OK, here it is, in as simple-as-possible terms, why people in MA turned against the national health care bill to such an extent that they elected Scott Brown.
- They don't disagree with the sentiment that all people should be covered. Brown even touted his vote for the MA 2006 law. It's so popular here that you can't really run against it. (That infamous Rasmussen poll is an outlier; more representative of the general shape of the polling is here: 58% support.
- The Democrats+Joe dithered, dickered, bickered and whinged for months. The basic point of getting millions of people covered gets obscured in the admittedly complex details, and controversies real and imagined.
- The moderates drag it out, demand concessions that are broadly unpopular. The public option is jettisoned. No Medicare buy-in. And then the last straw is Nelson's outrageous pound of flesh, the spectacularly unfair Nebraska Medicaid Haul.
Now, someone who has an ideological commitment to universal health care (like me) can overlook all that, as so much garbage you have to climb over to see the horizon. Me, I look at 30 million people getting health care, and I can overlook a lot.
But I can definitely imagine how one who doesn't share an ideological passion (or who isn't exposed to such, as Ted Kennedy would do) would start to smell a rat. Or, more aptly, the sausage going bad.
Just something to keep in mind.
Discuss
48 Comments . Comments are closed.Don't forget the union exemption
From Fox News in print, the NY Post:
That doesn't appeal much to anyone not in a union, which is most people.
The bill isn't good enough
Here is a Research 2000 poll that indicates a lot of Brown voters wanted the public option: DEMOCRATS LEARNING WRONG LESSON FROM MASSACHUSETTS?
Off his rocker zealot needing some serious counseling.
It's a matter of kicking legs out from the stool. That was the left leg.
from your link
this is exactly right:
thanks for calling out the $quot;center$quot; = $quot;special interest$quot;
change. Excellent!
Worse: It's Not What Obama Promised
I suspect that I'm not the only voter who's fed up with politicians telling blatant lies about what they'll try to do once elected. Lying totally thwarts the political process, we become unable to vote for the change we want.
These issues polls are polls that I dont believe
I thought the polls showing Coakley in trouble were legit but these are the kinds of questions that can be asked in leading manner.
The election was not about issues. Elections are hardly ever about issues except in the broadest terms.
Change their ideologies:
If you put a LIBERAL version of pin up Scott Brown with a long time popular news anchor wife and idolized gorgeous singing bascketball star daughter and have all the talk programs promoting him he will a CONSERVATIVE version of Martha Coakely relying on last minute 20 call/day volunteer phone banks who do you think would win?
It is not about issues. It is hardly ever about issues.
Health Care Bill will break it
The bill in the house and senate will break health care not fix it. The Nebraska give away and the exemption for unions and public workers from the excise tax is unbelievable. With the state increasing the level of benefits every year it will not be long before all of the private sector employees start getting hit with this tax.
Yes Charley
I agree. We need to take a closer look at who the "moderates" are. This so called "in the center" term has taken on a new life all it's own. I'm beginning to think that the term, which once stood for compromise in the interest of the greater good of the American people, has now become a cover term to hide special interest and corporate handouts.
The moderates who wanted to get rid of the public option weren't doing it the name of compromise for the people's good, but were really doing it in the name of corporate insurers, etc.
Joe Lieberman is one of the greatest abusers of the term "center". He is right now trying to rally all Democrats move to the center. Our Dems have to understand that they lost this election because they turned HCR into a special interests cauldron pot. They need to turn it back into a program that will make life better for the American people.
From now on, when we here the term "the center" used, we should know that it could very well mean hand outs for corporate and wealthy Americans.
Health Care
If it is the case that House Democrats will not pass the health care bill and send it to Obama's desk, as looks increasingly likely, than that really is pathetic. We will have now essentially wasted well over half a year on something that won't get done.
The only possible excuse for a House Democrat not to vote for the bill is if s/he is in an extremely conservative district and a vote for health care will mean sure defeat. But that only covers a very small portion of the Democratic caucus. Any members on the left who won't vote for it because "it doesn't go far enough" or in the middle who are just (typically) scared of their shadows deserve to be replaced with real Democrats. If they won't fight for health care reform, what will they fight for?
Or perhaps Democrats just got comfortable in the political wilderness over the previous 8 years and want nothing more to go back. It sure seems like it.
The Democrats need to be BOLD and
pass a true health care reform package with a public option. Let the Repubs and "Centrists" vote it down. Then do whatever it takes. Even if it's in little steps that they can do without a supermajority.
But we did that...essentially
The House passed the public option and the Senate wouldn't take it up. Thus, the Senate could only pass something without it and did that. Good to take what they passed and work to fix it down the line.
Bold they were not
They threw out single payer even before any discussion began, then continuously gave ground to appease Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, et al. All for nothing. Had they fought for single payer, they would have had public support. Instead they went for industry support.
Look for insurance for the uninsured to be thrown out next.
The bill will be an insurance reform bill with preexisting conditions and "consumer" issues being addressed. It's done!
Litmus tests now?
Geez, lose one special election and people want to ape the worst of the Republican practices.
The simple fact is that forcing Americans to buy a private product should not be acceptable to any political party for any reason. It's not even a matter of "going far enough" but a matter of it being a bad approach. A real Democrat is not interesting in an enormous payoff to an industry as a reward for blocking real reform.
I'm surprised so many people want to shrink the playing field: criticize anyone who wants a better bill, blacklist anyone who says that this horrible deal is not acceptable, and ostracize any Democrat who comes out against this bill that would never have been acceptable as little as 6 months ago.
If we're going to make the limit of the "acceptable" left this deal, the Republicans will break the Democratic majority, and scuttle this bill long before it comes into effect.
Health care
Fine, we disagree about how "acceptable" the health care proposal is. But at this point, it's pretty clear that the least-bad political option is to pass the health care bill, build on it later, and move on for now. If the health care bill goes down, conversely, then Democrats will have wasted the last several months, and will be understandably punished at the polls in November.
Do liberals really believe that they'll get a better bill with Republicans in control of the House? Seriously?
I will say
That the single greatest victory would be to inculcate the idea that the federal government should have a direct voice in the provision of health care for American citizens. In that sense, it's a victory.
Politically, I think this has a tricky balance. Cashing in all sorts of political capital to pass a bad bill isn't the slam-dunk that it may appear and I wouldn't be surprised to see many people punishing the Democrats for passing a bill that hurts people. If the Republicans passed a bill forcing people to buy the goods that health insurance companies are peddling, Democrats would be licking their chops. You don't think it can work the other way around?
I agree
with you that passing the bill certainly won't be a "slam dunk" politically. Indeed, it probably won't help their predicament all that much. However, it would be better than the alternative, which is to do nothing. Liberals will rightly criticize them for doing nothing. Moderates will think that Democrats are weak and useless. Conservatives will continue to bash Democrats regardless of what we do.
I note in a recent diary that Democrats should at least pass the requirement that insurers take people with pre-existing conditions. I guess you won't agree with my point about the individual mandate, but we probably both at least agree that passing that piece would be good politics.
The point is ...
that insurers wouldn't be offering the same product as before. Insurance would have to insure; be reliable; fairly priced; and so forth. Whether the bill ensures an adequate quality is a fair and actually very complex question.
Hey Charley, Quit Posting and Go To Bed
you have lost control.
The mandate
Is wildly unpopular (see the poll linked to in kirth's post above).
The left hates it unless it comes with a public option.
Everyone else just hates it.
That is a huge problem, because you really can't get rid of it without creating a huge adverse selection problem, which in turn causes the cost of the thing to skyrocket.
And the irony is the mandate is a Republican idea
It was Bob Dole's in the 90's during the Hillarycare debate. Then Romney made it part of the Mass reform. Dems here only adopted it as it seemed essential to getting a compromise bill.
Obama actually opposed it during the primaries, when it was in both Hillary's and Edwards' plans - saying it was unfair. Hillary hit him for leaving people uninsured. He relented in the White House when it became clear a health care bill without it couldn't pass.
And now the GOP just walks away from their biggest health care legacy idea. We get left holding the bag with their junk in it. Romney disowns his only real accomplishment as Governor.
When the Republicans say they want to make tough choices they are full of it. When push comes to shove they'd rather do nothing because - with few exceptions - they really don't care about health care.
I don't see how you can have reform
short of single payer (which obviously isn't happening now) without the mandate. Regardless of whose idea it was originally, its unpopularity is a huge political problem for the dems to overcome.
Which is exactly why...
...we need to go full-throtle on single payer. I've thought for sometime that even though such a plan appears to be the most radical of the options, it's actually the easiest to defend both poltically and morally.
Actually a mandate
is the only way that you can actually reform health care, or you run into the process of adverse selection. No preexisting conditions for coverage with no mandate means that you sign up for insurance when they find that tumor at the standard rate. You all have to think about this stuff in real (actuarial or Freakonomics, take your pick) terms; people act in their economic self-interest. Just look at the shenanigans with gaming public pension systems. By the way, anyone on this board actually see the reality of public pension funding status?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...
Had to crack up listening to a discussion this afternoon on the radio about being able to buy the government insurance v. "profit" insurance, as if it was going to be this great cost savings (it won't, unless the public option is so underpriced that is unsustainable or forces the rest of us to subsidize the giveaawy). Anyone actually recognize that most of the health insurance players in MA are actually nonprofit organizations, so exactly who are these "profit" insurance carriers in this state? Nothing is free in life; even this vaunted "public option" has to stand on its own two feet. I like companies that I deal with to take in roughly the same amount of money (or more for a cushion) than they expend; otherwise they tend to go out of business. Sounds more like a Madoff scheme than good public policy.
Actually a mandate
This is already happening in Massachusetts. People sign up for insurance have an operation and then drop it.
I think people just didn't think Coakley would make a good senator.
I think this was a local, not national, election.
For heaven's sakes, since when was a statewide election assured for Democrats? In 2006 when Deval won we thought it was a miracle. We praised him for stealing our governorship away from 20 years of Republicans.
This idea, then, that a senate seat is more fundamentally Democratic than a governorship? Unlikely. It's more likely that by the luck of the draw, we managed to get in a couple of stable Democrats - Kennedy and Kerry - who held the seat for repeated cycles and gave us the idea that our Senate seats were somehow tilted for Democrats - while, paradoxically, our governorship was tilted for Republicans. In reality, people vote mostly based on the candidate, not the position they're running for.
Plus, we know that both Kennedy and Kerry had some tough races. They prevailed because they didn't take their race for granted. And they were powerful incumbents already.
Did health care influence the election? I'm sure it did. But it may have had more influence on how it influenced the candidates' self-presentations - Scott Brown "SWEET, I have a tag-line issue now!" vs. Martha Coakley "OMG he said he's going to kill health care!" than the direct effects of the national health care issue on the MA voters.
Please remember that MA voters may have to live with this Senator for a long time - ESPECIALLY in Coakley's case, as the Democratic machine could be presumed to keep her in for a long, long time. Maybe people just looked at Coakley's campaign today and decided they didn't want to have her as their senator for the next thirty years.
And people have every right to think like that. If anything, the health care crowd needs to examine the larger perspective. A US Senator means a lot more than just one vote on one bill in the near future.
Voters' time horizon
That is certainly true, but many voters do not seem to think that way. If you promise them a tax cut and "smaller government", they lap it up. Mention any type of a tax and out come the pitchforks.
What drives me nuts...
...is the idea that the Republicans were punished and humbled in the 2008 election, and they are now "out of the penalty box" and should be treated as serious people with serious ideas on a par with the party that didn't destroy the American economy, New Orleans, and our reputation around the world.
A 6 for making me laugh at 'out of the penalty box'
Funny.
Yeah, I was just thinking, while listening to NPR edition on Obama's first year, that something about our political environment gives people the memory of a mosquito:
Subject: "Has President Obama stumbled fatally in his first year???"
They ask that question and have the same big long serious, hand-wringing discussion about EVERY president!!!
And you're darned right. The republicans should stay in the penalty box a LOT longer.
Of course the question becomes: if the Dems can't score and the Repubs are still in the penalty box, who do we have left to give the puck to??
Lot of truth to what you say
Believe me, when I thought of Coakley serving for 30 years it left me empty. I voted for her but not with enthusiasm. If you were someone with no party affiliation then why not vote for Brown because you liked him better. Makes sense to me.
Yes, and only *campaigning* won those races
I remember those Kerry and Kennedy re-election campaigns when the incumbent Dem's neglected to campaign at the start, only to see their Republican challengers gain ground. Once they hit the campaign trail diligently, they regained the advantage and won.
Coakley simply failed to campaign after the primary --even as Brown made headway-- until it was too late.
No
a couple of things intervened:
What nobody has been commenting on at all is Flight 253 and the timing in this race. The initial (and utterly incompetent) reaction of the administration to the fact that someone wanted to strew a few hundred peoples' body parts (along with a jet) over the western Detroit area on Christmas day jerked most sensible folks into realizing that the terrorism threat hadn't exactly gone away with the election of Obama. The lunatic Muslim extremist doesn't delineate between liberal Democrats and Neanderthal Republicans.
Second, the body politic figured out that the "health care reform", however well intentioned, was running off the rails. Do you think Ben Nelson is sleeping easy now after Brown's win?
If you ignore or try to explain away Brown's victory by enacting Kerry's own analogy of the circular firing squad, you act at your own risk.
Did anybody really think...
...that the threat of terrorism WAS going to go away with a new President? How was the reaction incompetent besides possibly Napolitono's ill-advised comment that the system worked?
Higher wages = more healthcare
Stop trying to impose healthcare. You are just shifting money away from things people are buying now (which they want), and putting that money into buying healthcare.
You get health insurance rates up by bringing up wages and salaries. The way to do that is to encourage private investment in jobs. Three steps towards that are keeping taxes low which decreases risk, having sound money which protects contracts, and having strict securities enforcement so people have the trust to invest.
The major, nationalizing flaw in Obama's plan is that he didn't include a method for producing the additional money needed to buy the additional insurance. In fact he has been saying he will raise taxes to pay for it, depressing the economy.
Obama Care
Obama care's 40% excise tax would be a nightmare for small businesses. As opposed to the rest of the US - small business owners pay income tax starting on the first dollar of their health insurance. The excise tax at 40% would just kill small business (maybe that's the idea).
I don't know the specifics of the tax, but it seems to be a 40% excise tax on "expensive" health plans. Well Massachusetts has made health plans expensive with lots of mandates, so a family 20K plan would cost a small business 20K (plan cost) +8k (income tax cost) + 8K (excise tax) = 36K. Boy that will make health insurance affordable.
Then you get into the unfairness of exempting union employees and federal and state workers from this tax.
You don't know the specifics...
indeed.
None of know the specifics..........................
As the entire bill has been negotiated in secret. Open government :(
You are wrong on tax..
...as a small business owner I can assure you that health insurance for employees is a business expense that is not taxed. In addition there are various tax breaks proposed in the plan if you do cover employees.
So am I
Small Business Owners pay taxes on their own health care (all of it) It is included on their W2 at the end of the year. They don't pay taxes on their employees health insurance (at least now).
thread dead - but please read this.
if you are a small business owner and not a "C" corporation you need to see you accountant. Your premiums are taxable and need to end up on your W2, sorry :(
You are also cannot be in your company HRA either.
Can you explain that further?
Or provide the link that explains that tax. thanks.
Im sort of right
This will make your head explode. I'm also checking with my accountant. Your premiums do end up on your W2. But are deductible on your 1040 if handled properly - not even sure how this works with the state return.
It looks like if you are not making money from you S-corporation not salary you cannot deduct the premium.
My complaining started when I got a good accountant and started see these appear on my W2's.
BTW I'm not an accountant - check with your accountant. Hey even Geithner can't get these right.
http://www.smbiz.com/sbspec314...
and the IRS http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-dro...
Fringe Benefits
This is one of the drawbacks of partnerships and S corporations. Certain fringe benefits paid to any partners or more than 2-percent shareholders of an S corporation are not deductible. The fringe benefits generally include:
* health and accident insurance, * qualified transportation fringes, * group term life insurance premiums on the first $50,000, and * meals and lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer.
Health insurance premiums are deductible, but only if included on the employee/shareholder's W-2. The employee can then deduct the amount toward his or her adjusted gross income on their personal tax return. Meals and lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer include meals provided on company premises when employees can't leave because of work requirements.
Most other fringe benefits, such as employee discounts, working condition fringes, no-additional cost services, and de minimis fringes should be deductible by the partnership or S corporation.
Seascraper
I don't see the problem as how to produce additional money to buy additional insurance. Despite everything, we are a very rich country and we already do spend a lot of money on HC, both for insured and uninsured people.
By spending federal money to subsidize insurance premiums for the uninsured, we save state, local, and hospital money that would otherwise be spent on emergency and other care. It's the Federal govt, stepping up to save local entities from hemorrhaging money and from a certain amount of chaos. Yes it takes money, but it doesn't depress the economy overall.
The other part is to start changing the culture of healthcare and of American lifestyles so that we aren't using expensive services we don't need. Preventative medicine, promoting healthier food/ agriculture, and changing the healthcare payment structure are all ways to reduce costs. Im not the best judge, but my feeling is that the health care bill contains small but good steps forward in these areas.
I agree with the original post. This Health bill should have been done 4 months ago. The Republican claim that people want to "slow down" and look at it more closely is crazy. Simply pass a bill.
Do you want healthcare or do you want to change the culture
I'm not going to recapitulate the entire debate here, I think you're making a lot of assumptions.
You have to decide whether you want more people on health insurance or you want to change the culture. Whether you want healthcare or you want to use healthcare as a way to tell others how to live their lives. What is more important to you?
A few more thoughts:
2. Coakley didn't run a good race. She was always reacting and let Brown define the campaign. Her ads were mediocre and didn't let anybody connect with her. Brown painted the winning portrait in politics, a really likeable, hard-working guy who's going to represent you. People know his policies suck but they don't care. If they trust the candidate & don't trust you....the race is over.
you didn't mention Stupak-Pitts...
which, though wasn't a deal breaker, comes close. The Nelson language (which I admittedly haven't read) hasn't seemed to alleviate this feeling. Yeah, I know about the constraints of the Hyde Amendment.
What sinks HCR is the leadership's strategy of running to the center, which incredibly, even today, continues. The leadership is going to lose Massachusetts by letting blue dogs from Nebraska get away with driving policy.
I just watched WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs try and cheerlead the bill, and even I thought he was spinning a load of BS.
Obama walked away from his own proposal last August. I watched the live coverage of the House'e vote on HCR...preceded by the House vote on Stupak-Pitts, and watched two dozen or so democrats vote against HCR after voting for that miserable, wingnut amendment they evidently insisted be included in the bill to get their support! That one, I don't get at all, and one of those congressmen was from Massachusetts.
Remember the House margin? Two votes.
I've read almost all the Chairman's Mark, and a big chunk of the version passed by the House, and I've no idea where this round of HCR is going to end up. Does this bill really insure 30 million?
The problem is timing, or if you will, executive function
First the economy as in jobs and infrastructure
Second cash flow, and moderating the costs of being "the worlds policeman"
Then health care.
Ready/aim/fire not fire/ready/aim.
Just saying....the need is real. The USA is the only "industrialized nation" without national health care.
I guess rugged invidualism includes the right to die on ones own, or go bankrupt for care.
I am not against health care, but rather trying to say that fighting too many battles on two many fronts leads to disorganized, diluted, ineffective efforts.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 9:00 PM