Originally Posted By ecdc I'm curious, what happens in the Senate? Today Lieberman reiterated that he would help filibuster any bill that has a public option in it. The Democrats do not have 60 votes on this bill. So what is the solution? 1) Water it down even more to get 60 votes, including removal of the public option? 2) Find a way to invoke reconciliation? 3) Use the nuclear option? 4) Something else that I haven't thought of? What way do you think this will go? What do you want to see?
Originally Posted By beamerdog Hmm, is he going to read from a phone book or yell "objection" everytime a dem has the floor. I'm a pessimist. I believe this will only go through if it's completely watered down and the public option is removed. I did consider the option of sending all the uninsured to Alaska. And then perhaps using the "nucular" option on them.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Maybe if we had more supporters taking a bigger stand, shout down the right wing whack jobs and lobby their representatives. But what I read each day and week reconfirms my decision to raise my kids elsewhere has sadly been validated.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't think it has any chance of passing. The majority of people in this country have good health insurance, and they sadly don't give a damn about those who don't. Clinton's attempt at national Healthcare sent his approval rating into the dumpster, just has happened with Obama.
Originally Posted By Mr X I believe that Lieberman is a lost cause, and I can only hope the left wing makes it their mission next year to end his career. That said, none of the other blue dogs have stepped up to join him. I think the President should be focusing on one or both of the Maine Republican Senators, Snowe has already taken a baby step in that direction, I think it would be AWESOME if Lieberman goes through with his plan and then has a Republican or two thwart him, that'd be just too cool. I've got my fingers crossed, I am still trying to be optimistic though it comes and goes depending on who's saying what.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The majority of people in this country have good health insurance, and they sadly don't give a damn about those who don't.*** How then do you account for the fact that most polls seem to indicate the majority of Americans DO support health care reform, including a public option? Seems to me the politicians are kowtowing to their corporate masters rather than listening to their constituents on this one. As for Clinton, it didn't hurt him *that* much. He got re-elected handily, didn't he?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "As for Clinton, it didn't hurt him *that* much. He got re-elected handily, didn't he?" He won the electoral handily but got 49.2% of the popular vote.
Originally Posted By Mr X Take Ross Perot and his 8% out of the picture and it would've looked much the same as election 2008, I would say. He still trumped Dole by over 8 million votes.
Originally Posted By Mr X 1992 "appeared" even worse, with Clinton receiving only 43% of the popular vote. But again, the Perot factor skewed the numbers even more. If you gave Clinton half of the Perot votes both times, surprisingly you find that he'd have received roughly 53% of the popular vote. How interesting is THAT, considering that President Obama received 52.9% with no 3rd party to factor in. So in conclusion, I really don't think the health care failure affected the Clinton re-election much at all (losing the Congress, on the other hand...).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I was speaking strictly of approval ratings, not re-electability. When Clinton was at the same point in his presidency as Obama is now, his approval ratinsg were even lower than Obama's. I think much of that was due to his health-care fiasco. People want health care reform, but they do not want government controlled health-care. I'm not saying I agree... just saying that is how it is.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***People want health care reform, but they do not want government controlled health-care.*** What I'd like to know is, why not? And for those who oppose it, I'd like to know what they think of Medicare, Medicaid, and the V.A. (I'm assuming they're for 1 and 3 but probably not 2).
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Health care is what made Clinton move towards the right and support such bills as no child left behind. It effected the whole tenor of his administration. Obama seems to have escaped the same consequences, but it has been a tremendous fight and I believe his team didn't learn from Clinton and were seriously underprepared for the fight. It took them forever before the gained the initiative... the whole summer belonged to the people storming the town hall meetings. If his team had truly been prepared, they would have been ready and not let all that time slip by before Obama finally took his case to the people by blizting the media, and they would have communicated the case a lot better much earlier. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Mr X I still get emails from the Obama campaign from time to time...I wonder why they didn't simply take that juggernaut and apply it to the administration at large (it seems like they are doing so, but only in dribs and drabs).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It sickens me the amount of selfishness I see from Americans today. I was brought up that patriotism in America is about helping where ever you can, being part of a great community. It seems those values are not universally upheld. As I have said before. Slavery was once considered economically more advantageous. Education and literacy used to be only for the rich. Health care is the next step in the evolution of America.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It sickens me the amount of selfishness I see from Americans today. I was brought up that patriotism in America is about helping where ever you can, being part of a great community. It seems those values are not universally upheld.<< It truly is astounding, isn't it? And from us - the non-Christians, Dave Greed, selfishness, and over-consumption are rebranded as freedom, Christianity, and capitalism. Attempts to make a better society for all of us are branded socialist and anti-freedom. We're a long ways off from Dr. King's injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It's scary. I want America to be the greatest country on earth, I really do. But sadly, it is more in the top 20 type territory. Is everyone really that selfish, or is the skew from media attention? I know when I see American tourists in Europe, it is all about money and buying stuff. Few seem to just relish in the experience.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Is everyone really that selfish, or is the skew from media attention?<< A great question, and not one easily answered. Overall, I think Americans are good people who want to do the right thing. I think under different circumstances we could be a great country again, and in a relatively short amount of time. I don't think anybody is sitting around rubbing their hands together saying, "Muhahahahah!" But politics (and the media does play a large role in that) has become so poisonous and so divisive, that people have inadvertently turned into these greedy, selfish people who resent the poor and convince themselves that those with less got where they are because of laziness and abuse of the system. That's where the rebranding comes in. Obama is Hitler. Healthcare for all is socialism. Your hard-earned money will be taxed to pay for the 500 lb fatty sitting on his couch all day and collecting a welfare check. And people swallow it hook, line, and sinker. They're disconnected from their own actions and even their own self-interest on these issues. I think decades of everyone saying America's the greatest country in the world has really hurt us. We haven't worked for it, sacrificed for it, or invested in it. Instead we've thought it's a birth right. We've assumed - incredibly arrogantly - that since I'M an American, it MUST be the best. I mean, I wouldn't be part of something that isn't the best, would I? It's scary. It's like watching the Roman empire all over again. I still think with bold leadership we can turn it around. I think Obama's adjusting to it a little better. I think he spent the summer reeling and in total shock at just how low some conservatives would go. I think he's a good guy and good guys generally have a hard time understanding or comprehending how horrible human beings can be to one another. I think this is where Obama's inexperience did hurt him: he had no idea just how much of Washington is bought and sold by corporations, and how shameless they are in protecting those interests. But his speech to Democrats on the Hill on Saturday seems to imply that now he gets it. Republicans are about wanting Obama and Democrats to fail, and who cares if they take the country with them.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed. America does have greatness. The rest of the world is interested and optimistic about America because it is still viewed as a great experiment (except maybe some middle eastern countries). But yes, the wealth and power is a great Machiavellian lesson. Some was by design and some was by luck. All of Europe and most of Asia being out of commission for 10 - 15 years after the war didn't hurt. But I would argue the US has been in decline pretty much since the end of the Cold War.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I still think with bold leadership we can turn it around. I think Obama's adjusting to it a little better. >> I'm not so sure. I just listened to a fascinating interview with Helen Thomas (broadcast on POTUS, which is a wonderful non-partisan news/talk station on XM Radio). The interviewer asked her if she thought the President should be doing more to spur on health care reform. She emphatically replied that he should be doing a lot more. The interviewer asked her why she thinks he's not doing more. She responded, "I just don't think he cares all that much." This is someone who has been in the press corps since the Kennedy administration and probably has the keenest sense of what is going on. I also get a feeling that Obama doesn't personally have much passion for this issue. He set the bar pretty low right from the start by not promoting a single payer system as one of his goals and keeping industry entirely in the loop. In fact, I never get a real feeling that President Obama is passionte or particularly energized by any particular issue. He is eloquent when it comes to inspiring people to broadly achieve goals, but never really good at cheerleading the details. I think that's unfortunate, and probably why we have so many issues that have not been accomplished in this session of Congress. We need a President who is out there demanding specific reforms and legislations to be enacted. Leaving all of this important work up to the lobbyists and legislative branch is a recipe for disaster.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "He is eloquent when it comes to inspiring people to broadly achieve goals, but never really good at cheerleading the details.... We need a President who is out there demanding specific reforms and legislations to be enacted. Leaving all of this important work up to the lobbyists and legislative branch is a recipe for disaster." Maybe I'm wrong, but I think your expectations are a bit misplaced. He's the President, not a legislator. I think in the case of something as complex as health care reform there needed to be some level of input from everyone in order to put forth a plan that didn't make him come across as some kind of dictator.
