Will A Center Right Health Bill Energize The Dem Base?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:17:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

DemfromCt, citing Peter Hart, argues that it will:

Peter Hart makes the case that the Dems need to rally around their President on health reform.

Democratic voters are strongly in favor of the legislation being pushed by President Barack Obama, particularly constituencies such as blacks, Latinos and self-described liberals. [. . .] "If the Democrats are going to close th[e enthusiasm] gap, they've got to get their people excited. And I don't see how you get those people if you vote no" on the party's health legislation, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "I don't think it's about winning the middle. It's really about alienating the base," Mr. Hart said of Democratic lawmakers' calculations about the upcoming health vote.

A little late in the game to be concerned about the Dem base no? Passing a health bill is likely a little better than not passing a health bill, but the base motivation problem is simply not soluble through the health bills anymore imo. The Dems will need a different issue for that. More . . .

Part of the problem is that in fact the health bill is not that popular with Dems. DemfromCt thinks a 64-16 in favor of passage by Dems is a remarkable result. I do too. But for a different reason. It is remarkably low for a signature initiative from a Democratic President.

DemfromCt writes:

Democrats are going to need to win with Democratic voters if they want to be in the game. There's no other way to play.

I have always agreed with this sentiment and have always believed that people who argued for the PPUS on health care and other issues did not fully appreciate this fact. They have allowed the bill to become something that energizes Republicans but not Democrats. At this point, from a political standpoint, Dem just need to finish up whatever they are going to do on health care and try to pivot to a new issue - preferably a populist one like financial reform.

The health bills are not going to help Dems in the November elections. But they need to get the issue out of the way so they can move on to issues that might help them politically.

Speaking for me only

< Will The Exchanges Become Like Medicare? | St. Patrick's Day Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will A Center Right Health Bill Energize The Dem Base? | 123 comments (123 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Jobs. (5.00 / 7) (#1)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:24:34 AM EST

I'm going to have to differ with you on this (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:25:49 AM EST

Watered down as it is, the Democratic base is going to be pretty happy about passage. I'll wait for the numbers afterwards.

Moving On (none / 0) (#5)
by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:31:16 AM EST

I don't know that I agree the base will like it, but there is movement in the polls towards support. Could be resignation. :)

Primary supporters needed to pivot to the general. There wasn't the vote fall off expected. I think Dems will shift to the next policy discussion.

Politicians view it as a sales job from here on out. Talking points, talking points, talking points. Dems are talking over their Repub counterparts on tv and not letting the R's control the conversation.


The numbers simply do not support (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:33:16 AM EST

that view.

64-16 among Dems for a Dem initiative is damn bad.

If Obama's personal approval numbers were that bad, he would be toast in 2012. In fact, his numbers are in the 80s among Dems.


PPP tells a slightly (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:36:17 AM EST

different story:

Dennis Kucinich's flip on the health care vote this morning is symbolic of a broader shift among liberals. Last month 73% said they supported the plan with 19% opposed. Now 89% say they support the plan with only 3% opposed. Whether it's because of the President's increasing visibility on the issue or because liberals finally decided the current bill is as good as they're going to get and better than nothing, there's been a big rise in support since early February.
The shift has come completely with Democratic voters. . . . Democratic support has risen from 63% to 76% in the last month.

Want to translate that into turnout? Let the Republicans run on repeal.


also that number (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:37:51 AM EST

is after a year of lies and distortions, death panels and forced abortions.

they will change.


Liberals were not affected by that imo (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:45:09 AM EST

I do not know what to make of PPP's numbers.

But neither you nor andgarden address the NBC poll finding - to wit only 64% of Democrats support the bill.


: afaiac (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:49:58 AM EST

the comment you responded to addressed it. dems have been misled by the 27/7 also. being a dem does not make you immune to lies and propaganda.
which is what the republicans are best at.

: also (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:57:03 AM EST

I would say there are dems, look around, who have convinced themselves that this is a bad thing for the congress to do politically.
which personally I think is just nuts.

: I'd love to see the PPP poll (none / 0) (#114)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:01:05 PM EST

breakdown; I wonder if there's a category for describing oneself as a "Progressive" in addition to the "Liberal" category. If so, I'll bet more Progressives dislike the bill than support it, and the liberal category has far less meaning than claimed.

That's a completely different story (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:43:52 AM EST

And indeed a different subset. Self identified liberals vs. Dems.

Beyond that, PPP is a strange polling house imo. I do not know what to make of their results as a general matter.

What do you make of the NBC poll's showing that only 64% of Dems support the bill?


Dems at the bottom (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:46:52 AM EST

I think PPP is mostly ok, with some occasionally wacky results. As for the NBC poll, I think the key is to predict what the undecided Dems decide. I'm betting that they'll end up looking on passage favorably.


BTW, PPPs results aren't great news (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:49:07 AM EST

on the generic ballot front. The numbers are close, but Dems get wiped out in the midwest.


Energizing? (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:17:54 AM EST

Your description does not give me any reason to think these folks will find it energizing.


Dems will have a choice between (none / 0) (#40)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:22:34 AM EST

getting out and voting for a party that accomplished something (that they're beginning to believe is worthwhile), and a party that promises to roll it back.

(Corzine tried this with some success last fall on state healthcare coverage mandates. If he had been any other Democrat, I think it would have worked).


I would say (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:24:10 AM EST

perhaps not "energized" but at least not demoralized.


Sounds like you are getting ready (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:58:14 AM EST

to blame the base for not turning out.

Now THAT's a winning strategy. NOT.


No, that's not what I mean at all (none / 0) (#84)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:05:41 PM EST

Rather, I think the base will come to believe that that is the choice, and turnout well enough.


No evidence of that (5.00 / 3) (#87)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:09:08 PM EST

Frankly, I think you are pipe dreaming.

The base will almost certainly not be energized and Dems are destined for pretty big losses.

At this point, that result seems almost baked in.


That's the likely outcome in any case (none / 0) (#91)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:14:27 PM EST

But it is a certainty if the bill fails.

The generic ballot numbers are close enough right now that I think this can be turned around.


Hard to say (none / 0) (#92)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:21:54 PM EST

I just do not think the health bills will have much effect one way or another.


My perspective is (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:26:22 PM EST

that there's more downside to failure than upside to passage. At the least, passage would ameliorate the perception that Obama and the Dems are ineffective. (Though jobs are clearly key).


: I think passage of healthcare bill (none / 0) (#115)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:03:58 PM EST

will energize the independents and Repubs who are opposed to the bill.

Not far enough (none / 0) (#31)
by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:03:19 AM EST

Some Dems feel the bill does not go far enough. These may become resigned to the passage and get on board.


: resigned is the opposite of energized (none / 0) (#109)
by clbrune on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:10:49 PM EST

If I'm resigned about a signature issue, I'm not quite so likely to vote, contribute, or campaign for my Dem politicians.
Quite the opposite.

I would not expect tomorrow's effects to show up (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:15:52 PM EST

... in today's polls.

I do expect substantial and positive impacts.

Enough to stave off disaster? That's asking a lot ... but it just might be enough.


you are wise (none / 0) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:33:38 AM EST

and also correct


If you define the Democratic base (none / 0) (#47)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:34:10 AM EST

as "progressive" bloggers.


Not where I'm from (none / 0) (#111)
by dainla on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:19:18 PM EST

Everyone is very, very disappointed.


the plan may (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:27:06 AM EST

not energize the base but he is right about the fact that when this is over and its possible to explain to people what actually in it rather than what the republicans have been saying is in it, it will be IMO a net gain for democrats. and possibly not a small one.

I also think that some people, certainly not all since many expect to be lied to by republicans, are not going to be happy when the bald faced lies of the republicans are shown the light of day.

Why (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:38:58 AM EST

is this going to magically change when the bill is passed but somehow Obama hasn't been able to round up support while trying to get it passed? I think this is just a pipe dream. If the GOP is getting the mileage out of now, they're only going to get more in the future I would imagine and the reason that they've gotten where they are is Obama contantly waving the white flag when the GOP comes out. Do you have some knowledge that he's going to quit waving the white flag?


time will tell (none / 0) (#13)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:41:21 AM EST

wont it


Sure (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:43:10 AM EST

but I don't know why people are sure that it's going to be more popular and not less. When it doesnt deliver the magical elixir some are claiming what then?


ask your self (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:47:46 AM EST

this question. if a majority of the dems did not believe this do you think for a minute any amount of brow beating would make them vote for it?

IMO that is because they know whats in it and they have seen internal polling that shows people are overwhelmingly supportive of many of the things contained in the bill but simply dont know they are in the bill.


Of course (5.00 / 4) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:27:32 AM EST

they would vote for it. How many times do you have to see "progressives" raise the white flag of surrender before you realize taht tehy really just don't stand for anything unfortunately.


but but but (none / 0) (#46)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:29:32 AM EST

you and republicans say they are risking their seats. wouldnt that be a sign of standing for something. seems you are contradicting yourself.


No, (none / 0) (#48)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:39:09 AM EST

i'm not the one saying that they're risking their seats voting for it. I'm the one saying that they're in a lose/lose situation. You obvoulsy have me confused with someone else. The bill is unpopular with the population at large so teh ones in teh swing districts probably would be endangering their jobs voting for it but I happen to think that voting against it doesn't really help them either.


oh (none / 0) (#51)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:42:18 AM EST

well thats perfectly clear


: It's (none / 0) (#57)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:47:12 AM EST

simple just remember this one word: lose/lose.

Yes! (none / 0) (#95)
by mjames on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:31:16 PM EST

Why (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:58:30 AM EST

Can't they explain it now then? Is it a magic secret that will only come to fruition if the bill passes?

And good for the 83% of liberals (or whatever the random stat was) who support it - too bad they are actually a minority of everyone who votes in this country.


they have tried (none / 0) (#32)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:04:10 AM EST

remember the town halls. they were shouted down by organized right wingers who wanted people to be able to say exactly what you just said.


Ooohhh! (none / 0) (#37)
by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:16:17 AM EST

We tried! Please don't hurt us.

It's also hard to support a bill that you know in your heart is junk.

Maybe I'm crazy that way, but the message would get out a lot clearer, and be more acceptable if it was actually a good bill that the Dems could articulate.


then I would say (none / 0) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:20:53 AM EST

wait until next week and you will get your wish.
every hear of be careful what you wish for?


Every single person (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:23:36 AM EST

is in "be careful what you wish for" mode. We're all guessing, pretty much.


: well (none / 0) (#49)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:40:22 AM EST

if you want the message to get out. thats about to start. I am not afraid. bring it on.

Oh yeah (none / 0) (#52)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:43:20 AM EST

the bald faced lies of the republicans are shown the light of day

And we can count on our robust independent media for that.

Like during the Florida recount.

Like during the "runup" to the invasion of Iraq.

Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Yes, what a glorious day that will be.

P.S. Did you know that Al Gore invented the Internet?


: Honestly (none / 0) (#60)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:48:56 AM EST

how many times do "progressives" have to be played for fools before they learn?

Dems Will Own This (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by kidneystones on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:27:51 AM EST

lock, stock and barrel. TPM, Digby, and Atrios aren't exactly jubilant.

Is buyer's remorse setting in before the bill actually passes?

Maybe if enough Dems clap long and loud enough, Americans will forget that Dems considered 'deem and pass' to be the only way to get the bill enacted.

Reality may actually be rearing its ugly head.

Let's hope so.

I agree (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:35:41 AM EST

Passing the health bill does nothing for the dems. It's a bad bill and I dont think passing a bad bill will energize anyone. But if they can't pass it they need to move on which I dont see happening. I can see them still trying to round up votes on this next fall because we can't let Obama get his feelings hurt or somesuch.

But I don't knwo what piece of legistlation he has coming down the pike is going to motivate anyone. He's taking the same tack on immigration that he's taken on health care--hand it off to someone and then he runs and ducks. Whatever.

I think the party needs some leadership and spine. That would make people want to come out and vote for them. Remember "strong and wrong" beats 'weak and right' everytime when it comes to elections and Obama comes off as mighty weak.

I can't wait (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by DancingOpossum on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:38:03 AM EST

to hear the pols' and their supporters' explanations for why this is such a great bill that does so much to help the American people. They still can't explain it; what will they say three years from now when people are facing skyrocketing premiums and deductibles and being hounded by the IRS?

Geez, the GOP won't even have to try on this one. And as a doubleplusgood benefit, their arguments will actually-for once--be based in fact. Beauty!

I don't see how this is in any way a win for Democrats. Most people are fed up with the process and hate what they know about it.

Oh, I can't wait. Unfortunately, there is a tangible downside in that many more people will be hurt, and many more people will continue going bankrupt because of medical bills, or dying because they have "health insurance" but no "health care." But I guess to "progressives" it is more important that Obama "look strong" than that people actually "stop being denied healthcare." Oh well, you can't have it all!

How's that job bills coming?

They will say it is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by BTAL on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:45:01 AM EST

"Historic" and "Unprecedented" - the replacement mantra for "Hope" and "Change". Just ask Gibbs.


you can still (none / 0) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:51:28 AM EST

wear your black arm bands.


Better than the (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by BTAL on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:55:00 AM EST

blind-fold and last cigarette.


: that was funny (none / 0) (#26)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:55:44 AM EST

but still misguided

Selling Points (none / 0) (#30)
by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:00:05 AM EST

Dems are talking over the Repubs now and keep repeating....

Selling points per lilburro.


: I would suggest (2.00 / 1) (#33)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:05:40 AM EST

one reason that is just beginning is that its very hard to defend something that does not actually exist.
on the other hand it is quite easy to demonize something that does not yet exist.

The public seems (none / 0) (#116)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:07:22 PM EST

to recognize that the bill is a giveaway to the insurance companies, and see through all the Dem claims for "reform", history-making, and 'giving it to' the insurance industry. I'm sorry to say this, but I truly believe the Dems look both foolish and venal.


: This is a GREAT Bill for 'the base' of (none / 0) (#121)
by seabos84 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:20:48 PM EST

professional / managerial go along get along sell outs who've been clapping loudly since dukakis, through clinton, gore, kerry ... the 'base' which buys the brazille / schrum / rahm arguments that we need to be repuke-lite or we'll scare the middle (cuz the pukes will lie) and then we'll lose.
So instead of firing up the printing presses to send everyone a medicare card, OR, firing up the presses to send everyone a card who wants one,
we've got thousands of pages of legal garbage which will benefit the professional managerial base of sell outs.
brilliant!
of course, all those low level little people who thought they were gonna get more than bonuses for AIG ... ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
rmm.

I think the MA special (5.00 / 7) (#14)
by dk on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:43:06 AM EST

election is a good Exhibit 1 in support of BTD's position. If you weren't in MA you probably wouldn't know, but the national Democratic party put on ads trying to make the election a proxy for the their health care bill, and look how things turned out. The base didn't show up.

Pass the bill or don't pass the bill, but I consider the base smart enough to know that the bill won't really do much of anything to have an impact on their lives. Heck, isn't that even the talking point? ("Most of you can keep the insurance that you already have.").

The obvious answer of an issue to try to energize the base would be jobs, though it might be too late to look proactive on jobs after having dropped the ball last year. I think BTD is right to be worried.

Part of it (none / 0) (#24)
by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:52:15 AM EST

I think the MA election tells us a lot, but not everything. There are a number of other factors at play here.

#1 - Timing. The excise bomb had just dropped, and there wasn't enough time to do damage control (raise the tax bar) before the election.

#2 - Candidate. Let's face it, Coakley did not help herself out here during the general. She was kind of a disaster.

#3 - WIIFU? I made that one up but it's the "what's in it for us?" factor. We have a health insurance plan. The only thing in this bill for MA was a tax on union health insurance plans and an increased mandate. There were a few other federal funding perks but they didn't make the news and I don't really know if anyone knew about them.

So I'm not sure you can really extrapolate that outcome to other states in Nov.

But yes, I agree, they need to move on from health care and pivot to jobs ASAP. I just think they better pass a bill first.


Fair points, though another (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by dk on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:59:44 AM EST

point could be made on the other side, which is that MA of all states has a large concentration of Democratic base-type voters, so if this bill didn't have much of a base-entergizing factor here, it's not going to do much anywhere else.

In any event, I agree that healthcare was certainly not the only factor in the MA special election. However, I still do think that to the extent it was, the results generally work to support BTD's argument in this post.


: no doubt (none / 0) (#58)
by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:47:28 AM EST

it did not energize the base here.
I do think that you can't ignore the zeitgeist though. And that keeps evolving.

speaking only for me: No. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Compound F on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:07:27 AM EST

I predict this will be a remorseful episode. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Compound F on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:08:46 AM EST

: Sort like a bitter sweet (none / 0) (#36)
by BTAL on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:12:15 AM EST

Party for celebrating the announcement you are going to be a grandparent - because your 13 year old just got knocked up.

I would say this about Kucinich (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:22:52 AM EST

I think what it says is that the vote is going to be close and they need every dem who is able, politically, to vote for the bill, to vote for the bill.

It's so mysterious -- how CAN people be energized? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by katiebird on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:29:10 AM EST

Where do we go to find the exchange?
How do the subsidies work & who gets 'em & how much do they get?
Can you buy any policy you want with a subsidy? and how does THAT work?
If you don't qualify for a subsidy is there anything to control your premiums -- any cap?
Will this make my taxes more complicated?

I understand why some people support this but, I don't understand why anyone expects people to be energized or excited by it. There are just way too many bothersome questions.

There's also (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by itscookin on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:44:28 AM EST

the part where people start paying for this for four years before most of the benefits kick in. When you listen to people who are being interviewed, they think the whole bill kicks in immediately. Like the day after it passes.


do you seriously (2.00 / 1) (#50)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:41:24 AM EST

not expect those questions to be answered?

if so, I would relax. it will be explained to you.


By who? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by coast on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:54:58 AM EST

Its certainly won't be explained by those who have written the bill. They've had months to explain it and no one has.


why dont you (none / 0) (#70)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:56:46 AM EST

hide and watch for a few weeks.


Why don't you follow your advice (5.00 / 7) (#75)
by observed on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:58:36 AM EST

: I plan to (none / 0) (#78)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:00:45 PM EST

actually

Are you a freelance insulter? (none / 0) (#53)
by katiebird on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:44:26 AM EST

I said nothing about expectations. I simply said that as long as those questions are hanging out there -- and they are -- The Base isn't going to be energized.


and Im not (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:47:10 AM EST

really sure why that is an insult.


It would be interesting to me to know (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by Anne on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:12:17 PM EST

how much of the base still exists, because I think it probably isn't at all what it used to be; certainly there has been little that has happened over the last 14 months that would have encouraged its numbers to increase. Maybe a better question is whether it is the same base it was two years ago, or four years ago.

As for "energizing," that energy often comes either from (1) a desire to make sure one's party holds onto power or (2) anger at the other party and a desire to unseat them.

This go-round, I think there is some feeling that what little the Dems have done is not nearly commensurate with the size of their majority, or with the party's alleged platform, so the anger that is bubbling has less to do with what the other party is doing than what their own party is doing - and anger directed at one's own party does not generally translate into electoral success for that party: people stay home on Election Day.

Finally, with regard to the button-pusher who has taken over every thread for the last couple of days, ignoring him is probably your best bet; maybe when it becomes clear that he is just trolling and blog-clogging for his mindless self-entertainment, we might see less of him.


To be fair to the Capt (none / 0) (#105)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:20:53 PM EST

he used to be smarter than this. And he has cute dogs.


: Maybe one of them is (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by Anne on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:25:06 PM EST

making these comments, then, and he should dog-proof his computer.

I get the feeling that the 'Captn (none / 0) (#112)
by MyLeftMind on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 07:03:48 PM EST

has a personal financial stake in the insurance industry.


: Actually I think we all do (none / 0) (#113)
by Rojas on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 07:28:31 PM EST

If not, we will.

: of course (none / 0) (#123)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:23:53 AM EST

everyone knows the video game industry has obvious and historic ties to the insurance industry.
8-P
get a life.

and I asked (none / 0) (#55)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:46:22 AM EST

if you expect them to not be answered


Capt, the bill sucks (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:48:07 AM EST

And I think many people here are puzzled about why you have become such a shill for it.


gee (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:49:46 AM EST

maybe it's cuz he doesn't think the bill sucks.


not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:52:01 AM EST

I think the bill mostly sucks. but it still needs to be passed.


: And we get . . . ? (none / 0) (#67)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:55:04 AM EST

: WIGNEYTPDCITHYRF (none / 0) (#94)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:12 PM EST

e-i-e-i-o

Maybe so (4.75 / 4) (#65)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:53:32 AM EST

And that would be puzzling as well.

So-called "benefits" start in 4 years.

Mandated purchase of private insurance, with NO public option whatsoever.

Second-class-citizenship coverage for people with lady parts.

No discernible ability to contain costs.

Nope, no suckitude here.


what is this supposed to mean (none / 0) (#69)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:56:06 AM EST

Are you EFFING KIDDING me? (5.00 / 4) (#74)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:58:27 AM EST

Wow, if you can even ask that question, it's clear you have not been paying attention. No wonder you can support this POS.


well I can ask the question (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EST

so what does it mean.
I would also ask why all the women in congress are supporting it.
it is possible your view is skewed?


Wow (none / 0) (#80)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:01:59 PM EST

Time to edumacate yourself, Capt.


why dont you tell us (none / 0) (#81)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:03:13 PM EST

why women are second class citizens in this bill?


Why don't I tell "us"? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:12:44 PM EST

Ha! Taught the third grade much, Capt? Hey, look--over there! Somebody is passing notes in class!

Seriously, though, why don't YOU tell "us" how and why women's so-called coverage is equal to men's under the proposed bill?

Making the effort to answer that question might prompt you to do the necessary research. It's not my job to do that for you.


Oy (5.00 / 4) (#96)
by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:36:07 PM EST

I know you've read these discussions, you just aren't the target of the legislation so you have disregarded the issue.

The bill requires a separate rider = stigma
This rider provision makes it cumbersome for providers to manage = pushes insurers to abandon abortion coverage.

The bill allows States to opt out of abortion coverage in it's exchanges = reduction of access
This same provision applies to women using their own money, no subsidy = what can I say about prohibiting women from spending money on their insurance of choice? Sickening?

The exchanges are your desired and even celebrated mechanism to build upon. The mechanism will BAN access to abortion coverage for more women over time. What do you think the end result is for abortion coverage once your end goal of all insurers in the exchange is met?

The goal is to shame women and make access to needed health care impossible and illegal.


of course I have read the comments (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:45:08 PM EST

but I wonder why every (single as far as I know) democratic woman in congress is voting for the bill?

perhaps there opinion of it is not as dire as yours.


Um, maybe because (5.00 / 5) (#99)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:56:20 PM EST

they do NOT always speak for their female constituents who might need an abortion, or even a medically necessary D&C?

But if I ever need a medically necessary D&C--as when, for example, I'm a little bit pregnant but the fetus has died--maybe I'm better off suffering labor pains and bleeding until such time as the fetus chooses to "pass" itself out of my suffering body. And that will be just hunky-dory with me because, as we all know, every Democratic congresswoman voted for me to suffer in this manner, and of course all women think and act alike, so if a Democratic congresscritter votes for something, then it naturally follows that she speaks for me.


It doesn't apply to them, they get to keep their (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:01:33 PM EST

great insurance.

What does apply to them regarding this bill is whether or not they will get DNC funding and backing for re-election.


Been Asleep For 30 Years? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:03:40 PM EST

The Hyde amendment has been attached to HHS appropriations each year for three decades to ensure that any taxpayer money HHS disburses will not go to paying for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother. The language in the Senate bill is not as explicit as the House bill about the path of the money, but the health care center money can only go through HHS and thus must be subject to Hyde restrictions.

link via digby

That's not to say that the anti abortionists should not be proud of this bill.


No, wide awake (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:19:36 PM EST

and not missing you during your recent absence. As BTD pointed out one day, it takes no effort at all to refrain from replying to a comment that was not directed at you.


Well (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:25:19 PM EST

If you do not want your BS rhetoric challenged, don't post on a blog, write letters to your friends instead.


There's a reason why (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by Spamlet on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:32:08 PM EST

people who read this blog know what is meant by the phrase "The Full Squeaky." Good afternoon to you.


: lol (none / 0) (#110)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:17:35 PM EST

I'm glad to have provided you with something to strive for here at TL.
Keep up your good efforts and someday everyone will be talking about "the full spamlet".
Can't wait.

Oy (5.00 / 4) (#101)
by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:20:39 PM EST

Deja vu

I know they've read these discussions, they just aren't the target of the legislation so they have disregarded the issue.

What 'opinion' are you talking about? It's a fact this legislation is a hit to women's legal rights.

You get your wet dream Republican exchanges and the women in your society get oppressive legislation. These women politicians must be doubting you are going to get your way on expanding your celebrated exchanges that ban abortion coverage. Silly them.


Just because all of any category (none / 0) (#117)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:14:03 PM EST

support something, doesn't make that something worthwhile and is considered a specious argument in logic.


Which Women? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:08:12 PM EST

Oh, you must mean poor women. Seems to me lots of relatively rich people are fighting over the uteruses of poor women. Seems that most of them could care less about the rest of their bodies, which are currently uninsured.

I'll give you a hint (none / 0) (#122)
by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 05:29:01 AM EST

The Nelson Amendment allows STATES to prohibit abortion coverage in STATE EXCHANGES. In other words, it expands Hyde.


Can insurance companies run (none / 0) (#71)
by observed on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:56:57 AM EST

exchanges? I asked that in the last thread and no one had the answer. I would assume the answer is yes, they can and they will, and they will get government money to help start these exchanges so they can "help" consumers.
No?


havent you figured it out (none / 0) (#64)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:52:29 AM EST

I am getting paid by the comment.


I'm shocked that you can't answer (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by observed on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:55:42 AM EST

the question, given your head cheerleader status.
The answer is "Look at the web page!"


I expected a reasonable answer (none / 0) (#76)
by katiebird on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:59:36 AM EST

I expected a reasonable answer (sample scenarios) months ago -- but, it's not about me. I'm not sure I'm a part of the base at this point.

I don't think Obama helped the situation any when he said a couple of days ago that this bill would lower our premiums by 3000% -- obviously he misspoke. But, what did he mean to say?


: 3000% (none / 0) (#83)
by coast on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:05:05 PM EST

He didn't misspeak. Its government accounting:) No applicable in real world mind you, but good enough for a sound bite.

Why haven't they been answered by now? (none / 0) (#62)
by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:50:32 AM EST

Still don't have a comment for that?

We shouldn't have to wait for a Magic-8 ball answer "Wait, and all will be revealed to you"


because this stuff hasn't been implemented yet (none / 0) (#72)
by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:57:43 AM EST

*Where do we go to find the exchange?
- don't know, it's not set up yet. Once it's set up, they'll let you know, that's kind of the point.

*How do the subsidies work & who gets 'em & how much do they get?
- this is already in the senate bill should you choose to read it. But may change with the reconcilliation package. So that will be answered once we know what is in that package.

*Can you buy any policy you want with a subsidy? and how does THAT work?
- also, already in the bill. It should be more publicly clear once it actually comes into effect.

*If you don't qualify for a subsidy is there anything to control your premiums -- any cap?
- good question, although again if you read the bill you can probably find an answer.

*Will this make my taxes more complicated?
- slightly. There will probably be one more section on your tax form asking you about your health insurance. But if it's anything like how it works in MA, it's very straight forward, and it's just like any other deduction.

It's not that these answers don't exist, it's just that no one has bothered to do the research.


I haven't read the full bill but (none / 0) (#79)
by katiebird on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:01:11 PM EST

I haven't read the full bill but I've read all the summaries I can get my hands on and the answers are FAR from clear to me.

But, thanks for the snark. It helped.


there is a lot more (1.00 / 1) (#82)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:03:47 PM EST

where that came from


That comment wasn't addressed to you (5.00 / 7) (#86)
by katiebird on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:07:38 PM EST

But, this one is - I thought I hated to read your comments in thread where I wasn't active. I had NO IDEA how horrible it was to read your stuff when it's addressed to me.

This site really went downhill when BTD turned thread moderation over to you.

Yuck.


gosh (1.00 / 1) (#98)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:46:17 PM EST

Im so sorry you find disagreeing with you such an inconvenience.


I turned it over to no one (none / 0) (#88)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:10:46 PM EST

Just have not had time to do it myself.

You may not have noticed but I have not had much time to post for the last few weeks, much less monitor the threads.


: That's a relief (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by katiebird on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:12:58 PM EST

I'm sorry you've been so busy. Really. It's been our loss.

some clarification (none / 0) (#85)
by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:06:33 PM EST

is probably coming. In MA the answers to those questions are very clear. They weren't before the bill was implemented. Most of that stuff comes to light during that process, because they set up a one-stop shopping place for all of that info. That wasn't set up until people needed to use it.


AHIP Welfare is NOT HCARE Reform, (2.00 / 1) (#119)
by seabos84 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:10:21 PM EST

therefore

the dwindling base of dlc kool aid drinkers will be happy,

and the activist base will be ticked off,

and the people who wake up in hte morning and are flummoxed by whether they should first use the toilet or brush their teeth - those people will continue to be flummoxed by whatever soundbite works the best.

rmm.