They've preached from the get go that they have a "new base" Evidently they missed the Mass, election! They lost a large portion of Democrats in that election. And as the results showed, the "new base" wasn't enough to carry them.

The President said: The process would be transparent and above board. What really happened and was reported was that the President made back room deals with Pharma that was not in the best interest of the public or in making health care more affordable.

The President has said that they could give Medicare patients better care for less money by adopting procedures used by Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic in AZ has adopted a procedure whereby they will only treat Medicare patients on a cash only basis.

The bill does nothing to make health care more affordable now or in the future for the majority of the population who already has insurance through their employer but could result in changes that would not be to their benefit.

Can't for the life of me understand why they would be concerned. :-)

I remember reading about an activist working the midterms after Clinton successfully depressed the base. The activist said they were calling all the people who were fervent Clinton supporters during the general election hoping to find some spark of that same enthusiasm and got a lot of "whatever" responses and people doubting they'd be voting.1994 was the result. Add the internet into the mix and an activist base more aware of the political shenanigans. Oy vey.

There are political consequences for not delivering on campaign promises and midterms are base elections. What part of that does Nate and the administration not understand? Another hot tip - Obama isn't in the running. Congress is wildly unpopular. Incumbents are wildly unpopular. The electorate want to punish someone for their pain. And "we're not as bad as them" is losing its potency.

Let's say that they pass something. Who does Nate think is going to win the message battle going into the midterms? The repubs with ads about mandates and excise taxes (hypocrisy never bothers them), or the hapless Democrats who couldn't craft a decent message and stay on it if their lives depended on it? Who will the "ordinary" voters vote for when the base stays away?

Nate doesn't include the human element so his numeric conclusions have no connection to the real world. I have a feeling he and the administration are about to discover just how important that human element might be in the midterms. You'd think MA would have given them a clue.

The House's public option was weak; including a small public component that would be available on the exchange  - but not open to everyone, because everyone wouldn't even qualify to go out on the exchange to purchase insurance - and would have to be created from scratch, rendered it far from "robust."  And, then there was the whole Stupak thing.  

What American voters want is not affordable health insurance, but affordable health CARE, what the president wants is no interruption or decrease in the rate of corporate contributions to his and Democratic coffers.

He says he wants to consider all ideas - but he refuses to even listen to the single payer argument; actions speak louder than words.  That he has a separate tab in the proposal section of the website dedicated to Republican Ideas, but can't give SP advocates the time of day pretty much says it all.  

What's going to hurt the president and this completely whacked-out, off-track, tone-deaf Democratic party is that insurance companies are so emboldened by the overt or implied assurances from the WH/Democrats that they have nothing to fear, that they are ratcheting up premiums in dramatic fashion.  It's the Wall Street Bonus thing all over again, and people are fed up.  The difference this time is that we - the people, that is - have to actually write the checks to the insurance companies, write the checks for co-pays and prescription drugs - this isn't just some amorphous paid-by-our-taxes kind of deal.

Obama's "proposal" is little more than a riff on his primary debate strategy - "what she said" - only this time, all he's done is doodle a bit on the Senate bill and call it "his."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/23/politics/p210132S89.DTL&type=politic s

from the reporting of people like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn

Marilyn Werber Serafini, healthcare and welfare correspondent, "National Journal"

Laura Meckler, reporter for "The Wall Street Journal."

Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent, "Time" magazine

At about 41:19 into the program, Henry from Margate, FL, called in. He was extremely angry about the lack of progress and, while angry at Repubs, was very angry at the Dems:

If Democrats don't get this done they can, OK, forget about getting my vote, because, you see, we gave them majorities in the House and Senate to fix the problems George Bush and these Republicans caused. So if all they have done is bicker among themelves...If they don't get it done, forget about getting my vote.

Katty Kay reported to the audience in a somewhat amazed voice:

I've got three people with their eyes wide.

She then steered the conversation to frustration among the Democratic base.

What struck me was that the three health reform reporters seemed stunned that Henry was so angry. I was not surprised they were surprised actually, but somewhat stunned that they seemed quite so surprised.

Do they speak only to one another there in the Village? Do Dem pols just not hear us out here? Do they hear only what the Villagers say?

Help!