home

Laffer-ism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:20:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Paul Krugman:

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

There is a phrase I am trying to coin for this phenomenon - Laffer-ism - see also this.

Speaking for me only

< Jobless Rate Drops: Is the Worst Over? | Advice And Consent: A Final Word >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Laffer-ism | 152 comments (152 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think the President needs to be very clear (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    that no services will be cut from Medicare. "Lockbox" might be an appropriate word to revive.

    nooooooo (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    not the looooccccckkkkk boooooox

    Parent
    For all it was made fun of (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    seniors bought it. All of the links that I can find to the 2000 exit poll are dead, but I think Gore won old people.

    Parent
    I dont doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    but the reference still made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.


    Parent
    If you define "old people" (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    (I prefer the phrase "seniors") as those 65 and over, then no, Bush won them 52-46.

    See this.

    The change in the electorate in 2008 was, people do not want to believe it I suppose, the Emerging Democratic Majority.

    Honestly, Judis and Texeira have been completely vindicated and the GOP has chosen to ignore it.

    I wonder what Rove really thinks about all that. His strategy was precisely to peel of Hispanics and add them to the white male base of the GOP.

    Parent

    Then I may have remembered incorrectly (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    In any case, the message was sewn that Bush wanted to destroy Social Security.

    Here's the problem with the emerging democratic majority: they don't tend to be as energized for off year elections.

    Parent

    True dat (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    And for anything BUT elections apparently.

    Krugman's warning at the end of his column is an important one:

    Many people hoped that last year's election would mark the end of the "angry white voter" era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.

    But right now Mr. Obama's backers seem to lack all conviction, perhaps because the prosaic reality of his administration isn't living up to their dreams of transformation. Meanwhile, the angry right is filled with a passionate intensity.

    And if Mr. Obama can't recapture some of the passion of 2008, can't inspire his supporters to stand up and be heard, health care reform may well fail.



    Parent
    "may well fail" (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    I prefer failure to a massive giveaway to insurance companies and a fig leaf for pols

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    A good example of Obama's problem.

    You are the type of Dem who is quite disappointed with Obama, even though you never had illusions about him.

    I do not share your view in that I think a health reform bill that is good can still emerge IF the President is prepared to fight for it.

    But he is losing his intense Obama Bot support PLUS more conventional Dems like you as well.

    Parent

    my feelings about healt care (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    reform dont have much to do with Obama.  I would feel the same if Hillary was the president.  
    I just fear that what ever they pass we are going to have to live with for a long time.

    I think if he gets (almost) any form of public option I could be for it but honestly without one I dont have any faith that much will change.  at least if there is an option, however lame, it can be expanded upon.

    I think this is maybe our last best chance to ever get real reform in my lifetime.  they talk about revisiting it but after this is over on one is going to have the stomach for a rematch for a long while I fear.


    Parent

    I think I made that point (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    Your disappointment is not based on Obama, but on what he is doing.

    I think if he was doing what you thought was right on health care, you would be saying so and even rallying behind him.

    Parent

    absolutely (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:07:42 AM EST
    and I will anyway if I think, or people like you or others convince me, that what they are doing is worthwhile.


    Parent
    And the left ! (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    And on places like Dkos you can already sense the undercurrent of dissatisfaction.  A sort of grumbling, harrumphing which underlies a lot of the front page stories.

    The silver lining in all this is the Republicans have decided to fight Obama by ... um .. going insane.

    And this offers daily fodder for the blogs to ease their dissatisfaction with Obama and the Congressional Dems.

    So Obama and Congressional Dems may just need to appear marginally sane to hold on to power.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 04:17:20 PM EST
    doesn't have a stomach for the fight nor the allegiance to the issue nor the leadership ability.

    Parent
    Exactly what are we suppose to rally behind? (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    A plan that is not universal health CARE? A plan that mandates health INSURANCE? A plan that cuts the Medicare budget? A public option, that if included, is so restricted that few will be able to chose that plan and will have no effect on the cost of insurance?

    I would definitely stand up for a universal single payer system. I would also stand up for universal coverage that contained a ROBUST public option that was open to all. Unfortunately, that is not what is being offered.

    It is really hard to inspire supporters with vague outlines of a trillion dollar plan that more and more looks like a insurance give away program than an effort to provide good quality, affordable health care to all Americans.

    Parent

    Do you think (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    because all the "fun" stuff has gone away?  No more rallies on college campuses, no more "hopey-changey" talk because now voters want something more substantive?  I mean, we all ready have empirical evidence that many Obama supporters, especially the early ones, were not the long-time Dems who cared about nor fought for the platform issues - they just cared about the man, which is fine, I guess, since they were happy he won.  But long-term, it doesn't lend itself to a true "Emerging Democratic Majority".

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    You misunderstand the Emerging Democratic Majority thesis.

    It is not dependent on sweeping change in the views of the electorate, but rather in the makeup of the electorate.

    The main data point for you to consider is this - 80% of the electorate in 2000 was white. In 2008, its was 76%. In 2012, it will probably be 74%.

    Obama did not win more white voters than Dems have in the past (Bil Clinton remains the top Dem white vote getter since LBJ by a comfortable margin.) There were more NON-white voters than in the past. And that trend will continue.

    Parent

    But does that assume (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    Long term, that all non-white voters with remain true to the Democrats?  And if Democrats are losing white voters, are we eventually going to have the "white" party and the "non-white" party?

    Parent
    Republicans (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:00:45 AM EST
    aren't picking up too many young white voters.  So I don't see how that would happen.

    Parent
    If they worked out more (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    and lost that pasty pudgey look I might consider it :)

    Parent
    Hah (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by CST on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    I would probably be disowned if I married a Republican.

    Other race - great.  Same gender - wonderful. Foreign - more places to visit.  Broke - no problem, we'll figure it out.  Religious - scary but they'll deal with it.  Republican - never speak to me again.

    The worst thing I could do in the eyes of my family is marry a young Mitt Romney.

    Parent

    Maybe Mitt could be good for fun and (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    not fun for good.  Probably not though.  He's so uptight. But you don't have to take him home and have that be your mom's home :)

    Parent
    Not Mitt Romney (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    Too boring, not into Ken dolls.  Maybe more of a John McCain.  Not in the age sense, just in the unpolished sense.

    Parent
    Whew you like your diamonds rough :) (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    I was thinking Harold Ford Jr but then I remembered that he's a Democrat.

    Parent
    On August 16th, my Republican (none / 0) (#148)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    hubby and I will celebrate 29 years of marriage...but he's not one of "those" kind of Republicans, or the marriage would never have lasted, lol.

    This will sound strange, but my husband's father died when my husband was 17, and at the time, they were not getting along too well.  I think he carries that Republican registration as one of the only things he has left of his dad.

    It's all good - we yell and argue and I always win because he isn't really into politics and issues like I am.  

    Obviously, we have more holding us together than party registration, lol.

    Parent

    It assumes two things (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:03:15 AM EST
    (1) That the long term vote patterns of demographic groups will stay the same.

    (2) That the long term trends on the makeup of the electorate will stay the same.

    Both of these assumptions are quite sound imo.

    Certainly as long as the GOP plays the same card it has always played.

    The biggest wild card is, imo, health care reform. OF it gets done, and reasonably well, the Democratic Party could see itself with FDR type dominance for decades.

    In that sense, the GOP all out war on health care reform not only is predictable, it actually makes perfect sense. They must stop health care reform to save their political futures.

    That is why I believe Obama will, at the end of the day, do what he has to to get meaningful health care reform. It is his legacy. For good or bad.

    The question is will he be skilled enough to get it done.  

    Parent

    I am pretty sure (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    that racial polarization, by and large, is on the downswing.  Rev. Wright surely would have been a dealbreaker in the 80s.  Times change.  Racial segregation slowly breaks down and more and more people come to realize it's not a race war.

    Over time, there should be fewer and fewer whites who will automatically vote against "the black candidate" (by which I mean, whichever candidate black people support).  That hardly means the number will go to zero or that it will happen overnight, of course.

    On the flip side, as minority groups become more mainstreamed and enjoy more and more economic success, we ought to expect at least some shift in their voting patterns.  In a post-racial world, many middle-class minorities would get married, move to the suburbs, have kids and start voting Republican just like middle-class whites do.  In the real world, the GOP's animus towards minorities keeps this from happening to the extent it otherwise would, but there's at least going to be some movement.  The GOP has just ensured the process will be much longer.

    But if we extend it long enough, do you agree with me that the arcs eventually curve in the direction of less polarization rather than more?

    Parent

    I am not sure I follow your argument (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    Are you saying the Dem candidate is the "black candidate?" That's only true in the South.

    Are race relations getting better? Probably.

    But the GOP is determined to alienate non-whites for whatever reason.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    in the South, and in other racially polarized places, like Detroit where I grew up.

    My point is probably moot anyway as no one is claiming that the emerging Democratic majority is supposed to last forever.

    Parent

    worst case scenario (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:03:52 AM EST
    Dems keep winning but they stay Dems.  Best case scenario - Republicans become obselete and Dems split in two.

    Also - regarding your long term question, in order for Republicans to pick up non-white voters they have to stop letting people like Sessions represent their party.  I don't see that happening anytime soon.  They seem fine with him as the front man.  When it does happen, it may be too late.  Or it means that they have changed enough that they aren't quite as evil anymore.

    Parent

    I think the current idea of what a Republican is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    is going to get flushed. Then we'll lose blue dogs.  For minute I was thinking that the racists would have no place to go, but no, they'll just hide out in the "R" party.

    Parent
    Ok, then (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:21:41 AM EST
    What about all the young, white evangelicals we saw in the GE - those who seem to be a little more tolerant of gays, the environment, etc.?

    And Sessions is 63 years old, as are many of the faces we see today. Could there be a kindler, gentler resurgence of the fiscally-conservative Republican Party in 10 years, and especially as many people (who may have voted Dem this time) get more conservative as they get older?

    Parent

    There is evidence (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CST on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:28:03 AM EST
    That party ID sticks with a generation even as they age.

    A kindler-gentler Republican party could emerge, but they aren't emerging.  And frankly, a kindler, gentler republican party wouldn't be very much like the republicans of today.  i have no problem with their name, so if they change ideology, they can stick around as long as they like.

    I have never seen a true fiscal conservative.  To me, it would be like a brand new party.  Who was the last president to balance the budget?

    Parent

    Last Republican (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    to balance the budget: Eisenhower and they call him "liberal". Oh, I would love a resurgency of the "liberal" republicans because we could have a real debate about spending and not this "hate the government" garbage that we get from teh current GOP.

    Parent
    Will Evangelicals stay Evangelical (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    since America goes through some sort of religious revival at the turn of every century?  Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see but church recruitment seems to be getting a little vicious around here :)  We have a lot of churches to keep solvent.

    Parent
    Decline? (none / 0) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:43:16 AM EST
    There has been three churches in my town that have closed in the last year. So, in spite of what some want us to believe, everyone in the country hasn't turned to God.

    Parent
    The closing of churches (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    typically has more to do with donations or lack of than it does with attendance.  If people go, but can't afford the offering, then the church closes anyway.  In this economy that could very well be happening.

    Parent
    I suppose that's a good thing (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:01:44 AM EST
    <SNARK> Because then they'll all have to crowd into the churches that remain open and it will make rounding them up to send them to the camps easier. </SNARK>

    I know I shouldn't tease like that but when Glenn Beck starts insanity like this it is very hard for me to not say things that I can laugh all day about.  But I shouldn't promote paranoia and I am working very hard trying to make sure that everyone who is paranoid can have medication.

    Parent

    As good, upstanding... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    ...islamosocialistcommienazis (pick one, wingers!) are we not duty bound to be dropping dimes on those unsupportive of the cause and/or helping round them up?  

    Some people should probably have their bags packed because the FEMA van is clearly on the way over to take them to the camp where they will be gay married, forced to melt down guns and then fattened to make Soylant Green.

    It could happen!11!

    Parent

    Closings (none / 0) (#89)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    That was my original thought. But according to the local paper one was a Presbyterian church in our "WASPY" suburb of 15,000 and their membership had dropped to 14!. They've now consolidated with the church in the neighboring community.

    Parent
    The Baptists (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    did report figures a couple of years ago that showed their new members were down.

    A films such as The Da Vinci Code have (surprisingly, at least to me) hurt the beliefs, and weaknened the faith, of many religious conservatives...

    Over time, it is hard to deny science and insist on a fundamentalist world view.

    Parent

    I've always felt this way (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    The Bush years though had me wondering just how much science a culture steeped in emerging technology could be in denial about :)  It was high speed flat screen bizarre.  Perhaps technology = miracles because of the way it just shows up in daily American life.

    Parent
    No question the (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:11:04 AM EST
    racial makeup trends favor Dems, as per the EDM thesis.

    But this

    Obama did not win more white voters than Dems have in the past (Bil Clinton remains the top Dem white vote getter since LBJ by a comfortable margin.)

    doesn't sound right.  BC won about 43% of the white vote in 96, but in 1976 Carter, the last Dem to win the presidency with an overall majority, won some 47% of the whites.  That makes Carter the leader in this category since 1964 when Lyndon was the last Dem to win a majority of this segment.  

    The figures I've seen for Obama in 08 were around 43% of the whites.

    Parent

    A 3 way race (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:15:04 AM EST
    in 92 and 96 prevented Clinton from winning the highest percentage of whites by a Dem.

    Clinton won by 6 and 9 points in his elections to Carter's 1.

    Clinton did best with white voters apples to apples.

    Parent

    i suspect that along with (none / 0) (#152)
    by kelsweet on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 04:25:18 PM EST
    the growing "non white" voters you will also see the white voter block growing as well. I think that some of the "complacent" ones will no longer be complacent and will come out to vote. Since it seems that there are those who want to turn it into "us against the white man" and not about ALL of us in the US. I find it offensive and disgusting, furthermore you seem to assume that ALL "non whites" will vote Dem. ridiculous. imo

    Parent
    expect Obama to be hitting the road (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:43:24 AM EST
    in about january to mitigate that

    Parent
    I'll be interested to see (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    IIRC in the past, he hasn't spent much time or energy on the stump for fellow Democrats.

    Parent
    Elders is, perhaps, best... (none / 0) (#37)
    by lambertstrether on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    Maybe it's a tribal influence, I don't know.

    Parent
    Not bad (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:13:21 AM EST
    But I have never given special credit for wisdom because of age.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#157)
    by lambertstrether on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    However, I would also argue that there is some wisdom that can only come with age.

    Parent
    Double Whammy on Lockbox (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by pluege on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    Even better now than in late 1990's, using "lockbox" for Medicare or any preservation of government services is not only a good image for people, one they get, but now it has the powerful message of reminding people how republicans totally effed the economy and country since the Clinton presidency, that republicans are completely untrustworthy, that republicans lie and dissemble all the time, and it harks back to a time when the country had a Democratic President and everything was going really well (at least perceived to be so). And, any reminder of Clinton is a reminder that he was right about healthcare and failing to follow his leadership then has been really awful for most average Americans.

    Its always been mystifying to me that since Obama won the dem nomination that he didn't lean heavily on the Clinton success and as a counterpoint of proof as to how wrong republicans are - still hocking today the same crap they did back then. Seems to be Obama ego getting in the way of good politics.

    By all means reinstate the "lockbox" - its a great metaphor, even better today than 10 years ago.

    Parent

    Good idea (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:27:28 AM EST


    Parent
    The emphasis on cost cutting (none / 0) (#53)
    by Coral on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    has indeed raised fears. In fact, though I am very supportive of reform, especially the public option, all Obama's talk about cutting Medicare costs was beginning to make me nervous.

    Though I would support reform no matter what (because if it doesn't go through now, it probably won't in time to do my just-out-of-college kids much good).

    Parent

    Yes, and in clarifying (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    that no services will be cut, he should provide the companion explanation as to how half of the trillion dollars needed for the new legislation will come from Medicare without causing any cuts in service.  

    Parent
    I think it w ill require (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    a definition of 'service'. If you idea of a 'service' is your specialist ordering a test your GP ordered 2 weeks ago, then you are going to see a cut in service.

    Parent
    Yes, this a part of what I (none / 0) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    was trying say.  Thanks.

    Parent
    One man's waste (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    is another man's service. It definitely is going to be a hot issue in the next few years, all in its own, no matter what happens with the rest of the legislation.

    Parent
    Hypocrites (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    True to form, most people seem to feel that they're the exception. They feel that they deserve these benefits because they've worked for it! It's all those "other's" that drag everything down! (snark)

    Apparently two favorite topics (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:35:30 AM EST
    for the ranters are illegal immigrants and abortion. These people are never going to vote for Democrats--they never did--but we have to take them seriously because they're hijacking the discussion.

    It's really hard to see what you do about this other than launching a metric @sston of TV ads. But OFA isn't raising the kind of money needed for that right now.

    Parent

    What to do about hijacking (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    the discussion?

    Sheesh.

    Fill the vacuum the pro-reform and admin folks have created.

    Now that we know the territory ("Keep govmint's hands off my Medicare!") that should be turned to the proponents advantage...

    Medicare for all!

    This isn't rocket science.

    When the discussion is hijacked, you have to fight back.  For every punch there must be an effective counterpunch.  It's basic politics.

    Parent

    Medicare for all (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:58:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Clearly the right plan in the first place (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    It's more or less what Harry Truman tried to do.

    But noooooo, we had to pre-compromise!

    Parent

    Yup. Easiest to sell (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    and the simplest to implement.  The system already exists...just expand it to anyone who doesn't currently have insurance...later let anyone and everyone in by their choice.  No need to reinvent the damn wheel.

    The other easy-to-sell option would be for congress to say:  "Conressional Healthcare for everyone who wants it!  The taxpayers subsidize whatever plan a congressperson chooses (and there are a variety to choose from) and a taxpayer should have the same choice!"

    Period.

    Parent

    Sadly I heard (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    Bob Shrum the other day on teevee (Shrum being more of a true liberal in his views than some of the major Dems he's advised) not hesitating to say that we need at least something to come out of this process, even if it's a co-op plan as some of the corporate senate Dems have proposed.

    Too bad indeed we couldn't have started out with Medicare for All, then as necessary struck a compromise position from there (phase in over years by younger age groups for instance).  

    You would have thought that Dems would have been more organized and smarter as they began this process months ago, but apparently they mostly spent their time overlearning from the Hillarycare fiasco as they smugly decided all that was necessary was to do the opposite of what Bill and Hill did.

    Parent

    HA! (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:26:02 AM EST
    The Deomcrats organized over anything would be a huge improvement!

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    Or...alternatively...

    Congresscare for all.  Let everyone have the exact same choices the congress has.

    Doesn't have the same ring but just as easy to sell.  And like Medicare...the framework already exists for implementation.

    Parent

    Yes, I heard that last night (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    Rep Diana Degette had a telephone town hall meeting last night and that's exactly what was brought up.

    The caller I heard was a little incoherent on the implications, but he brought the required outrage to these two talking points.

    Parent

    We see this sort of insanity in the military too (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:34:31 AM EST
    Under Tricare I do have copays.  If I get my prescriptions from a government run pharmacy I pay nothing but they don't stock all drugs either.  If I go to a drugstore I have copays that range from $4 to $30.  I have fairly large copays for any special therapies that Joshua receives....other than that I haven't run across any other copays thusfar.  We went to a birthday party of friend of ours though last weekend and talk about "socialized" healthcare came up and everyone started gasping.  Then my husband went off on his tangent that bordered on ranting about how everyone in the room couldn't condone socialized medicine when every single one of them was a recipient of socialized medicine.  People began to look actually ashamed of themselves at that point.  I don't know if it just doesn't occur to some people that they are protected under socialized medicine themselves, or if they are afraid they will lose coverage if they allow someone else to have some.  It is all so fear based, as if "the people" have no say in any of this and the only thing we can do is restrict who gets a share in order to protect our crumbs.  In many many areas the American people have sold each other out like a gang of thieves.

    Good for your husband (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    Let's coin a new phrase - "anti-Lafferism."

    Parent
    BTD, I just dont' get this (none / 0) (#158)
    by lambertstrether on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    Sorry. Who's going to use this, and what does it convey?

    Parent
    Nailed it (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:43:17 AM EST
    I think you hit the nail on the head with your observation:

    they are afraid they will lose coverage if they allow someone else to have some.

    They don't seem to understand that by bringing health care back down to Earth, everyone will benefit.

    Parent

    Can you imagine what it would be like (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    if health care became about health care instead of health care denial?  Every single one of us would have an immediate jump in quality of life almost instantly!  Can anyone imagine what it is like to have a disabled child, and have coverage, but have to focus daily on fighting to get that coverage honored.  It isn't anyway to live!  It sucks!  It sucks huge!  Whatever Gross National Product I could ever provide is being eaten by insurance company denials!

    Parent
    Great point that is rarely figured into the (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    discussion. How many people like you are out there having their productivity wasted battling with insurance companies? Anyone who works in a cubicle environment like I do hears people on the phone everyday having those conversations.

    That is the least of it compared to your constant worries, which I'm sure is not helpful to your own health.

    Your husband sounds like me reminding my defense industry coworkers that their salaries are paid by government spending and federal income taxes. They don't like that one bit. Yeah, I'm real popular.

    Parent

    My brother-in-law graduated (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    from the Air Force Academy and is an F-16 pilot and he's a huge winger of Drudge proportions.  We brought a family dinner to a stand still once as he was ranting about how Americans dare to question a war when he is laying is life on the line.  I was yelling back that he was way too high in the air to be laying anything much on the line and that the American people paid his salary, paid for all of his schooling, paid for the technology that created the F-16, and then paid for the F-16 and that all he was was arrogant.  It was a lovely dinner :)

    Parent
    Oh Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:18:52 AM EST
    And then God rewarded him by sending him to live in Vermont.  I like to think it was Karma

    Parent
    Vermont! (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:12:42 AM EST
    That's hilarious!!! I work in the defense industry, so I know what you're talking about. I'm surrounded by scared older white guys who hate change. (funny though, I'm an older white guy).

    Coincidentally, I worked on the F-16 project at one time as well in Fort Worth. Same thing there. Mostly ex-AF types, all conservatives, thought their prior service made some kind of super patriots or something.

    Parent

    It's not at all clear to me (none / 0) (#154)
    by denise on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:40:20 PM EST
    that they won't lose coverage; I don't know why it is to you. I want to see Medicare for all, but as a Medicare recipient squeezing money out of it to fund a new system is not getting my automatic support. We spend more than enough money now to get first-class care for everyone. I'd like to be shown exactly where we are spending twice as much as everyone else, and a plan to reduce our costs by copying what has been proven to work elsewhere. Meanwhile we are having smoke blown in our faces. They have a long way to go to convince me that Medicare should be cut.

    Parent
    Nailed it. Great comment (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    People aren't stupid but they'd rather appear stupid than selfish.

    Parent
    I've got to say (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by AlkalineDave on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    I haven't had the best experience with my military healthcare, and there is a big divide between the attention officers receive and the attention enlisted receive.

    Parent
    And sadly I've noticed this is true (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    Sometimes when we are receiving services in a military facility they treat spouses and dependents very poorly too if their soldier isn't with them as well.  I have phoned my spouse at work twice from Lyster and he has driven the few blocks to the clinic and then stuff got DONE.  He knows how the whole system works though and starts requesting to speak to commanders.  Warrant officers are a dime a dozen though at Fort Rucker.  If you aren't a warrant officer you are the odd man out around here.  I did watch him and a commissioned doctor once stand toe to toe and threaten to have each other's jobs.  Everyone remained employed :)  I'm going to have to learn to wear the jerk pants a little bit better around here when at Lyster though because he's going to be gone for awhile here shortly and he won't be around to save me.  I do write a mean letter to the hospital commander though and there is always the I.G.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by AlkalineDave on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    some commands have great docs and then some ehhh.  It's kinda unfortunate being enlisted as dealing with the fact that they are officers makes it a bit tricky.  I'm finally getting a second opinion (hopefully) two years after an unsuccessful surgery.

    Parent
    You know what else is also sad (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:39:22 PM EST
    that I realize about myself?  Since our Joshua was born, the healthcare industry has been in a state of murder by spreadsheet as one Kos diarist calls it.  When he was born and we had to come out swinging, we've never known any other reality. Every once in awhile though I remember what life used to be like when I didn't have such worries and an accepted war.....fight or die.

    Parent
    Is TriCare now more prevalent (none / 0) (#64)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    to active duty military than access health care on base? I grew up in the Navy. All of my health care was at Naval dispensaries or hospitals. Complete government run health care. No complaints from me.

    But my father retired nearly years ago and I haven't been active duty in over 25 so I don't know how health care for activity duty military has evolved.

    Parent

    We are all Tricare now (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    Healthcare provided on bases and posts changes all the time and we are usually notified as to what is expected of us when we have health issues.  It constantly shifts back and forth from the different facilities wanting active duty to receive treatment there to them scaling back and sending active duty dependents to private physicians.  We have a lot of military health providers in the war zone too, that affected us and as far as I can tell is still affecting us.  Then places like Lyster have to hire private sector doctors if they can find them or ship us out into the private sector.  It is a constantly shifting and changing landscape at this time.  Many active duty don't serve near a large base or post though and they must receive all health services in the private sector.

    Parent
    That's too bad. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    When I was young, even small bases had a dispensary with at least one doctor. You just had to travel to larger facilities for major stuff. I always thought it was a great system. It's what I'd like to see happen in the US. Do away with the concept of health insurance completely. Develop a public health service on a military model. Build hospitals and clinics and staff them with public health care workers.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    People don't think of Medicare as health care.

    Can people really be that bloody stupid?  Why yes.  They can.

    The idea of a "lock box" or a (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:16:37 AM EST
    2009 update to it, is a good one. I suggest that the idea be expanded so as to  disallow, or otherwise penalize providers (e.g., hospitals, physicians, laboratories) that cherry pick participation among government-supported health programs. The assurance of insurance, be it Medicare, "public option/co-op, Medicaid, or private-oriented insurance, needs to be articulated.  As Professor Krugman so rightly points out, cynical political operatives exploit anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.  And, on the other hand, he states, perhaps not so rightly,  that backers of President Obama seem to lack all conviction-- with the void filled  with the passion of the wingers. Save, of course, for the Birther/anti-socialized medicine (whatever they think that is) fringe, I am not persuaded that most Medicare recipients are ignorant of its provenance.  Rather, it is the anxiety that government will take it away, either by effectively restricting access, or otherwise degrade it. The worry seems akin to that surfaced in response to  Bush's social security scheme.

    I am hoping (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by kenosharick on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    that getting confronted by these right-wing nuts at home will actually strengthen the resolve of Dems, and that we will get real reform.  If they pass a bill without some kind of public option they might as well not pass anything.  Screw bipartisanship.

    Bravo! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    I just recently posted the same sentiment over at HuffPo. Screw bipartisanship. Roll over the reprobates. Pass the right bill. Public option now!

    Parent
    What if we started saying: (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    Medicare for All - With a Robust Private Option?

    There is clearly an effort underway to ignore the fact that Medicare is a government program, lest too many people realize it could serve as the entry point for expanding it by extending it to those younger than 65.

    There could be a credible and effective campaign to counter the misinformation that has already hit the airwaves, but that would be mean actually getting behind something that threatens the insurance/pharmaceutical industry, and since Obama's already been making deals and side agreements with the industry, that's just not going to come from the administration.

    Really, the way this so-called reform effort was undertaken, it was never going to be what it needs to be; I am just astounded at the clusterfu**ery of it all, evolving into something not better and stronger for the people, but into something weaker - but better for the health industry.

    I'm sorry - but since Obama does not have it in him to do this right, I am at the point where I hope he does not have it in him to do it at all, because if he does, there is no doubt in my mind that it will be worse than where we are, and, because it is not going to save money, or cover enough people who are currently uninsured, will put an even bigger target on Medicare to help pay for it, and may start drawing a target on Social Security.

    Nevermind. BusinessWeek's (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    cover story headlines:  "The Health Insurers Have Already Won"

    Sorry...I don't do the linky thing.

    Haven't read it yet but here's (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:22:46 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    This is exactly why I hope like anything the "angry mob" kills this "reform".

    Parent
    This sounds really bad (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:35:52 AM EST
    but there wasn't many hard facts given in the article.  If the insured are going to have to start paying 24% of their costs after they pay their deductibles and denials though along with the enormous premiums, there is going to be a chitstorm from Hades.  Does Capitol Hill not get it?  That the average American family making a living wage cannot go on this way?  Obviously they understand nothing outside of fancy state of art 18 wheelers pulling up curbside and administering healthcare services to all of them.  I never suspected that they have no empathy for their constituents to this degree.  What a bunch of total idiots.

    Parent
    Leadership is lacking. (none / 0) (#153)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    That's the problem.  Clear, strong, no-more-mr.niceguy leadership with a firm hand on the levers of power.

    Daschle gone (from public view, anyway), Kennedy ill and reliant on staff and my neighbor-congressman tells me last week that Obama is "his own point person/legislative liaison" on healthcare.

    Explains a lot.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:01:43 AM EST
    mean to tell me that my insurance policy is goign to go from costing me $700 a month to $900 simply because these idiots don't have a clue? It seems like the Dems with this and the GOP locally with their idiotic support for the "fair tax" which would raise my premiums a couple of hundred dollars too can't find enough ways to screw me over can they?

    Parent
    When our side characterizes the resistance (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    against Congress and Obama's healthcare reforms by implying the people against it are stupid or foolish, we overlook the very valid arguments against this plan. It doesn't matter that many of the people in town halls are on Medicare because they are not arguing against Medicare. They're arguing against this very different approach to healthcare for everyone, and they are concerned that they are going to suffer if it's enacted and implemented. While many protesters are part of the Astroturf paid for by big business, and most aren't doing more than shouting down dissent, their overall concerns are absolutely valid and reasonable.

    Here's a quick synopsis of what progressives should consider with this plan:

    1. The healthcare industry makes billions off us right now.
    2. Large, wealthy corporations and individuals have already bought our government.
    3. Healthcare reform would help most Americans if we didn't continue to support the super rich who have been ripping us off. They will continue to reap huge profits unless the middle class destroys their stranglehold on our government.
    4. The proposed plan is going to cost every one of us a huge amount of money. Obama claims that this will be funded by the rich, not the middle class. That's either a lie, or foolishness. If you still believe Obama on who will pay for this, brush up on the history of Social Security.
    5. Every socially beneficial program this country implements is paid for by the middle class and drained by the poor and those who don't contribute to the cooperative system.
    6. Obama has already shown his collars with the bank bailouts that are allowing Citicorp et. al. cheat homeowners while staying solvent at our expense.

    Part of why conservatives hate us is because we're always trying to help people by instituting programs that help the disadvantaged (a very honorable goal), but we force everyone else to pay for these programs (and yes, I know that progressive programs help society as a whole). Welfare is a classic case of a program that encourages increased reliance (intergenerational ongoing dependence) and is easily abused. Social programs expand because they encourage more and more people to take advantage of them. That drives moderates to the right wing because they don't want to keep paying for their neighbors who simply choose to not work as much. I understand the reasons and benefits of helping those in need, but our federal programs that do this are defective.

    What's that you say? If we stopped the wars in the middle east we could pay for all of this?  Riiiiiight, like that's ever gonna happen. Still waiting, Prez Change.

    Attempts to belittle Americans who have valid concerns about our federal government is exactly why we can't get effective national programs in place. Let's do something more productive and take a look at potential failings of this health care plan instead of belittling its opponents.


    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    This is just nonsense:

    "It doesn't matter that many of the people in town halls are on Medicare because they are not arguing against Medicare."

    Is Medicare "government run healthcare?" If not, what is it about the proposal s being considered that makes it different than Medicare?

    Your coment is nonsense.

    YOU may have valid objections, I have not considered it because I could not get past the nonsense you started your comment with.

    Please people. If you do not want to be treated as fools, stop writing foolish comments.

    Parent

    Nonsense? (2.00 / 1) (#139)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    This plan is not simply an extension of Medicare to more people. It is a completely different kind of program. It's a social welfare program that could be very beneficial to our country if it's designed and implemented right. Many "hard working Americans" are leery of government social welfare programs, and for good reason. Let's look at a small component of this expansive/expensive reform: Will illegal immigrants be on the roles? Of course, because the whole idea of Healthcare for All is that if everyone is covered so the uninsured aren't driving up costs by using emergency rooms for doctors office visits or holding off being treated until the problem is expensive.

    What will the "hard working Americans" say to that? Welfare, for people they don't want to support. Illegal immigrants often work under the table and their rich employers benefit (eg: developers) while the middle class picks up the tab. The money they earn is often sent to families back home, draining the local economy. Valid concern? Absolutely. Will it further polarize the country? Of course.

    The resistance to this health care reform is not just from the far right. Huge numbers of people who voted for Obama recognize that this plan will make the rich richer and help the poor at the expense of the middle class.  

    Parent

    Government run health care (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    Look, if you do not want to read what was actually said, your choice, but please do not ask me to humor your nonsense.

    I won't.

    Parent

    C'mon BTD, I'm not saying that Medicare (none / 0) (#143)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    isn't government run healthcare. I'm saying that this government run healthcare will be very different from Medicare, and people against this so-called healthcare reform recognize the difference and don't trust our government to look after their needs. Nor do I, given the concessions Obama and Congress have made.

    The resistance to this health care reform is not just from the far right. Huge numbers of people who voted for Obama recognize that this plan will make the rich richer and help the poor at the expense of the middle class.  

    We already have a history of Democratic administrations breaking their word on large social programs. FDR boldly instituted Social Security in the 1930s, an enormous program that has helped countless Americans past their working years, and has helped many others who have become disabled, whether or not they ever paid into the system. It was a great idea, but look at what our Democrats have done to it. Roosevelt's original commitments include the promise that SS numbers would never be used for identification purposes outside SSA, and money paid in will never be used for anything else. Yet our Democrats stole our SS funds to use for general fund expenditures (see Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter and Clinton/Gore's subsequent changes to those promises).  For their part, the Rethugs tried to steal it by changing it to an investment system for the benefit of their political cronies. Who would have paid future social costs when the market devastated SS?  The middle class, as usual. Elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum are heavily lobbied by the superrich who sucking away our life blood.

    When Obama says silly things like the highest level income earners will pay for this, not you and me, he's either lying or outright wrong. When our side gullibly repeats that, moderate Americans realize they're about to be stabbed in the back again. Who got rich off the bank bailouts?  Citicorp. The middle class stuck with the bailout bill is still facing unemployment, decreasing home values and more foreclosure because Obama bailed out Wall Street instead of Main Street.

    This program will not be what we want, and we should not support it just because it's coming from our side. We can already see that those who steal our earnings through the current healthcare system are making deals with the Democrats to continue their theft. The solution is to stop appeasing them, completely replace many of the for-profit components of the system, and recoup those gains for the people instead.

    I think we need to make sure Obama & Congress take care of those who voted for them, not those who lobby against our interests.


    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    That has nothing to do with this post.

    Parent
    It has everything to do with this post. (none / 0) (#145)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    Someone asks people who came to protest the health care plan if they're against socialized or government-run health care. They are attending because they're against this socialized government-run health care plan, so they raise their hands thinking they're being asked which ones of you are against this.

    Then they're asked to raise their hands if they're on Medicare, so they do so. So what? It's a stupid trick question that can be used to make them seem like they don't realize Medicare is run by the government. Sure, Krugman and others can now make them look stupid. But that does not invalidate their reasonable concerns about this plan. Americans homeowners have been completely screwed by our government handing our money over to banks so they can use it against us in foreclosures. Obama and Congress are not only placing corporate interest above ours, they're making us pay for our own downfall. Yet we should trust them and make fun of those who disagree with this healthcare plan? I'd rather try to understand the criticism of the plan, because in the long run we'll be paying higher taxes to fund it.

    I don't like that the healthcare industry is astroturfing the resistance, but I also don't like that liberals are falling in lock step with Obama and the Dems in Congress as they prepare to sell us out again.


    Parent

    I have to agree with you (none / 0) (#156)
    by denise on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:04:03 AM EST
    Except that it is clear that illegal immigrants will not be covered, and that is a problem. We'll still have lots of uninsured people, they'll still be showing up in emergency rooms, and the cost of their care will still be stuffed here and there, making retail prices out of whack with reality just as they are now.

    I would expect middle-class people to be very nervous about what's on the table. How much will it cost? Are their employers going to be more inclined to reduce or drop their coverage? If they have crappy coverage now, will they be allowed to get out of it and into something better? (as of now, the answer appears to me to be no.) Will there be a public option, and if so how much will it be weakened to benefit the insurers? And who will be able to get into it? Exactly how and when is their income computed for the purposes of determining subsidies (if you lose your job do your rates drop right away, or is it based on last year's tax return? If it is right away, what kind of army of workers will be required to keep adjusting the rates?). Are they going to end up unable to afford their premiums AND owing a penalty for being uninsured?

    Yes, there are lots of reasons for people to be nervous. They deserve answers to these questions before they decide to support a plan.

    Parent

    we have welfare because the (none / 0) (#159)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:42:50 PM EST
    rich have become SO rich in our country that there isn't much left for the rest of us...

    the disparity between the extreme and the median has become so wide that the rest have nothing at all...

    somehow the obscenely rich forget about the fact that without the poor their houses would be full of their own feces and they'd have no idea how to do anything but sit in it...

    Parent

    what "being on it" mean??? (2.00 / 0) (#149)
    by diogenes on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    Just because people are on Medicare doesn't mean that they favor it (i.e maybe they would prefer to have a voucher to buy their own health insurance plan)

    Here is a site (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    for all the opponents of socialized medicine:

    http://www.stopmedicare.org

    That just feeds my dark humor (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    This is my favorite fact from your link

    True Facts About Medicare
    Anyone that has ever used Medicare has died or will die.

    Medicare is a conspiracy, and if you are privately insured you will live forever :)

    Parent

    What about... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    ...those people who have private insurance, but are on dialysis and therefore covered on Medicare as well?  Are they left in purgatory?  Or stuck between the dead and living?

    /Doesn't want to be a zombie!

    Parent

    You are a caution, Hawkeye! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:59:57 AM EST


    Parent
    A for honesty for that site (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:44:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Clearly a put on (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    But I like it.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    Everyone who has used Medicare has not died or will not die?

    But this is absolutely true.

    Heh.

    Parent

    That was my favorite line! (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:58:40 AM EST


    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    I really like that.

    Parent
    A comment from HuffPo: (none / 0) (#57)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:20:47 AM EST
    "Whatever is required to shut this obnoxious, corrupt, socialist agenda down is justified. That is the disgusting part of this story, that our so-called leaders have the audacity to ram these ridiculous programs down our throats. Throw them all out. Palin 2012."

    MilitaryTracy: Still think the two by fours are unnecessary? This is getting ugly fast and will get worse when Congress returns. I suggest Dems had better start giving some serious thought to personal protection.

    Sure did a lot of good to take (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    single-payer off the table, didn't it? Wouldn't want to be called socialists or anything like that!

    Parent
    They've already paid for the coverage, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:35:12 AM EST
    why would they not take advantage of it?  Calling their behavior hypocritical only makes sense if they had chosen Medicare over an inflation adjusted refund of a lifetime payments into the system.  

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    So you would not object if we thought of them as person who want Medicare abolished right?

    Parent
    If I understand correctly (none / 0) (#72)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    you're asking that if someone says they consider Medicare to be inefficient and the program should be canceled  WHILE they are enrolled in the program, if it's fair to say that they want the program abolished?  I would agree that is a fair characterization.  

    What I keep indicating, as best I can, is that if one good or service is a sunk cost and another is not - you cannot conclude much about a consumer preference if the consumer chooses to utilize the service which has already been paid for and for which they cannot receive a refund.

    If my office has free coffee in the morning and I choose to drink that over going to the espresso shop down the street, it only means that I enjoy the marginal benefit of two bucks over the marginal benefit of my taste preference for espresso.  

    Parent

    I think the quote is clear (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    "An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they "oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care." Nearly all did."

    Is it fair to say that these people want Medicare abolished? If not, why not?

    Parent

    It is fair to say that. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    I mean - that's what they're claiming - I'm not contesting that whatsoever.  I'm contesting, and correct me if I misread your post, what seemed to be a claim by you that participating in Medicare while wanting the program itself abolished is hypocritical.

    Parent
    To be honest (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:06:16 AM EST
    I think it is dishonest, not hypocritical.

    Parent
    Care to clarify? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:11:35 AM EST
    I don't understand the distinction you're making.

    Parent
    All I'm saying is that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    It is possible to logically and consistently oppose Medicare while being enrolled in Medicare because enrollment in Medicare does not itself support Medicare.  

    I someone steals $10 from me and I claim to oppose theft, then I accept a refund of $8 from the robber, I am not being inconsistent as condemning theft and accepting partial retribution for previous theft are not in conflict with each other.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:21:56 AM EST
    All I am saying is it is dishonest to pretend that Medicare is not "socialized medicine" by their definition.

    IF they want to say they want it for themselves but are against it for anyone else, then that is what they should say.

    What's your point here? Seems to me you are arguing for no actual reason.

    Parent

    I would agree with that ot the first statement. (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    But no where in Krugman's article is there any evidence that the people in this town hall do not consider Medicare to be socialized medicine.  

    Furthermore, the Laffer thing was funny cause he implied the government did not run Medicare, on TV, as an "economist" - which is retarded.

    As for point number 2, nowhere in the article does it reference that group of people making a claim like "we want it for ourselves and no one else".  I was indicating that accepting Medicare benefits does not imply support of Medicare whatsoever as there was never any choice associated with paying for Medicare.  

    Not saying these people may not be that way or think those things, but you simply don't have the evidence from the article to conclude or suggest with certainty this is what they're thinking - therefore you have no grounds to suggest dishonesty or hypocrisy on their part at this time.  

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    Sheer nonsense.

    I'm done with you. You know there is dishonesty in the line of argument presented and yet that is ok with you. I am no longer exchanging views with someone incapable of honest debate.

    Go have your fun with someone else.

    Parent

    you're acting like Medicair was started for (none / 0) (#160)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:50:06 PM EST
    no reason at all...

    there must be a generational thing going on here...just b/c we didn't start healthcare we don't see the purpose for it...

    it's like when Congress let go of some of the laws that were enacted after the great depression about keeping banks and investment banks separate...and what happened when Congress got rid of this because they forgot why it was started in the first place?  why the same thing that led to the depression, the investment banks did what they do best, F America...

    Parent

    medicare... (none / 0) (#161)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    really need an edit tool here...maybe there is one and I'm just missing it...

    Parent
    More stupid than hypocritical (none / 0) (#83)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    I'd say.

    They're clueless.

    Big surprise.

    Parent

    Clueless because they've (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    been fed talking points but do not have a real knowledge of what they are talking about.

    Health care is not the real issue.  Fighting for their "way of life," as they see it, is.  And that way of life is one of religious fundamentalism.  Look at how easily many of the health care opponents devolve into slogans about abortion.

    Senator DeMint told everyone what this is about:  making health care Obama's Waterloo--so that they can delegitimize a Democratic Congress and President.  It is about standing up for "True Principles"--their view of Jesus and God.

    Conservative religious fervor (based on fear of change and of being defeated and of being wrong) drives much of this.  Health Care just provides the excuse.  Religious conservatives need the external validation of their faith from the government--because they are inherently authoritarian and if those in authority do not support their religious views, they feel fear and doubt.

    To support their own faith, they need to "win" by having the government support their religious views...

    True, there are some old fashion, Cheney style anti-tax reactionaries....But I would bet most of the protestors are religious conservatives....

    Glenn Beck is a Mormon who takes his End Times paranoia straight from Mormon Culture--he isn't smart enough to think it up himself.

    Parent

    Clearly, to me, some do fall (none / 0) (#146)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    into this group.

    Good comment.

    Parent

    great comment (none / 0) (#162)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:55:29 PM EST
    MKS...

    you are spot on about most of this...it's not about health care at all, it's about bringing down the resurgent democratic party and the President...

    why else would Faux news report on Obama's popularity rating every 7 seconds...in between lying about health care...

    everything boils down to power...everything...and no one wants to give it up...it's like our basic human instinct to amass as much as possible and fight to never give it up no matter whether we're on the right or wrong side of the argument...

    Parent

    There's no evidence (2.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    in the article that these people do not understand medicare is a form of socialized health coverage or that they have denied that medicare is a form of socialized health coverage.  Krugman simply states it in the next paragraph without any evidence, thus allowing himself to paint this specific group of opponents to increased government in health insurance as hypocritical or dishonest with no proof.  

    Accepting Medicare after having funded it your entire life is not supporting Medicare.  

    Parent

    They're either selfish or stupid, take your pick (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    Personally, I think they're stupid.

    Parent
    Please explain. (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    Selfish?  For getting retribution for a lifetime of paying into the Medicare system?

    Stupid?  For accepting retribution for a lifetime of paying into the Medicare system?

    Give me your reasoning so I can understand.

    Parent

    Selfish because they are unwilling (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:51:17 AM EST
    to entertain the possibility that younger people get benefits as good as theirs or stupid because they don't realize that Medicare is a government program.

    Parent
    It might be fair but it's not (none / 0) (#81)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    accurate...by definition.  Theirs isn't the same as yours or mine!

    Parent
    What was the breakdown in Obama/ (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    McCain GE as to voters aged 65 and older?

    53% to 45% McCain's Advantage (none / 0) (#118)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    According to this.

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:13:28 PM EST


    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#104)
    by mymy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    a question about the Democrats getting the youth vote.The only sure thing about youth is it doesn't last forever.So saying because a 20yr old voted for Obama,why does that assure the same vote when he is 40?

    Nate Silver has (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:48:51 AM EST
    some pretty compelling statistical evidence that suggests that people generally do not change their voting allegiances developed in their 20s.

    Parent
    It may be because I'm an old fart (none / 0) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:37:29 PM EST
    but past performance is no indicator of the future, especially when it comes to generations of human beings.

    The youth of our generation (Twitter generation) could likely be very different than the youth of the 80s.  The reality is infotainment results in trendy-ness in everything from food to politicians.  I really believe our "media" will result in the following of whatever is trendy.

    Parent

    Some facts to back up your arguments (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    would be greatly appreciated.

    Parent
    What I'm saying (none / 0) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    is there is no way to know that the current generation's behavior is indicated past generation.  I am saying there are no facts to back up THAT argument.  Saying that the past trend depict the future is like saying the same thing about the stock market.  It's plain wrong thinking.  Such predictions are fallacy.

    Regarding media and facts to back that up, I'll use your observation.  You said yourself that Obama was a great candidate because he is the media darling.  By saying that, I think you admitted that people like trendy things nowadays and the trends are very much shaped by the media.  Obama was the trend of the time.  Bush was very much the trend of his time. Eg. Soccer moms morphed into security moms into Obama moms.  We live in a time of group-think.  Group-think is easily swayed by the media and can easily morph away from Democrats, can alter the thinking of people who now consider themselves Democrats.  I think this phenomenon will continue, as we become more the twitter society, just a big social network of followers....and as Democrats become more Republican.  

    Parent

    And again (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    Many new Obama voters did not vote downticket, or for platform planks at caucuses shows that the Democratic Party and its ideas were not what they were interested in supporting.

    We'll see 2-3 elections down the road....

    Parent

    It's still about Religion (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:46:54 AM EST
    Health care is just a proxy for many.

    Take Glenn Beck.  He is a Mormon.  Many of his apocalyptic views are taken directly from Mormon culture--that's were the paranoid conspiracy theories come from.  He has praised W. Cleon Skousen, a right wing, John Birch supporter, former religion professor at BYU who detailed all kinds of End Times, Second Coming, Armageddon scenarious that even the official LDS Church would not sanction.

    These folks are in large part religious nuts....That is why Utah is the most Republican state.

    Watch Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney play bad cop/good cop in the next election cycle.

    It's about people who fear change turning to fundamentalist religion.  

     

    Thanks (none / 0) (#110)
    by mymy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    for the response.Just seems pretty easy to feel one way while in college,then change your views when life and bills start hitting you.If silver is right how come a lot of voters turned to Reagan after voting for Carter?

    Re: Reagan (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    As I recall Nate's analysis, it wasn't that many who changed their voting behavior....

    Those who first started voting in the 80s are the strongest Republican group today....

    And, conservatives hope that all those irresponsible kids in their 20s become Republicans in their 30s....Wonderful dogma--isn't that always the case with Republicans; they have dogma based on their own self-reinforcing beliefs without any effort to show real facts and data that suppor them--but Nate's data showed that really wasn't the case.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#117)
    by mymy on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    for the misunderstanding.The group I was thinking of were the ones that started voting in the 50s--60s who voted Kennedy then Johnson. By 80 they were voting Reagan.I'm not saying Silver isn't right.It just seems people can  change their voting habits during their life.

    Laffer-ism | 152 comments (152 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment