediocre Governor with a heart of gold beat Charlie Baker, the rather effective ex-healthcare administrator with a heart of ... well, whatever stout Republican hearts are made of. Baker turned around Harvard-Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) when it was on the brink of financial disaster. People who worked for HPHC seem to be impressed (which is more than the folks at HP were with Carly Fiorina). However, his prescription for Massachusetts was the usual Republican tax-cut & trim waste, less regulation less government spending baloney.
Barney Frank was also re-elected, in spite of his screw-up over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (he thought they were in fine shape until they collapsed). This lapse is more than made up for, in my opinion, by his generally good work for his constituents (ranging from upper middle-class professionals in Newton to people in the fishing industry at the other end of his district) and his recent efforts on behalf of consumer protection in the recently passed financial regulation legislation.
We still don't know whether Lisa Murkowsky will win in Alaska. I for one don't care: Alaskans are, generally, both greedy and not too swift. They get far more than they deserve or contribute in federal funds, yet maintain that they are "independent" and don't need government. This is typical swinish behavior. Most states where voters complain about "big government" get more from the feds than they contribute in taxes. Murkowski will do her best to continue this; her Palin endorsed opponent (Miller) may try to as well. Since the Democrat McAdams will not win, one can only, perhaps, hope Murkowsky's write-in win would discredit Palin -- whatever discrediting Sarah Palin might mean at this point.
All in all, it could have been worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
