One wonders?
In a private meeting in the Capitol just now, a dozen or more House liberals bluntly toldNancy Pelosi that there was no chance that they would vote to pass the Senate bill in its current form — making it all but certain that House Dems won’t opt for this approach, a top House liberal tells me.
Of course, the Republicans have been spinning this like crazy, saying that some Democrats don’t support the bill for the same reasons they don’t, socialized medicine, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. A majority of Americans have said it should include a public option. Some polls were as low as 51% and some as high as 69% in support of the public option. I think they need to start from scratch and they should include two provisions (one that is a Republican idea and one that is a Democratic idea).
• Tax refunds for private insurance premiums, &
• A public option that ANY American can buy into and pay premiums thru payroll taxes
Without either one of those options, there really isn’t any reform. Reform should affect ALL Americans, not just the very poor or the very rich.
Brown won because Coakley ran a truly awful campaign. Brown worked hard and fired up his base. Coakley didn’t. She went into the campaign with a sense of entitlement and the assumption that the election was a mere formality – and even with this – she nearly won. Yes the wimpy health care bill in congress didn’t help her, but it isn’t as big of a deal in Massachusetts as it is elsewhere because the already HAVE a good health care system (near universal coverage – a highly monitored private insurance industry – an independent Health Insurance authority – free insurance for anyone making less than 150% of Poverty Level – highly subsidized insurance for anyone making less than 300% Poverty Level).
IMHO this was a case of two candidates – one who worked hard and fired up the base, one who phoned it in. This wasn’t a huge referendum on Obama and/or Health care…that may or may not be coming in November. This was someone who did everything she could do to lose, and she was successful at it.
L3wis:
“A majority of Americans have said it should include a public option. Some polls were as low as 51% and some as high as 69% in support of the public option.”
Huh..good thing you haven’t e-mailed this info to the White House, because those dumbfux must’ve missed that one:
“Last week, President Obama spoke to the House Democrats about the healthcare bill, telling them, “I know how big a lift this has been. I see the polls.†AEI’s new edition of Political Report looks at the evolution of our attitudes on healthcare overhaul by examining five pollsters’ results since July 2009. All of the polls show President Obama losing ground on handling the issue. On the reforms themselves, both Gallup and Pew showed a slight uptick in support in their early January 2010 polling. In the Gallup poll, 49 percent would now advise their member to vote for it, 46 percent against. In the new Pew poll, 39 percent, up from 35 percent last month, generally favor the proposals, but 48 percent oppose them.”
http://blog.american.com/?p=9429
BTW, those poll numbers you are citing are from last summer, well before the Public knew the costs of the House & Senate Bills and before they got to see how corrupt the process became as they tried to meet the Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas etc. deadlines. Who’s spinning again?
Here’s what Gallup says just today:
“In the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Tuesday’s U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, the majority of Americans (55%) favor Congress’ putting the brakes on its current healthcare reform efforts and considering alternatives that can obtain more Republican support. Four in 10 Americans (39%) would rather have House and Senate Democrats continue to try to pass the bill currently being negotiated in conference committee.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125327/Majority-Favors-Suspending-Work-Healthcare-Bill.aspx
This election wasn’t about healthcare. The healthcare debacles were only a part of it. Pollster Cecelia Lake nailed it. The democrats lost this election in late 2008 and early 2009 with the bailouts, propping up failed companies, boards and management while main street was cut loose to fend for itself – and unemployment is functionally over 17%.
“this race was lost for the Democrats sometime between the 2008 election and the inauguration, whenever it was that the Obama administration made the fateful decision not to challenge Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, AIG and the rest of the white collar criminals that drove the U.S. economy into the ground, and chose instead to appoint Wall Street’s most prominent boosters and apologists to his economic advisory team.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/shoot-anything-that-moves_b_431318.html
Sy- Your polls show people who are against the entire bill, the polls I am talking about have to do with providing a public option. Most people are against the bill. Republicans don’t like it, well, because they don’t like anything, and Dems don’t like it because it has no real reform in it, like a public option.
Anthony, you are right, Coakley ran a pretty shitty campaign. Who goes on vacation in the middle of a campaign? Dumbass.
John2/HuffPo:
“Obama administration made the fateful decision not to challenge Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, AIG and the rest of the white collar criminals that drove the U.S. economy into the ground, and chose instead to appoint Wall Street’s most prominent boosters and apologists to his economic advisory team.â€
Looks like BHO got the memo:
“The global banking industry was thrown into turmoil on Thursday after President Barack Obama , responding to public rage over the financial crisis, proposed the most far-reaching overhaul of Wall Street since the 1930s.
In reforms that could force the restructuring of some of the biggest names in US finance, including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, Mr Obama promised that “never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to failâ€.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44f593ee-06a7-11df-b426-00144feabdc0.html
Volker & Geitner are all over this moronic idea as well. The idea Obama’s cabinet is staffed with a bunch of pro-business types is laughable.
L3wis,
Check out this assesment from the WSJ:
“If you were a normal human sitting at home having a beer and watching national politics peripherally, as normal people do until they focus on an election, chances are pretty good you came to see the two major parties not as the Dems versus the Reps, or the blue versus the red, but as the Nuts versus the Creeps. The Nuts were for high spending and taxing and the expansion of government no matter what. The Creeps were hypocrites who talked one thing and did another, who went along on the spending spree while lecturing on fiscal solvency. ”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017503811443526.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
Sy wrote: “The idea Obama’s cabinet is staffed with a bunch of pro-business types is laughable.”
Yes it is; I laugh until the tears flow. In 2008 and again in Massachusetts voters voted for CHANGE, yet received only rhetoric and more governmental incompetence and graft – because the Bushies like Bernanke and the Goldman Sachs henchmen remain in charge of the economy. We want CHANGE; we want them OUT.
The health insurance bill (it is not a health care bill) was scripted by big pharma. The health insurance bill is full of candy for all the lobbyists – without reforming health care.
Obama had a rare second chance to actually begin CHANGE after the Massachusetts vote. He failed. Obama should have withdrawn the economic arsonist Bernanke’s nomination. Obama should have demanded Goldman Sach’s man Geithner’s and Summer’s resignations. Instead Obama offers more rhetoric, but no change.
The Wall Street casino is irrelevant to the millions of unemployed. Derivatives, structured investment vehicles, credit default swaps, etc., created no jobs.
Looks like you guys will will have some local work to do on this issue:
“Nor can Mr Obama rely on unity within his own party, which has been in disarray, if not panic, since Tuesday. For example, Mr Obama’s more populist tack on Wall Street re-regulation failed to attract endorsement from Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, even though he was present when Mr Obama made the announcement.
Others, such as Tim Johnson, Democratic senator for South Dakota and a senior member of the banking committee, were already opposed to elements of Mr Obama’s regulatory proposals including the plan to establish a consumer financial protection agency.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/821dce96-0786-11df-915f-00144feabdc0.html
Looks like Stephie is also opposed, so at least we have a rare moment of unity in our Delagation. So I guess we could thank Obama for that.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Investments%20in%20the%20Opponents%20of%20Reform.pdf
Obama is beginning to suck, don’t blame me, I was a Hillary supporter.